Riverside County Grand Jury
2018-2019
From the annual report
The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.
📑 Year-End Report
The full consolidated volume; individual reports are listed below.
Individual reports (11)
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
The District can no longer fund the law enforcement function solely through the fixed property tax.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Board put forth a ballot measure for the November 2020 election or a special election to adequately fund the District.
F2:
A flat, un-adjustable property tax to finance this ongoing cost-variable service requires going back to the voters repeatedly to raise the tax.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The ballot measure recommended by the Board include an appropriate escalator to keep up with the cost of the service, perhaps tying it directly to the price of the Sheriff ‘s services.
F3:
Based on discussion with tax experts, it appears that the use of rubbish fund money may be in violation of Proposition 218 and the California Constitution, Section XIIIC, and Section XIIID, requiring that money designated for one function cannot be used for another.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Prior to the ballot measure, the Board get a legal opinion on whether their current "borrowings" can survive a challenge in court.
F4:
The rubbish fund has less money available to clean up the community, such as graffiti abatement and removal.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Board spend the proceeds of the franchise fee exclusively for community clean up.
F5:
LAFCO has not written a Municipal Service Review (MSR), which was to be done every five years, since 2005.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
LAFCO immediately conduct a Municipal Service Review (MSR) for the District and the surrounding communities, as written in the LAFCO Municipal Service Review Guidelines15.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
13 findings
F1:
The Mello-Roos law requires that home buyers be advised at the time of purchase of these bond instruments. Preliminary investigation showed that some disclosures are highly deficient, or lacking altogether. Many homeowners are unaware they have bonds on their homes. The disclosure documents reviewed by the RCCGJ contain, with few exceptions, ambiguous, complex or misleading language. When the disclosures of CFD bonds are made, they are often hidden in fine print and are undecipherable by the average home buyers. This practice shows transparency is not the goal of most seller’s agents. One developer has produced a model disclosure document. This document is clear, unambiguous and spells out the effect of CFD bonds in layman’s terms. It specifies how the escalation of tax payments may become unsustainable and can or may cause one to lose their home to foreclosure. It also advises the home purchaser that, under law, an expedited foreclosure is allowed when the CFD taxes are not paid. Unpaid Ad Valorum tax foreclosures can take years, while unpaid CFD taxes can trigger foreclosure in 90 days. Unannounced visits by the RCCGJ to sales offices revealed either a lack of knowledge or outright false and misleading information about CFDs being given by the sales staff to prospective buyers. When asked if there were CFDs on homes being sold the reply was “no, we don’t have any of those.” When the finance director was asked the same question, the reply was “I don’t know what those are”. This same experience was repeated at several sales offices. A False Economic Cost
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Prospective buyers should be advised very early in the process about the bonds and their implications in layman’s terms. Local taxing agencies should assure that the disclosure language is understandable and candid. An easily readable sign, written in at least ½ inch letters, posted at eye level, should state whether a tract infrastructure is financed by CFD or fees paid by a developer to provide a more informed choice. A False Economic Cost
F2:
CFD’s provide the home buyer initially, with what appears to be, a lower priced home. As a result, this allows them to qualify for a home loan for which they might not otherwise qualify. The buyer may not become aware of the greater long term cost associated with their purchase until much later. The lender often fails to calculate the long term escalation of costs related to the special tax on the home and the long term consequence to the home buyer which could ultimately result in loss of their home. The CFD or Mello-Roos was the building industry’s answer to controlling their costs and providing funding for development projects. Removing the infrastructure costs allow developers to sell homes for less. In reality, it merely lowers the immediate cost by not incorporating the long term cost of CFD bonds for the home owner that are higher than a home financed by conventional terms. As a result, this dependence on Mello-Roos (CFD) financing shifts development costs to the home buyer instead of the developer. Timing of Disclosure and Honesty
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
A growing controversy in the area of CFDs is that developer fees are being replaced by CFD bond funding on homes. Buyers should have a choice of a purchase price with the CFD and Service area tax “OR” the adjusted price with infrastructure costs. This gives them relief from a perpetual tax and benefits them with a lower tax bill. This would allow the potential purchaser to accurately compare the total cost between developer fee and CFD funded homes. Otherwise, there is no way to fairly evaluate costs between different developments. Sales personnel should be fully educated on what this notification means and be able to completely explain this information to potential buyers. Timing of Disclosure and Honesty
F3:
On site investigations and interviews by RCCGJ of prospective home buyers were told when they asked about taxes; “Oh just the usual”. Some were lied to when they asked if a Mello-Roos tax was on the home. One sales person told a potential buyer, “There are no CFD bonds on these homes.” There were actually three CFD’s on each home. This is either ignorance or dishonesty. The sales person was parsing the truth by saying “no” because they are technically called CFD Bonds and not Mello-Roos. The buyer believes that the Mello – Roos, which has a negative connotation, is not part of their purchase until escrow papers are presented for signature. Only later, at document signing or tax time, does the buyer discover the CFD surprise. It is common practice for a buyer to be told, at the last minute, about the CFD Bonds, if the bonds were disclosed at all. They may have a buyer for their own home and are nearly ready to move into the new home. This situation deprives the home buyer of an opportunity to make an unpressured and informed decision. Developers and city officials put forth the argument that it is the responsibility of the home buyer to do their due diligence and understand what they are obligating themselves to. Lengthy documents with obtuse language make it difficult for the average purchaser to comprehend their obligation until the tax bill arrives. Even knowledgeable buyers complained it was written in such a legalistic way that it was undecipherable. This is especially true when it is presented in a de-facto way with no explanation. Escalators
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The existence of CFDs on a property should be explained early in the purchase process, not at a point which makes a negative decision costly or overly burdensome. This has been a common theme of homeowners who were questioned. They had no idea of the tax burden that they were taking on or that it could last beyond the maturity and payoff of the bond, in other words a perpetual tax. Full disclosure should be made by the seller’s agent before any document is signed or it is not informed disclosure or consent. Escalators
F4:
CFD bonds have escalators limited by law to two percent per year per Bond. The Ad Valorem tax has a one percent escalator under Proposition
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The home buyer should be advised that the special tax payments may be imposed after the bonds are paid off. Buyers should be advised of the outward forecast of the escalators and their impact in five, ten and twenty years. Buyers should be offered the option of buying the home at a price 8 comparable with the same dwelling without CFD Bonds and the escalators. Long Term Development Contract
F5:
Another practice by tax approving agencies is guaranteeing developers, through a master agreement, hundreds of millions of dollars in pre- approved bonds. This is accomplished without any thought of what the economy will be at the time of issuance. The home buyer’s ability to pay 4 is not part of the equation in the decision making. This creates a process even more precarious and uncertain. Long term master development agreements extending into double digits have no real limit guaranteeing developers the city’s support for CFD entitlements and are irresponsible. This allows uncontrolled development for which a city may not be able to pay. A recent national public radio program detailed the difficulties of a local Inland Empire city struggling with just such a situation. It was predicted by the city council that their water and sewage bills will have to increase 100% in order to keep up with the development needs. Those costs will fall on residents in the community. A local city council, when confronted by its citizens about the extreme indebtedness and uncontrolled development, defended its unchecked practice of approving bonds by stating in numerous meetings; “they could not refuse to vote on the purchase of bonds due to a long term development contract”. When RCCGJ requested a copy of the document, their legal representative stated that “such a document does not exist”. This public comment presents a serious conflict of interest, deceit and fraud upon it’s citizens. It could be seen as a conspiracy to mislead the people. Those voting on the CFDs; and in one case those supporting a lawsuit settlement favoring the developer, have received large campaign donations from the very developers whose bond sales they continue to approve. Uncontrolled Development
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Long term development agreements should not be part of city or county planning. Clauses should be included to allow exit, based on economic conditions or a vote of the taxing agency to terminate such an agreement. Uncontrolled Development
F6:
The uncontrolled development made possible by CFD bonds has Riverside County responsible for almost 25% of the total bond debt in all of California. In the words of former Governor Swartzenegger, “These bonds are being used irresponsibly and must be controlled by the legislature to protect unwary citizens”. Bonds are initiated by the owner of the land parcel. If there is one land owner, a single vote can encumber tax debt on thousands of people in perpetuity. Bond Fund Security
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
