San Bernardino County Grand Jury
2010-2011
From the annual report
The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.
📑 Year-End Report
The full consolidated volume; individual reports are listed below.
Individual reports (15)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
During the investigation into the CAC partnership, members of the Grand Jury heard many times the Children’s Assessment Center is a gift to our county and our children. Nationally there are approximately 180 Board Certified Pediatric Forensic Physicians and San Bernardino County is fortunate to have two such physicians currently and one additional physician soon to be certified. They work tirelessly, and fiercely, for the rights and safety of abused children. Clients of the Center are child victims of alleged abuse from birth to age 18 referred to the Assessment Center by Children and Family Services, a law enforcement agency, and/or the Family Law Court.
Related Recommendations (3)
R11-30:
Have Central Collections continue to track the effectiveness of the recommended fee increase to support future fee adjustments. (Finding 1)
R11-31:
Continue to seek funding and provide additional staffing for park maintenance personnel. (Finding 1)
R11-39:
In Rialto, install cameras and repair the gates. (Findings 1, 2, 3)
F2:
The Children’s Assessment Center is an important tool for the protection of suspected child victims of abuse from duplicative interviews for legal, medical, child protection, and clinical purposes. This streamlining of the process is shown in Attachments #1 and #2, which dramatically shows through the eyes of a child how the Assessment Center approach is less intrusive. The role of LLUMC and the forensic physicians is to medically evaluate the abuse. The role of CFS is to safeguard the children in an immediate crisis (e.g. removal from home, take to the CAC or the emergency room) and to provide recommendations for future steps to correct problems (e.g. parenting classes, nutritional classes, anger, and addiction management). It is the role of law enforcement to identify and deal with the perpetrator of the abuse. 2010-2011 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 40
Related Recommendations (5)
R11-26:
The Governing Board of the Children’s Assessment Center determine appropriate standards and policies to address differences in the role of each agency. (Finding 2)
R11-27:
The Executive Committee provide a good medium for discussion so that each agency is in agreement of the best course of action for the children. (Findings 2, 3)
R11-29:
Raise indigent defense fees for adults back to $300 for misdemeanors and $500 for felonies. (Finding 2)
R11-32:
San Bernardino Police Department to dissuade the homeless and transient populations from gathering in the parks. (Finding 2)
R11-36:
Establish a policy requiring implementation of any recommendation that was agreed to by a department. (Finding 2)
F3:
The CAC offers an opportunity for all parties to work together while gathering information, and provide a unified response to the family. Services at the Center include forensic interviews by CFS workers who have received specialized training in child forensic interviewing. Evidentiary medical exams are performed at a minimal cost by the three forensic pediatric specialists from the LLUMC. These forensic physicians also provide expert testimony in court. Written reports are provided regarding the outcomes of the interviews and medical appointments. Crisis intervention and referrals for counseling are provided to family members by a Victim Witness Advocate from the District Attorney office assigned to the Center. The Multidisciplinary Team (MDT) meetings discuss cases and the Child Death Review Team meets to discuss the cause of a death.
Related Recommendations (1)
R11-37:
All responses be approved by the appropriate department head. (Finding 3)
F4:
The relationship among the partners began to deteriorate in 2007. It became clear to the Grand Jury through statements we heard from enough sources there was dissension among CFS, the Center, and the partnership arrangement. With budgetary concerns in mind, CFS learned that it was not statutorily mandated to fund the CAC, and not mandated to request a forensic medical examination for a child believed to have been sexually or physically abused. Only law enforcement is required to seek a forensic medical examination of a sexual assault victim. The cost of such an examination is billed to the requesting law enforcement agency. After learning this information CFS discontinued the CAC Advisory Board, and no longer attended the MDT meetings. The partnership started to fall apart.
Related Recommendations (2)
R11-25:
The Governing Board of the Children’s Assessment Center take a pro- active role in resolving conflicts among the partner agencies so that they work together toward the well- being of the children. (Findings 4, 5)
R11-38:
Move the Rialto facility to a permanent building. (Finding 4)
F5:
The Grand Jury interviewed many individuals affiliated with the CAC. The following allegations were repeated by numerous witnesses:
• There seems to be a progressive change for the worse in the attitude of Children and Family Services towards the Children’s Assessment Center. There is a lack of communication and cooperation. CFS went from being a partner to being an overseer trying to control all the functions at the Center. 2010-2011 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 41
• The Social Workers who bring cases to the CAC are re-active instead of pro-active. They have a fundamental misunderstanding of the cases. They have protocol but don’t follow it. There is confusion as to how to work a case. Morale is low.
• CFS hides behind a screen of confidentiality, and does not want to give out any information. Pertinent information was needed by the Child Death Review Team (CDRT) to determine the cause of death of a child. The team was asked to get a subpoena for the information. CFS refused to let the Grand Jury review even redacted data. We requested statistics and were given a bunch of meaningless numbers. The information that corresponded with the numbers was confidential and not provided. Members of the Grand Jury were invited to attend a meeting of the Child Death Review Team. There they signed a confidentiality statement. Before the next meeting of the CDRT the Grand Jury was “uninvited” by some members because of confidentiality reasons.