Communities should carefully consider development approval and take into consideration the wishes of their residents. Just because CFD financing is available does not mean it should be used to excess. The heavy loads of debt encumbered by bonds and Service areas puts the community and its residents at risk of overburdening tax loads. Serious consideration must be given to the ability to meet additional infrastructure costs in the long term before approving new CFD’s. These additional costs should not be charged by any means to prior residents of the community. Any new costs should be borne by those who generate the need. Bond Fund Security
F7:
As widely reported, the City of Beaumont had concerns about the fate of $45,000,000 to $97,000,000, but the exact amount is unknown due to poor accounting of tax payer’s bond money. Seven top city officials were arrested and received, what some believe, was only a slap on the wrist for their manipulation of bond money. They were required to pay a total of $8,000,000 dollars in restitution, as well as minimal home confinement. These light sentences send a message that misuse of bond monies on the part of individuals is not sufficient to warrant a tougher penalty. This message increases the lack of safety of public bond funds. Strangely, the City of Beaumont says that no money was lost from bond proceeds. This does not correspond to the court ordered restitution of the seven defendants. The City of Beaumont has filed suit to recover additional money from the defendants. When the city’s legal representative was asked by the RCCGJ, “If money is recovered, would it be put back into the bonds from which it was misused?” They answered evasively “No money was stolen or is missing from the bonds!” Many Beaumont residents, due to the reported manipulation of bond monies, may not receive the services or infrastructure they have a right to expect, but will still have to pay off their bonds. Need and Use Plan Required
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
A citizen’s oversight committee should regularly investigate how bond money is being spent. Their charge should be to make sure that bond funds are directed for their intended legal purposes. A public report should be made quarterly and any diversions from the intent of the Mello-Roos Act should be reported to the State Controller or appropriate authority. Any deviations from the required legal reporting to the Security and Exchange Commission must be noted and rectified in a timely manner. Special attention should be given to Service area funds. Oversight committees that include police and fire representation are critical to assure funding is appropriate in order to maintain staffing levels and competitive salaries for protection of the public. It is also recommended that compliance with the law be regularly verified and examined by the Riverside County Auditor. Need and Use Plan Required
F8:
Any city or school district, before getting approval of CFD Bonds, must present a specific plan for the need and use of the money and educate the constituency of the community. The current public hearings provide only general information and not specifics. This does not give the public enough information to make relevant and informed comment. The fact that in new developments those who will be ultimately responsible for those tax payments are as yet unknown and is problematic. This planning should be done before any election to buy bonds is held by the land owner (developer). The California State Education Code requires each district to have an accountability plan to ensure the safety of funds under their control. A school district within Riverside County has recently announced its intent to put CFD Bonds on new homes to build a school. When the RCCGJ requested a copy of the accountability plan for the district, we were told, they do not have one. When asked if they had one for use of the bond money the answer was the same. This is in a city where the developer has always paid mitigation fees to construct a school for students in the area being impacted by increased development. The school district and city have plans to overlay the two existing CFD Bonds with a third for school construction. This tactic has been used in other areas and raises serious questions of its constitutionality. The California Supreme Court decision in Serrano v. Priest held that unequal amounts of money spent on students in Beverly Hills and Baldwin Park constituted a violation of equal protection under the law. Even though this CFD financing of schools has taken place in some communities, it has not, to our knowledge, been litigated under the parameters of the Serrano v. Priest decision. When the school district was asked, if they considered the change in school finance law changes that could affect the district, the respondent said “no, but if we knew of any please tell them.” Cities and school districts 6 are buying bonds, without planning or voters approval, because they can. They reach into taxpayers pockets without considering the consequences of their actions on the future. Diversion and Recovery of Funds
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
An accountability plan for tracking and reporting must be developed. Any city or school district, before buying CFD Bonds, must present a specific plan for the need and use of the money and educate the community. Public hearings must provide specifics. This should give the public enough information to make relevant comment and voice their concerns. This should be done before a CFD Bond authorization election is held by the land owner. This recommendation will in no way redefines or restricts any part of the current law. All are implementable within the current structure of the law. This will increase transparency for the public, discourage bad acts and prevent reoccurrence of catastrophic losses of bond funds in the future. Diversion and Recovery of Funds
F9:
CFD financing appears to be a convenient way for local governments to pay for infrastructure and other needs. Bonds carry many additional responsibilities which requires city and county elected officials to pay close attention. The Debt Burden Growing with Little Limitation
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
When cities pursue the loss of funds through litigation, all recovered funds should be restored, to assure the integrity of the bonds. The city or county agency must not be allowed to divert the funds into other areas. The city or county taxing agency must not be allowed to divert CFD Bond funds that are recovered through litigation to replace “losses”. Recovered money must be used to restore the integrity of the bond funds. The Debt Burden Growing with Little Limitation
F10:
Local Governments must be cognizant that many agencies within their sphere of influence have the power to levy taxes. This can and has created prohibitive debt burdens on tax payers. This is especially true in the current practice of placing multiple CFD’s on the same property. This overlapping taxation has become analogous to the environment which existed in 1978 which propelled the rebellion of taxpayers and the passage of Proposition 13. A heavy debt burden can become a critical player in any economic downturn, affecting the local economy and the bond market. Municipalities may find themselves, as in 2008, in a position which limits their flexibility to provide future infrastructure and leads to home foreclosure. CFD Zones, Specific Taxes and Benefits
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
Local government decision makers should be cautious of debt overload within their communities. CFD financing must be guided by long range planning and adherence to state law. Long term agreements with developers such as 25 year development agreements should be avoided. These agreements contain covenants which promise that the city or other taxing entities will pass CFDS for infrastructure for 25 years. There is no way to know, at the time of signing, that the future unknown economic conditions would permit the assumption of additional tax debt. Each project should be considered within current financial contexts. Growth induced infrastructure should be considered on a project-by-project basis. Each special taxing agency should impose a mandatory model for CFD financing for all city or county taxing agencies, in order to avoid tax saturation. CFD Zones, Specific Taxes and Benefits
F11:
Some enterprising individuals have been creative and developed CFDs which cover an entire city. Tax payers have no guarantee that they will specifically enjoy the benefits they are paying for from bond funds. This is the case in one city where until recently, the entire city was one CFD. Money from bonds was used to fund growth related projects, not related to the bond payer’s area, which benefited developers and the city. Financing within Limits
Related Recommendations (1)
R11:
Taxing agencies should assure that CFDs and Service areas are specific in relation to the areas they serve. Those paying the bond and Service area taxes should be the ones benefiting from them. Home owners should not be paying for infrastructure that subsidizes the developer’s profits. Financing within Limits
F12:
The Building Industry Association (BIA) is an organization representing the interest of developers and builders. In a case involving the City of San Ramon, California, they challenged a CFD special tax passed by the San Ramon City Council. This case included several important issues. A facet of the case concerned the right of the city to continue the special tax even if the citizens passed a referendum to remove it. Unfortunately, the case was lost on appeal. The important issue here is that the building industry took conscious efforts to keep the CFD financing within limits. 7
Related Recommendations (1)
R12:
City Council should review the approval of CFDs in their community and also review campaign contributions. An over reliance of developer or sub- contractor money in the elective process could influence the judgment of elected officials away from the best interests of the community. The RIVCO CEO should give this immediate attention. Summary CFDs are complex instruments which most of the home buying public and city council members find difficult to understand. This financing mechanism is sadly being over-used and over-relied upon. Bond contracts of cities reviewed, state they have no responsibility to the bond payers (home owners) for misuse or losses from these bonds. Unfortunately, the City’s lack of oversight demonstrates their position. Many of these infrastructure costs in question were originally paid by the developer. A critical part of this current threat to home owners and tax payers sadly is, these are costs which were largely mitigated by the developer, in the past, but are now added in advance to the home cost. In the past it was clear to the buyer what the costs of the home was going to be. The CFD instruments now shift to the taxpayer’s infrastructure costs which increases the profits of developers. At the same time, this creates long term debt which puts communities and their citizens in financial jeopardy, especially if economic depressions should reoccur. Elected officials are the decision makers approving CFD bond purchases. The voting for a CFD is done by the land owner who is often a land developer. This means one or more land owners make a vote to create indebtedness for hundreds or thousands of people. This seems patently unfair but it is the lawful process. These same land developers and builders contribute to the campaigns of elected officials they feel will be friendly to their needs. They often instruct their sub-contractors to contribute to a Political Action Committees (PACs). Subcontractors that want to work usually comply with these demands, even though under duress. These same elected officials who use developer supported PAC money, are often under the same pressure as sub-contractors, who depend upon the contributions from land developers and builders. CFD districts in California carry substantial burdens of debt to finance many vaguely described jobs and projects. The scope of Mello Roos (CFDs) grows and so does what many call taxation without representation. This CFD Bond proliferation successfully circumvents Proposition 13. Residents unknowingly subscribe to perpetual bond indebtedness that risks their children and grandchildren’s future. One critical fact should be remembered; a CFD Bond cannot be created without the approval of the City, County or other taxing authority’s approval. Goals Oversight committees for CFD Service Areas Funds should include fire protection and law enforcement personnel to provide transparency for CFD bond funds. There should be an informal partnership of all tax authorizing agencies in Riverside County to keep the total tax burden manageable. Most Riverside County new homes should be presented by builders or sales agents with BOTH CFD Bond provisions and Developer paid fee options. As an example by one developer, one housing tract had one side of a tract street priced as a CFD bond financed project. The other side of the tract street was priced by using the Developer paid fee option, clearly demonstrating the relative strengths of the two methods: Low up-front pricing vs. known long term costs. Members of the public should insist their elected officials be educated about the many parameters of Bond funding and administration. The public then will be assured the knowledge is available for them to provide proper oversight of city staff to assure reporting obligations and all administrative duties are followed. Report Issued: 06/27/2019 Report Public: 07/01/2019 Response Due: 10/01/2019 12
F13:
Unfortunately CFDs have erased all of the intended protection on taxation limits of Proposition 13. Many homes are encumbered with multiple CFD Bonds such as: a Facilities bond, a Service bond and a School bond. These three bonds and the Ad Valorem tax amount to a seven percent escalation of all taxes. That increase compounds annually and means that within six years tax, debt has increased to perhaps more than 50% of the original amount. Financial distress could develop that would affect those on a fixed income especially when an economic downturn occurs. This scenario does not take into account other taxes such as voter approved school bonds, sales tax increases and hospital bonds. Many other taxing agencies can further add to the tax bill. The bonds often contain a clause that says “After the Bond is paid in full (40 or more years) an amount commensurate with the continuation of facilities and services which need to be rendered may be assessed.” In other words the Bond generated tax payments may continue forever. This is another issue where most buyers are not given adequate warning. Escalators are a mechanism used by cities and developers to obtain the greatest amount of revenue from the bond payers. Escalators are not required on the bonds by law, but are allowed. The special tax may be permanent and is within the discretion of the city council to make this tax perpetual under certain formation rules. Long Term Development Contract
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
In 2018, the RIVCO Auditor/Controller issued a Legal Settlement Cost Report, comparing six California Counties (Santa Clara, Los Angeles, San Diego, Orange, San Bernardino and Riverside). The report showed a total of $3,400,000 was paid out as a result of pre-trial and trial settlements involving the various HR Departments of the named counties. Almost 85% of that amount ($2,900,000) was paid out by Riverside County. One fact has become consistently clear from the many witnesses in this Civil Grand Jury investigation: The advice of the HR office is deemed as only advisory by a significant number of managers, appointed and elected officials. Some managers routinely ignore ethics and sound advice in personnel matters and take action based on personal agendas with punitive intent. These actions are irresponsible and contrary to good personnel practice. HR must adhere to the California Labor Laws, California Fair Employment and Housing Act and the California Whistleblower Protection Act. (Division of Labor Standards Enforcement California Labor Code § 1102.5). Managers who act outside of HR policies and fail to follow the various state laws and labor codes, are exposing the County to litigation and monetary damages. HR is trained in these areas in order to keep the County out of unnecessary litigation. The monetary losses suffered by the county through litigation could have been even greater if individuals with a clear case had chosen to litigate. Their reasons for not litigating varied. Some were centered on the possible future harm litigation could cause to their careers and others by the limited option to retire rather than endure stressful, time-consuming and costly legal actions. One employee stated: “I didn’t want to destroy my career or put my family through what might have been three years or more of litigation. I just wanted out of that oppressive place and away from those unethical people.” In a disciplinary case, in response to the request of a Deputy County Counsel, a letter was provided by a HR Senior Analyst, detailing specific instructions as to how an attorney (with 25 plus years of County employment) could be terminated. This, despite the fact that the attorney had not received an evaluation in over five years and no investigation had commenced. Continued harassment forced this employee into making the decision to retire earlier than planned rather than continue to work in an adverse and hostile working environment. A senior HR analyst assigned to investigate this case was removed and replaced by another HR analyst who determined there was cause to terminate the attorney. Testimony revealed that the replacement analyst was assigned the case to ensure the employee was terminated. The analyst originally assigned to the case, was trying to conduct an honest and unbiased investigation but that was not what the department manager wanted. The first analyst stated candidly, “it was very difficult and I was not bringing forth the desired result of termination.” Afterwards, this analyst felt that he was non-promotable, deemed untrustworthy and left the employment of Riverside County. Under California Labor Code, this is defined as “constructive discharge”. In a 1994 California Superior Court case ruling, Turner vs. Aneuser-Bush Inc. (No. CSC 198551), constructive discharge occurs when the employer’s conduct effectively forces the employee to resign. This practice is ongoing, pervasive and is continuously repeated against County employees. Constructive discharge was used to force out a significant number of individuals over the age of 40. The RCCGJ makes no judgment as to whether these individuals should have left county employment. Based on over 80 interviews, judgment is based on the manner and method in which they were forced to leave. County taxpayers deserve, and expect a process which is transparent, not capricious, and which does not expose them to huge monetary losses as reflected in the Auditor Controller’s report. 2 – A. Abusive Management Behavior Our investigation/interviews revealed that certain county managers have set personal ego, arrogance, power and personal control above their duty to serve the people. The highest honor is to serve the public, and along with that honor, is the responsibility to maintain ethical standards in 4 employment actions. These county managers, the CEO and to some extent the prior BOS, have failed in their leadership to provide a positive, supportive environment. The expertise of a company’s employees together with their work ethic and ability to function as a team will largely determine the success of that company, whether private or government. The average employee spends most of his/her day at work so having a welcoming and nurturing workplace environment will make a difference. A workplace fueled by long hours, harsh criticism and manipulative tactics will not help retain employees. It will also make it more difficult to bring in new employees as negative feedback spreads quickly. The prevailing attitude has already made it apparent that RIVCO is not a good place for a person with career aspirations. Prolonged mistrust due to harsh personnel practices as well as unscrupulous tactics by some managers has created a climate of fear, intimidation and anxiety among county employees. Employees know it is “go along to get along”, even if it is immoral, illegal, unethical or goes against policies and laws. One employee was told “you have to learn how to do things the county way.” Upon inquiry of how that differed from good legal ethics, no answer was forthcoming. 2 – B. Punitive Disciplinary Action Employees have been and are currently denied and deprived of the ability to examine materials and other documents kept in their personnel file, which is essential to the defense of an allegation against them. This is in direct violation of California Labor Code §1198.5, which grants an employee the right to review their personnel file with few exceptions. Managers and directors routinely keep memorandums purporting to document employee actions in separate files, those files are unavailable to the employee for review. Ultimately they are used in investigations to generate a case against the employee. These files kept on employees in individual departments, are commonly referred to as supervisory files. They are not personnel files and are not subject to review. These secretive files are usually kept for convenience, easy access and to jog memories or keep track of issues. They are not legal, official employee files. However, documents or evidence used against an employee for disciplinary action MUST be contained in the employee’s personnel file which is a legal file. Personnel files are the only Official File for an employee. So any documents placed in a supervisory file, which could be actionable against an employee, MUST be placed in the Official Personnel File. Otherwise such documents can’t be used against the employee. As such, the employee will have access to them under California Labor Code 5 §1198.5. Any such documents placed in the Official Personnel File must be reviewed by HR staff for appropriateness. Testimony and extensive research revealed numerous cases where the employee has been instructed to gather evidence on their behalf to disprove any allegations against them. The employee was then directed not to discuss the matter with anyone except their union representative or their attorney. This severely curtailed their ability to obtain mitigating or exonerating evidence for their defense. Individual’s within the County who may have provided needed material evidence to help the employee were prohibited from assisting them. As a result, this restriction placed on the “accused” employee subjected him/her to a great disadvantage in presenting their case, condemning them to a foregone conclusion of termination. Investigators hired by the County regarding personnel matters have no definitive guidelines for their investigations. These investigations are wide- ranging and all-encompassing. Often they contain speculation and intrusion into the private lives of employees and other County representatives, even to the extent of questioning their neighbors. Investigators are not impartial and are all too willing to obtain damaging evidence and material against an employee. A failure of not being impartial or not trying to obtain mitigating or favorable evidence in the defense of the employee, results in a biased and skewed investigation. The alleged offending employee has no such advantage in gathering helpful and exonerating material evidence. Investigators must be neutral and gather both mitigating and aggravating evidence to be fairly presented to the reviewer. 2 – C. Retaliatory Behavior Employees who have displeased managers in the Office of County Counsel, as well as other departments, have found themselves the recipient of a number of “Special Treatments”. Instead of being assisted, if performance issues are present, they are subjected to various stressors and “Special Treatment”. Retaliatory transfers are prevalent. These occur when individuals are transferred to distant work place locations for punitive reasons. Witnesses and those who have experience with this “Special Treatment” refer to these punitive transfers as Freeway Therapy and it is a known means of punishment for those who have displeased managers and directors in power. In other instances of “Special Treatment”, attorneys who have been assigned to a specific department for many years are punitively reassigned to another unrelated department in which they have no expertise. This is not only a waste of talent and expertise as the employee now has to gain knowledge on-the-job to come up to speed, but it affects the work flow and productivity of that area. Such “transfers” waste time, energy, 6 training and expertise. Sometime these transfers set the employee up for failure in order to terminate them or have them resign. In other instances, employees have been assigned additional workloads to their existing responsibilities as a punishment for perceived disloyalty. This was verified through sworn testimony and documentation. 2 – D. Misuse of Power and Intimidation As many HR functions are delegated to department managers, our investigation revealed clear duplicitous overreach of human resource responsibilities by some managers. A high level manager has misused human resource functions to apply retaliatory and discriminatory action against employees, most of whom were over the age of 40. This behavior exposes the County to millions of dollars in potential damages if the individuals had brought suit against the County. In October of 2015, an attorney was hired by the RCC. He received two evaluations from his date of hire through December of 2016, indicating either “meets expectations” or “good, above average”. Both evaluations contained handwritten notes from RCC, indicating his pleasure with the work performance of this attorney. In February of 2017, the attorney took over a project previously handled by a Deputy County Counsel involving a lease modification with the RIVCO EDA, an outdoor advertising firm and a developer. During the course of handling this project, the attorney discovered two separate Abstracts of Judgment against the developer which had not been discovered by the Deputy County Counsel. These judgments, had they remained undiscovered, could have resulted in a one point five million dollar ($1,500,000.00) lien against Riverside County. When these judgments were disclosed to RIVCO EDA they removed themselves from the transaction. When this information was relayed to the Deputy County Counsel, she told the attorney “you had no business informing EDA of this matter” and “you do not understand your role as a Government Attorney”. The Attorney, having discovered a potentially huge financial liability for the county, was reprimanded rather than commended for his due diligence in catching this costly oversight. During the course of an interview with a Deputy County Counsel, in relation to this case she stated that, in the preparation of any real estate transaction, there is little or nothing done in the way of due diligence regarding the principals in the transaction. The only concern was that the parties were, in fact authorized and empowered to act and execute documents on behalf of their respective entities. As a point of information, this RCCGJ did a cursory investigation of one of the principals in question and in less than one hour, discovered multiple previous lawsuits/litigation. On April 17, 2017, with no previously noted derogatory issues or details, the attorney, in the case mentioned above was told, in a personal meeting with RCC, of concerns regarding his transition from private practice to government work. RCC would not provide any specifics but stated that “my managers have expressed concern”. On the following business day, the attorney was terminated as an “at will” employee. When the attorney applied for unemployment benefits with the California Department of Economic Development (EDD), he was informed that his claim was being challenged by RIVCO as he had been discharged for cause for refusing to perform his job duties as assigned/instructed by his supervisor. According to HR, an employee who is terminated as an “at will” employee has no right of appeal. An employee who is terminated for “cause” does have that right. In this case, HR, at the direction of the Office of RCC, reported to EDD that he had been terminated for cause, a direct contradiction of what he had been informed by RCC. Correspondence from RIVCO to EDD indicated that he had attended a meeting without permission and consequently his time could not be billed to the client (EDA). As a point of fact, he had been requested to attend the meeting by an EDA manager, making his time a billable event. After almost a month of delay, EDD was informed that HR had withdrawn their appeal of denial of his EDD rights. This is a brutal example of how a subordinate was unjustly terminated for bringing to light negligence on the part of a supervisor. This oversight on the part of a supervisor had the potential of substantial monetary loss to the County. Timely and Constructive Evaluations
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
New policies and procedures must be developed, with a foundation that strengthens and fosters a new culture and mindset mandating adherence to following HR policies and procedures, California Labor Laws and the Fair Housing and Employment Act. Ethical behavior and basic personnel core values must be presented and is also mandated in various Labor Laws. Efforts must be made to, not only build respect for the important role of HR and their expertise in preventing litigation through sound personnel practices, but also to give them full autonomy and authority required to independently function, and make appropriate and legal personnel decisions without interference, from RCC or the Executive Office. When legal issues arise, there must be an in-house counsel with the expertise and qualifications to address the issues at hand and understand how to handle aggressive negotiations. Emphasis should be placed on avoiding routine settlements which sets a dangerous and untenable precedent of a county more willing to settle out of court rather than fight for what is right. The BOS at their May 21, 2019 meeting approved a broadening of the duties of a management committee aimed at easing the losses from 12 lawsuits against the County. A number of new practices were unanimously agreed upon which paralleled some of the recommendations made in this report. It is laudable that HR is part of that committee process. Coupled with ensuring HR advice be given serious weight by managers, this new process should assist towards mitigating county litigation losses. 1-A. Excessive Litigation Costs The BOS, through a written policy, should empower the Director of HR to appoint a receiver or an ombudsman or an intermediary for any department that, in the Director’s judgment, is putting the County at monetary and/or ethical risk. An example would be disregarding HR’s professional advice on employment matters not limited to California and Federal labor laws or Riverside County Policies and Procedures. When manager’s or director’s actions do not conform with sound legal HR practices (polices and laws), which exposes the County to litigation or other legal sanctions, the offending department shall be monitored by the receiver or the ombudsman or the intermediary appointed by HR for whatever time period is deemed prudent and necessary. When lawful recommendations made by HR are disregarded by department managers, those managers shall be identified and that information sent to the BOS. At that point resulting litigation or monetary losses will be apparent and significant disciplinary action or public censure must be undertaken by the BOS. In the matter of elected officials, the public has the right to know of personnel actions taken after disregarding the expertise and advice of HR which have cost taxpayer dollars. The public can then determine if they wish to enable the continuation of this behavior. This intervention must apply to all managers, especially those at the highest levels who have been the focus of the most egregious behaviors investigated by this RCCGJ. Abusive Management Behavior, Punitive Disciplinary Action, Retaliatory Behavior, and Misuse of Power and Intimidation
F3:
County policy and procedures require annual evaluations on or near the employee’s anniversary date of employment RCCGJ found this policy has not been followed. In some departments, employees have gone over five years without an evaluation. A recent report from the Auditor Controller’s office identified similar findings. Evaluations should be constructive and helpful but not punitive. In one instance, an employee was given two evaluations in one meeting – one being back-dated. The first showed areas of improvement needed. The second one was delivered minutes after the first and the manager stated, “Since you have not improved from your last evaluation you have also fallen below par in these additional areas.” In that same meeting, the employee was then given a Personal Improvement Plan (PIP). Then additional work with unrealistic goals of achievement was added to the individual’s workload thereby setting the employee up for failure. This evaluation process has been used in this same department to demote and 8 force constructive discharge in multiple cases against employees over the age of 40. Exit Interviews
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The implementation of evaluations and their timely completion must be addressed in management reviews, in accordance with sound HR policy. If HR does not receive evaluations in a timely manner, they must forward the issue up the chain of command for accountability. A tracking system must be operational to include reminders being sent to managers who have outstanding evaluations due. No termination for performance related issues shall be pursued unless and until all evaluations are up to date and the employee has received an opportunity to improve deficiencies and allowed adequate time to come into compliance. Education shall be provided for managers by HR related to conducting effective evaluations. Alternative methods of evaluations which include a broader representation of feedback for the employee’s benefit should be used. Exit Interviews
F4:
An important goal for any organization is to retain valued employees. Research shows that high turnover of employees, especially those with specialized skills, has a real dollar cost. The Civil Grand Jury’s findings indicate the loss of these employees in Riverside County is high and the methods used to induce or coerce them to leave, places the county at significant financial risk. The exit interview is an excellent tool to discover failures in hiring, evaluation and management styles and practices as well as other workplace dissatistisfiers, such as inadequate training, support or lack of opportunity to learn, grow and advance. Few exit interviews are performed by RICVO. The current practice of initiating an exit interview is to notify the employee via email request. At present there is little to no follow up to this email. This is a passive and ineffective method to obtain feedback. As a result of this current practice, the return rate is low and has little or no value in obtaining feedback to improve workplace practices. Riverside County spends considerable money in the process of recruiting, hiring and training employees. This expenditure of funds speaks to the question of why good employees are leaving and what can the county do to retain them. Personnel Files
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The county must improve the exit interview process in order to determine why people are leaving County employment so improvements can be implemented. The focus must be in high turnover areas. A person to person exit interview is preferable to gain needed insight into issues. It should be conducted between a neutral party and the employee. The resulting feedback would provide helpful insights to improve practices. Feedback must be provided to the BOS quarterly by the CEO to identify for both the CEO and the BOS management practices and or working conditions which are problematic. This review of exit interviews would also provide insight into each department. Additionally, they would provide valuable information related to policy failures and any Labor Law issues being disregarded. Personnel Files
F5:
In many departments personnel files are currently kept in the same department as the employee. In one location the RCCGJ found that personnel records were in a securable office, however, the office was open and the files were in an unattended and unlocked cabinet. This arrangement is not unusual nor is it conducive to employee privacy or security of records. Unprotected personnel information, especially personal or disciplinary issues, falling into the wrong hands opens the county to major litigation. Abuse of the Whistle Blower Law (intimidation)
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Personnel files must be centralized and maintained by the HR Department for security and legality. The personnel file must be the only official file where all pertinent documents must be maintained. Subsequently, supervisory files are not official files, so any important documents must be contained in the official personnel files in HR. In addition, computerized files would save space. HR has the training and expertise to ensure laws are complied with to avoid costly litigation. Abuse of the Whistle Blower Law (intimidation)
F6:
A chilling effect was created when other employees became aware of the onslaught of retaliation and intimidation of employees who reported those abusive actions or departures from ethical behavior. In one case an employee was directed to cease communication with all employees of the County after it was discovered by his manager that the employee had contacted a BOS member about his problems which were a matter of public concern. This was considered proper chain of 9 command. When his direct manager found out about the emails, the employee was given a directive, forbidding him to contact any other County employee. This directive was contrary to County Policy as it was given prior to an investigation being conducted. The employee subsequently received a communication from a member of the BOS. The employee emailed back that he, the employee, had been directed not to contact him and said this would be his last communication. Since the reply message was sent after the time of the directive, the message was used as one of the grounds to terminate him. This is a noxious abuse of power. An email in the Grand Jury’s possession, outlined the process that was to be followed in firing the employee even before the evaluation process had begun. The document outlined what steps were to be taken all the way from the initial meeting through termination thus showing the employee was fired following a pre-planned conspiracy to deprive him of the property interest in his job. This is yet another example of abuse of power. Past and Present Practices of RCC
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The subject matter in this finding is clearly in the domain of public interest. Violations of the Whistle Blower Act have serious legal consequences. Education must be provided to all management personnel regarding the protections and guarantees of the Whistle Blower Act. Employees reporting on elements of public interest are legally entitled to do so and this right must be protected. Testimony of high level managers in the Office of County Counsel indicate that any personnel actions which have taken place in that department have been initiated with the full knowledge and consent of the County Counsel. The responsibility to control and stop the abuses therefore is the responsibility of the BOS and CEO. The BOS and the CEO must hold RCC accountable for all past and future behavior. Past and Present Practices of RCC
F7:
In pursuit of this review of HR, the RCCGJ found past and present practices done by the office of RCC impedes the performance of its legal duties. This report would be incomplete without reference to this important office of RIVCO. The office of RCC has, throughout this investigation, come to the forefront as being problematic in its relationship in regards to HR matters. Its attempts to control information required to assure that our citizens and employees are protected from fraud, litigation, intimidation and abuse makes the duty and responsibility of HR to carry out its mandates more difficult. The concept of a Civil Grand Jury has been in existence for almost 1000 years, having begun in England during the reign of William the Conqueror. The Riverside County Civil Grand Jury was established over 100 years ago as an arm of the Superior Court and has judicial investigatory and inquisitional responsibilities and powers as well as being the “watch dog” for its citizenry. As part of its civil functions, the Civil Grand Jury shall investigate and report on the operations, accounts and records of the officers, departments or functions of Riverside County. Its functions are conducted as a separate and independent body, acting apart from the jurisdiction of the court. Typically, a Civil Grand Jury may ask the advice of the Court, the District Attorney or the County Counsel. In Riverside County, the County Counsel as of 2014, made the unilateral decision not to represent the Civil Grand Jury. He decided that his responsibility was to represent Riverside County, which includes the departments and personnel over which the Civil Grand Jury has investigatory purview. The California Penal Code is permissive 10 on this point, but in other counties, it is standard practice for the County Counsel to assist the Civil Grand Jury. According to numerous witnesses, interviewed under oath, the RCC has spoken derisively and disparagingly against the RCCGJ’s work in the performance of its legal duties in creating transparency in County government and its agencies and exposing corruption and abuse of power. A previous RCC sent a letter of reprimand dated May 20, 2013, to the current RCC, then serving as the Riverside City Attorney, pertaining to his interference with subpoenas and leaking Civil Grand Jury information. A charge RCC denied in his response. This information is in the 2014-2015 Civil Grand Jury Report. On December 4, 2014, an email was sent from the current RCC to all department heads instructing them that all contacts with the RCCGJ must go through the office of RCC prior to their responding to an inquiry. Testimony has been given which illustrates that many managers still believe that this is a standing rule. A recent inquiry by a RCCGJ member to Animal Control regarding the number of dogs picked up in a given year was responded to by the receptionist with the statement, “We have to speak to County Counsel before we answer that.” Measures like this have the impact of hampering the ability of the Civil Grand Jury to legitimately investigate and inquire about even minute issues. The RCCGJ has the responsibility to expose poor management and corruption in County and City Government. The Office of County Counsel has become an impediment of the duties of the RCCGJ and has become the protector of the very people who are the initiators of unethical, abusive and illegal behaviors. Subordinates of the County Counsel who have been called to testify related to complaints of abusive behavior in the Office of County Counsel have, as is their right, left the jury room to consult with their attorney. That attorney is the County Counsel. They then avoided answering questions by asserting attorney client privilege. Thus the decisions made by County Counsel, which are under investigation by the RCCGJ are being defended and deflected by the very person whose decisions and actions are in question. This is an egregious conflict of interest as it allows County Counsel to proceed with impunity and then escape inquiry by claiming attorney client privilege by those who have carried out his directives. These same individuals are dependent on the County Counsel to maintain their employment. Attorney client privilege exists exclusively with the client. The Board of Supervisors is the client. Therefore, County Counsel cannot represent all 21,000 plus employees as their personal attorney. This has been supported by RCCGJ report 2014-2015. There is a long history of interference with the legal duties and purview of the RCCGJ by the office of RCC. This is evidenced by past Civil Grand Jury reports. The 2014-2015 Civil Grand Jury Report is entered here as evidence of long standing abuses towards the RCCGJ still practiced by the office of RCC, despite them having been made public. The fact that the previous BOS did not respond or attempt to remedy these issues could be construed as their approval of County Counsel’s actions. Departmental responses to Grand Jury reports are routinely reviewed by RCC which is appropriate. However, it raises the question, due to the extensive number of disagreements with RCCGJ reports, how much influence is exerted by RCC over departments in their responses to those RCCGJ reports?
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
The current BOS must address and stop all abuses of power in the Office of County Counsel. The record of culpability is long and convincing. The County of Riverside deserves a strong CGJ to protect the taxpayers from fraud, corruption and abuse. A County Counsel who shares that vision is critical to that goal. The public must demand this. Measurable Goals Evaluations
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R2:
It is imperative that the BOS and CEO immediately hold all departments, including RCC, accountable to observe and uphold the Policies and Procedures of Riverside County, California Labor Codes and the Constitutions of the United States and the State of California. They must seek the advice and counsel of and cooperate with HR on all personnel matters. Any lack of good faith and/or willingness to work with HR professionals should provide cause to put all personnel decisions regarding RCC’s office under the authority of the Director of HR. HR personnel who work with the Office of County Counsel have a primary responsibility to the office of HR and not to the office of County Counsel. The fact that County Counsel sits at the same table with the BOS at public meetings must not be construed as having the same fiduciary duties as the BOS. The BOS and/or the CEO, when informed of abuses of power by some of their highest level managers, must investigate those abuses. Timely and Constructive Evaluations
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
10 findings
F1:
RCA Board Members often have a limited understanding of the very complex requirements and obligations of this conservation agency. They need more measurable information on the long term trends of the RCA. Many elected Board Members do not remain on this Board for more than a few years, and so institutional memory of the Board is often limited. Only the Executive Board appears to make decisions about setting the agenda. Board Lack of Awareness of Financial Pitfalls
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The RCA Executive Board needs to ensure that all Board Members are adequately trained in the mission and operational mechanisms of The Plan. Board Members must fully understand their essential role as primary policy makers of the RCA. The Executive Board should develop timely evaluations of the performance of The Plan, and report on the progress of RCA in meeting its goals to the Board. They need to ensure that information about the long-term trends of this agency is understood by all Board Members. Board Lack of Awareness of Financial Pitfalls
F2:
The RCA Board has not acknowledged its inability to meet the current time table for acquisition of habitat conservation lands. The current rate of land acquisition has slowed to the point where it is unlikely to expect that it will meet The Plan’s goal of completion of habitat land reserve within the remaining ten years of the 25 year plan. Over $1 Billion Dollars Will Be Needed Within the Next Ten Years!
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Executive Board needs to direct the RCA staff to provide members of the Board with actionable information about the long term trends in income and land reserve. This will illuminate the concern about progress towards the land acquisition goal of The Plan. Over $1 Billion Dollars Will Be Needed Within the Next Ten Years!
F3:
Even with the RCA’s recent estimate of land acquisition costs at $13,000 per acre, the necessary land acquisition costs to complete The Plan are expected to be a staggering $1.0 to $1.5 billion dollars. This represents a significant financial risk to the County. Endowment Fund is Underfunded
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Executive Board urgently needs to work with the RCA staff to identify all options anticipated in the 2017 Nexus report regarding the revision of the scheduled mitigation fees. In addition to other funding mechanisms, including loans and alliances with other federal agencies, the Board should explore other options to meet the overwhelming costs of future land acquisition. The Executive Board should make recommendations, provide justification for proposed mitigation rate increases and present other tax options to the entire Board for review and confirmation. Tax options are described in the 2008 Rand report. The Board should convene the Funding Coordination Committee, which is described in The Plan, Volume 1, Section 6.6.2.D, and meet with the wildlife agencies to address these common funding concerns. All agencies, including the wildlife agencies, need to improve collections to meet their land acquisition goals. Endowment Fund is Underfunded
F4:
The Plan calls for an endowment fund of $70,000,000 to support future monitoring and maintenance of habitat lands. At this time, the fund is severely underfunded currently at about $5,800,000. The failure to build this reserve fund, the interest income of which would fund habitat maintenance activities in perpetuity, could obligate the participating cities to carry these costs after completion of the land acquisition requirement. Efficiencies of Outside Contractors vs. In-House Staff
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Executive Board should require the RCA staff to propose options for building the endowment fund to the level of $70,000,000 to support habitat monitoring and maintenance for the remaining 50 years of The Plan. The RCA management staff needs to clearly report on the level of the underfunded endowment reserves for future protection of the MSHCP lands in conjunction with the quarterly budget reports. While it is possible to delay the accumulation of an endowment fund for future habitat monitoring and maintenance, doing so would reduce the time needed to reach the land acquisition goal. It would be a risky option since recent fee collections have been so low. The entire Board needs to be aware of the status of resources needed to complete the acquisition of the land reserve and the endowment to support the maintenance of the future expansive land reserve. They should review proposals to seek nonprofit funding to build up the endowment. Efficiencies of Outside Contractors vs. In-House Staff
F5:
RCA outsources many costly contracts to outside parties for legal services, plan implementation, real property services, and other professional services. These costs drain the limited general funds, used to build up the endowment and other services. RCA contracts with an outside company to act as a middle-man for projects that are negotiated between developers and RCA staff. The outside company agents explain the MSHCP process, provide interpretation and deliver a completed packet of documents for the RCA joint project reviews. Insufficient Financial Commitment for Maintenance & Security of Habitat Reserve
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
RCA management staff should review the use of internal staffing versus the use of many costly outside contractors. More biological assessment and land acquisition activities could be brought in-house. Trained in-house staff could handle more basic biological assessment and land acquisition duties. Many fees paid to outside contractors could be reduced by efficient use of internal staffing. Insufficient Financial Commitment for Maintenance & Security of Habitat Reserve
F6:
The Plan Land Management budget does not provide sufficient park rangers for increased land patrol and maintenance responsibilities of the expanding habitat reserve. The maintenance and security of the current accumulated 400,000 acres of conservation land is suffering from damages caused by fires and floods, as well as off-highway vehicles 10 (OHV), and homeless encampments. This damage will only increase in the future. Legislative Solutions for Funding Are Far From Certain
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
Shift resources to add more contract land management park rangers. Coordinate with County Sheriff and Code Enforcement Departments to assist park rangers in controlling on-going damage to the habitat reserve from trespassers, mountain bikes and excess motor sport vehicles, as well as homeless encampments. Seek available grants from California Off- Highway Motor Vehicle Registration for management of OHV recreation and security. Use funds for posting signage and limiting vehicle access into the preserve and for repairs on the expanded acreage of protected lands. Legislative Solutions for Funding Are Far From Certain
F7:
RCA continues to spend over $200,000 annually, of its own limited, local general funds for two K-Street lobbyists. Their proposals repeatedly seek funding resources through legislative alternatives. These approaches have indeterminate and un-measureable outcomes. Lack of Public Understanding
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
Review the effectiveness and over-reliance on K-Street lobbyists as a source of needed future fundings. Consider integration of RCA habitat lobbying with other County lobbying efforts. Lack of Public Understanding
F8:
RCA is an obscure agency. The taxpaying, voting public is not aware of its valuable contributions to the conservation of the environment or to the development of public infrastructure in the County. More Useful Annual Reports
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
RCA should improve outreach efforts to the general taxpaying, voting public. Provide public education about the RCA’s conservation mission and build a public constituency of those who may be asked to approve future funding mechanisms to support its goals. Create public understanding of the importance of this conservation plan in reducing delays in the development of public infrastructure projects and the value of protecting the habitat for endangered species. More Useful Annual Reports
F9:
The information in the Annual Reports meet the minimal requirement set out in The Plan, but do not discuss financial issues of concern or proposed remedies and actions. They do not provide comment on whether the income receipts and the rate of the land acquisition are sufficient for the RCA to meet its goal of acquiring sufficient habitat lands to assemble the reserve within 25 years. Consolidation of Duplicate Bureaucracy
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
The Annual Report should serve as a benchmark to be used for evaluating compliance with The Plan requirements and goals. The report should provide graphic description of the RCA’s progress towards The Plan conservation goals. It should identify significant issues in The Plan implementation and proposed remedies for concerns which may delay implementation. Copies of the Annual Report should be made available to the public and presented at an open workshop where they may comment. Consolidation of Duplicate Bureaucracy
F10:
RCA is a free-standing JPA. The other two habitat conservation agencies in the County, HCA and CVCC, are not free-standing and are subject to a higher level of public visibility along with managerial and financial oversight provided by the existing multi-city management structure.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
The consolidation of RCA within an existing multi-city management structure would provide: Operational improvement Reduction of duplication of bureaucracy Cost reduction Increased public visibility Increased financial oversight WRCOG could serve this function, as Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) does for Coachella Valley Conservation Commission (CVCC). Acronyms CDFW – California Department of Fish and Wildlife CVAG – Coachella Valley Association of Governments CVCC – Coachella Valley Conservation Commission ESA – Endangered Species Act of 1973 16 U.S.C § 1531 et. seq. HCA – Western Riverside Habitat Conservation Agency HANS – Habitat Evaluation and Acquisition Negotiation Strategy JPA – Joint Powers Authority K Rat – Kangaroo rats are small rodents of genus Dipodomys that are native to western North America. The common name derives from their bipedal form. They hop in a manner similar to the much larger kangaroo, but developed this mode of locomotion independently. Stephens' kangaroo rat (Dipodomys stephensi) is endemic to the Southern California region of the United States, primarily in western Riverside County. The natural habitat of Stephens' kangaroo rat is sparsely vegetated temperate grassland. This habitat has been destroyed or modified for agriculture, therefore the Stephens' kangaroo rat is listed as an endangered species by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. K Rail – A Jersey barrier is also known in the western United States as K-rail, a term borrowed from the California Department of Transportation specification for temporary concrete traffic barriers, or colloquially as a Jersey bump. K Street – A major thoroughfare in the United States capital of Washington, D.C. known as a center for numerous lobbyists and advocacy groups. In political discourse, "K Street" has become a metonym for Washington's lobbying industry since many lobbying firms were traditionally located in the section in Northwest Washington. MSHCP – Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan; often referred to as The Plan OHV – Off Highway Vehicle Attachment #1 – 14 RCA – Abbreviated term for WR-RCA City Members are: Banning, Beaumont, Calimesa, Canyon Lake, Corona, Eastvale, Hemet, Jurupa Valley, Lake Elsinore, Menifee, Moreno Valley, Murrieta, Norco, Perris, Riverside, San Jacinto, Temecula, Wildomar as well as the unincorporated areas of the County of Riverside SAWA – Santa Ana Watershed Association The Plan – the short name used for MSHCP TUMF – Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee USFWS – United States Fish and Wildlife Service WIFIA – Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act WRCOG – Western Riverside Council of Governments WR-RCA – Western Riverside Regional Conservation Authority Report Issued: 06/26/2019 Report Public: 06/28/2019 Response Due: 09/30/2019 Attachment #1 – 15
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
The County’s 37 Animal Control Officers (ACOs) are dispatched daily to handle a variety of animal related activities. Section 11 of Riverside County Ordinance No. 630, indicates an ACO may or shall collect fees for the following services: pet surrender (cats $145, dogs $153), return to owner ($40), and in the field euthanasia ($60). The RCDAS currently does not have a written policy regarding how ACOs should handle payments for these services, as the previous policy regarding payment was rescinded in October, 2017. Cumbersome and Unsafe Procedures for Processing Fee Payments
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Riverside County Department of Animal Services should have a policy and procedure regarding the acceptance of payments in the field for services by animal control officers. Cumbersome and Unsafe Procedures for Processing Fee Payments
F2:
According to the RCDAS Standard Operating Procedure Manual, animal control officers must complete a cumbersome, multiple step process involving both supervisory personnel and a fiscal deposit designee in order to have their daily receipts posted. The RCCGJ concluded from testimony and evidence that officers and management were uncomfortable and apprehensive handling cash in the field due to safety concerns. In addition, Standard Operating Procedure for inputting of Official County Receipts (OCR) into their data base, is time consuming and inefficient. 3
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
County animal control officers should be issued a tablet with a credit card reader to process payments made in the field. Supplying this tool would reduce the County’s legal and safety liability exposure of its field staff. This will be an inexpensive solution that eliminates cash handling and improves the efficiency, convenience and safety of ACO’s. Report Issued: 06/11/2019 Report Public: 06/14/2019 Response Due: 09/16/2019 4
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
The County’s 37 Animal Control Officers (ACOs) are dispatched daily to handle a variety of animal related activities. Section 11 of Riverside County Ordinance No. 630, indicates an ACO may or shall collect fees for the following services: pet surrender (cats $145, dogs $153), return to owner ($40), and in the field euthanasia ($60). The RCDAS currently does not have a written policy regarding how ACOs should handle payments for these services, as the previous policy regarding payment was rescinded in October, 2017. Cumbersome and Unsafe Procedures for Processing Fee Payments
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Riverside County Department of Animal Services should have a policy and procedure regarding the acceptance of payments in the field for services by animal control officers. Cumbersome and Unsafe Procedures for Processing Fee Payments
F2:
According to the RCDAS Standard Operating Procedure Manual, animal control officers must complete a cumbersome, multiple step process involving both supervisory personnel and a fiscal deposit designee in order to have their daily receipts posted. The RCCGJ concluded from testimony and evidence that officers and management were uncomfortable and apprehensive handling cash in the field due to safety concerns. In addition, Standard Operating Procedure for inputting of Official County Receipts (OCR) into their data base, is time consuming and inefficient. 3
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
County animal control officers should be issued a tablet with a credit card reader to process payments made in the field. Supplying this tool would reduce the County’s legal and safety liability exposure of its field staff. This will be an inexpensive solution that eliminates cash handling and improves the efficiency, convenience and safety of ACO’s. Report Issued: 06/11/2019 Report Public: 06/14/2019 Response Due: 09/16/2019 4
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
The 2018 – 2019 RCCGJ investigation discovered recent incidents where one City Council Member frequently circumvented the authority of the City Manager and dealt directly with department heads and city employees. In one example, a Council Member directed a police officer to open a criminal investigation into the water use activities of a private citizen. Council Member’s Independent Actions
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
City Council Members must follow Article 2.08.110 of the Banning Municipal Code which stipulates no council member has the authority to act alone without the concurrence of a council quorum and an actionable vote. The city attorney and/or designated legal expert should instruct City Council Members of their duties and responsibilities. Council Member’s Independent Actions
F2:
One Council Member’s actions created a destructive culture within the city government. Interviews of Banning employees revealed that several city employees resigned from city employment in response to improper, unprofessional and inappropriate contact and actions by this Council Member. Another such action was directing an Interim Police Chief on the day-to-day functions in the police department. This Interim Police Chief regularly adopted these directions as his own and appeared to not make independent decisions. Low Employee Retention
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Banning City Manager must, per Banning Municipal Code Article 2.08.110, require department heads to notify him or her of any unauthorized contact by any City Council member. Low Employee Retention
F3:
One Council Member’s inappropriate actions have contributed to low employee retention and difficulty in filling open positions with qualified personnel. An acting city manager, a department head, and several other city employees left city employment following continuous harassment. The word “bully” was frequently used to describe this Council Member’s interactions with former and current city employees. This hostile work environment has resulted in litigation settlements from the City of Banning which totaled nearly two million dollars ($2,000,000).
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Banning City Council Members must strive to eliminate such bullying behavior and implement specific policies and procedures for disciplinary actions against any city council member or department head who violates city procedures or ordinances. The City Council should publically censure any of it members who violate standards of civil and ethical conduct, including violations of laws and municipal codes. They must govern themselves in a professional manner. SUMMARY The Banning Municipal Code and Ordinances are clear on how the City Council and City Manager are expected to interact. The people of Banning deserve and expect the proper function and operation of their city government. The City Council and City Manager must aspire and strive toward collaboration and professionalism in order to govern effectively. The dynamics of solid city government demand cooperation, civility and trust. GOALS The citizens of Banning should: Hold the City Council accountable to high standards and expectations Observe, attend and voice their concerns at City Council public meetings Vote for City Council members who inspire confidence and will perform their duties according to laws and policies Run for elected office to open up a wider range of candidates File a written complaint regarding any city agency with the appropriate department Report Issued: 06/18/2019 Report Public: 06/21/2019 Response Due: 09/23/2019 4
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
The 2018 – 2019 RCCGJ investigation discovered recent incidents where one City Council Member frequently circumvented the authority of the City Manager and dealt directly with department heads and city employees. In one example, a Council Member directed a police officer to open a criminal investigation into the water use activities of a private citizen. Council Member’s Independent Actions
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
City Council Members must follow Article 2.08.110 of the Banning Municipal Code which stipulates no council member has the authority to act alone without the concurrence of a council quorum and an actionable vote. The city attorney and/or designated legal expert should instruct City Council Members of their duties and responsibilities. Council Member’s Independent Actions
F2:
One Council Member’s actions created a destructive culture within the city government. Interviews of Banning employees revealed that several city employees resigned from city employment in response to improper, unprofessional and inappropriate contact and actions by this Council Member. Another such action was directing an Interim Police Chief on the day-to-day functions in the police department. This Interim Police Chief regularly adopted these directions as his own and appeared to not make independent decisions. Low Employee Retention
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Banning City Manager must, per Banning Municipal Code Article 2.08.110, require department heads to notify him or her of any unauthorized contact by any City Council member. Low Employee Retention
F3:
One Council Member’s inappropriate actions have contributed to low employee retention and difficulty in filling open positions with qualified personnel. An acting city manager, a department head, and several other city employees left city employment following continuous harassment. The word “bully” was frequently used to describe this Council Member’s interactions with former and current city employees. This hostile work environment has resulted in litigation settlements from the City of Banning which totaled nearly two million dollars ($2,000,000).
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Banning City Council Members must strive to eliminate such bullying behavior and implement specific policies and procedures for disciplinary actions against any city council member or department head who violates city procedures or ordinances. The City Council should publically censure any of it members who violate standards of civil and ethical conduct, including violations of laws and municipal codes. They must govern themselves in a professional manner. SUMMARY The Banning Municipal Code and Ordinances are clear on how the City Council and City Manager are expected to interact. The people of Banning deserve and expect the proper function and operation of their city government. The City Council and City Manager must aspire and strive toward collaboration and professionalism in order to govern effectively. The dynamics of solid city government demand cooperation, civility and trust. GOALS The citizens of Banning should: Hold the City Council accountable to high standards and expectations Observe, attend and voice their concerns at City Council public meetings Vote for City Council members who inspire confidence and will perform their duties according to laws and policies Run for elected office to open up a wider range of candidates File a written complaint regarding any city agency with the appropriate department Report Issued: 06/18/2019 Report Public: 06/21/2019 Response Due: 09/23/2019 4
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
In their audit, FCMAT found that even though the CVUSD former Superintendent had a $700 a month allowance for automobile expenses, he used the district fuel card 777 times in just over a three year period. These transactions accounted for over 11,500 gallons of fuel valued at $39,156.45. It was discovered that the Superintendent was fueling multiple personal vehicles, sometimes several times a day, using these vehicles for family excursions and other personal uses. The auditors concluded that the lack of specificity in the 2011 contract as to what constituted personal matters or reasonable amounts, contributed to the abusive and unethical use of the fuel card by the Superintendent. Overlooked Evaluations
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
School District Boards must exercise their fiduciary duties when approving contracts pertaining to district employees authorized to use a district-issued credit card for fuel or other purchases. Such contracts, when reviewed by district counsel, must eliminate any subjective or ambiguous language and provide specific boundaries and parameters as to what is permissible to be charged to the credit card. Overlooked Evaluations
F2:
The former Superintendent’s contracts with CVUSD, 2011, 2014 and 2015, specify in Section 8 that the Board will provide the Superintendent with an annual evaluation no later than May 31st of each year. They shall meet quarterly to review and offer feedback as to progress in meeting mutually agreed upon goals. The Board and Superintendent were to reach an agreement as to the format of the evaluation. It is also stated that the Superintendent had the responsibility to place the subject of his evaluation on the Board’s agenda. Though he served for over five years, the Superintendent received only one evaluation and that encompassed the school year of 2011-2012. For the following five years, no formal evaluation occurred. When the Superintendent was asked by the FCMAT auditors as to why no evaluations were performed, he stated when he brought up the matter, the board president simply would say “forget about it, you are doing a great job.” In an interview, one board member stated that due to this failure, the Board essentially relinquished any oversight control over the Superintendent’s actions. Both the Board and the Superintendent failed to meet their contractual obligation regarding evaluations thus causing the entire system of internal controls to suffer. CVUSD Board Policy 2140 outlines the specific steps to be taken to complete an evaluation of the Superintendent, but fails to address when the evaluation is to take place and who has the obligation to put it on the Board’s agenda. 4
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The current Superintendent’s contract states: “The Board and Superintendent shall annually agree upon performance goals and objectives that shall serve as a basis for an annual evaluation. Such goals and objectives shall be established no later than the first meeting of the Board in September of each year.” A specific date must be agreed upon and that date should appear both in the Board Policy and the Superintendent’s contract. A review of several other school district Superintendent’s contracts showed great specificity as to the actual dates when an evaluation would take place. This step is necessary in order to have a strong contract that ensures annual evaluations are conducted. Report Issued: 06/18/2019 Report Public: 06/21/2019 Response Due: 09/23/2019 5
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
In their audit, FCMAT found that even though the CVUSD former Superintendent had a $700 a month allowance for automobile expenses, he used the district fuel card 777 times in just over a three year period. These transactions accounted for over 11,500 gallons of fuel valued at $39,156.45. It was discovered that the Superintendent was fueling multiple personal vehicles, sometimes several times a day, using these vehicles for family excursions and other personal uses. The auditors concluded that the lack of specificity in the 2011 contract as to what constituted personal matters or reasonable amounts, contributed to the abusive and unethical use of the fuel card by the Superintendent. Overlooked Evaluations
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
School District Boards must exercise their fiduciary duties when approving contracts pertaining to district employees authorized to use a district-issued credit card for fuel or other purchases. Such contracts, when reviewed by district counsel, must eliminate any subjective or ambiguous language and provide specific boundaries and parameters as to what is permissible to be charged to the credit card. Overlooked Evaluations
F2:
The former Superintendent’s contracts with CVUSD, 2011, 2014 and 2015, specify in Section 8 that the Board will provide the Superintendent with an annual evaluation no later than May 31st of each year. They shall meet quarterly to review and offer feedback as to progress in meeting mutually agreed upon goals. The Board and Superintendent were to reach an agreement as to the format of the evaluation. It is also stated that the Superintendent had the responsibility to place the subject of his evaluation on the Board’s agenda. Though he served for over five years, the Superintendent received only one evaluation and that encompassed the school year of 2011-2012. For the following five years, no formal evaluation occurred. When the Superintendent was asked by the FCMAT auditors as to why no evaluations were performed, he stated when he brought up the matter, the board president simply would say “forget about it, you are doing a great job.” In an interview, one board member stated that due to this failure, the Board essentially relinquished any oversight control over the Superintendent’s actions. Both the Board and the Superintendent failed to meet their contractual obligation regarding evaluations thus causing the entire system of internal controls to suffer. CVUSD Board Policy 2140 outlines the specific steps to be taken to complete an evaluation of the Superintendent, but fails to address when the evaluation is to take place and who has the obligation to put it on the Board’s agenda. 4
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The current Superintendent’s contract states: “The Board and Superintendent shall annually agree upon performance goals and objectives that shall serve as a basis for an annual evaluation. Such goals and objectives shall be established no later than the first meeting of the Board in September of each year.” A specific date must be agreed upon and that date should appear both in the Board Policy and the Superintendent’s contract. A review of several other school district Superintendent’s contracts showed great specificity as to the actual dates when an evaluation would take place. This step is necessary in order to have a strong contract that ensures annual evaluations are conducted. Report Issued: 06/18/2019 Report Public: 06/21/2019 Response Due: 09/23/2019 5