• The mission at CFS is blurred. They appear to have placed a higher priority on budget and lawsuits. Children and Family Services wrote a Request for Proposal (RFP) wanting to sever the partnership with Loma Linda stating it was too expensive. They asked for bids from other medical facilities; one of which was Arrowhead Regional Medical Center (ARMC). A physician from ARMC was brought to tour the Children’s Assessment Center facility in order to possibly assume the medical services. However, Loma Linda University Medical Center is the only Children’s Hospital with forensic pediatricians in the Inland Empire. ARMC could not find anyone who was qualified. No other facility had personnel with the expertise or could compete financially with the minimal cost of bringing a child to the Assessment center.
F6:
There is little accountability for Children and Family Services to an outside authority. There is no transparency. Riverside County CFS had an outside audit 2010-2011 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 42
Related Recommendations (1)
R11-28:
Retain a firm with the qualifications and expertise such as the Child Welfare League of America to perform an audit of Children and Family Services to ensure that mechanisms are in place for oversight of the division. (Finding 6)
F7:
In order to maintain the Center, and the partnership, a new protocol was written by Dr. Clare Sheridan, one of the Forensic Pediatricians from Loma Linda. She suggested two new committees; a Governing Board to meet regularly to decide policy and procedure for the Assessment Center, and an Executive Committee for the month to month management of the Center with Dr. Sheridan as the Chair. The Sheriff’s Department has assumed the financial contract responsibility for the medical examinations related to law enforcement cases but it has not been formalized yet. The Grand Jury commends CEO, Greg Devereaux for becoming personally involved with supporting the work of the Children’s Assessment Center.
Related Recommendations (1)
R11-41:
In Victorville, provide every employee an escort to their vehicle. (Finding 7)
F8:
The City of Hesperia has a Protective Plant Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 16.24) which addresses the removal and relocation of Joshua Trees. Developers are required to prepare a Protection Plan for Plants which covers Joshua Trees and other species, after which a permit is issued for grading purposes. The Community Development Department (Building & Safety and Planning Division) inspects for compliance. Only one case of non-compliance was reported for the period of 2006 through 2010. A citation was issued and a fine paid for the violation.
Related Recommendations (1)
R11-42:
In Victorville, repair or replace broken workstations and chairs. (Finding 8)
F9:
The City of Twenty-nine Palms did not respond to the Grand Jury’s request.
Additional Recommendations
11
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Internal Controls .................................................................................................... 1-1
R2:
Construction Management ..................................................................................... 2-1
R3:
Equipment Acquisition .......................................................................................... 3-1
R4:
Lawsuit Settlement ................................................................................................ 4-1
R5:
Contractor Relations .............................................................................................. 5-1
R6:
The master lease agreement, including the responsibilities of the lessee (e.g., operations and development, airport promotion, etc.) and compliance with lease terms. California Penal Code Section 925 states, “The grand jury shall investigate and report on the operations, accounts, and records of the officers, departments, or functions of the county including those operations, accounts, and records of any special legislative district or other district in the county created pursuant to state law for which the officers of the county are serving in their ex officio capacity as officers of the districts.” Introduction
R7:
11-42 In Victorville, repair or replace broken workstations and chairs. (Finding
R21:
Email documentation indicates that as late as July 28, 2008, NAMS personnel were still trying to actively occupy Hangar 695. Extent of Damages It is . . . unfortunate that SBD was forced to terminate this agreement for the use of the B- 727aircraft and NAMS to furlough 24 maintenance employees specifically hired by NAMS for this assignment. This misrepresentation and concealment has caused severe monetary damages to both NAMS and SBD since NAMS is unable to procure space to service the Aircraft, and subsequently, SBD has been compelled to cancel the Aircraft Lease. The actual lease with the DNC or documentation of payroll and other incidental cost for NAMS workers were never produced. Agreement for Monetary Settlement SBIAA will meet all of its legal obligations to NAMS and to SBD, as they may be determined. By its claim, NAMS seeks damages of not less than $750.000 . . . By its claim, SBD seeks damages of not less than $1,000,000. Evidence of losses never validated or quantified.
R11-33:
The County Code Enforcement Division staffing of code enforcement officers should be increased to adequately respond to the number of complaints. (Finding 2, 3 – Joshua Trees; Finding 1 – Illegal Dumping; Findings 1, 3 - Graffiti)
R11-34:
The County Land Use Department develop and maintain, for its Code Enforcement Division, a computerized system to properly document, categorize and retrieve information about county code violations by type. (Finding 5 – Joshua Trees; Finding 4 - Graffiti)
R11-35:
A uniform data exchange system be established between the county and the cities of Victorville, Hesperia, and the Town of Apple Valley in order to provide a more comprehensive picture of how laws are applied in County and local jurisdictions. (Findings 6, 7, 8 - Joshua Trees; Finding 2 - Graffiti)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
Not all entities responded to the Grand Jury letters.
F2:
There is no statutory requirement or any policy or procedure that mandates that Grand Jury recommendations be implemented.
Related Recommendations (1)
R11-36:
Establish a policy requiring implementation of any recommendation that was agreed to by a department. (Finding 2) 60
F3:
A response from a department was submitted by someone not from that department.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3:
Responding Agency Recommendations Date Due Board of Supervisors 11-36, 11-37 August 30, 2011 61
R11-37:
All responses be approved by the appropriate department head. (Finding 3)
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
The magnetic lock on the gate was malfunctioning.
Related Recommendations (1)
R11-39:
In Rialto, install cameras and repair the gates. (Findings 1, 2, 3) 67
F2:
There were no cameras on site.
F3:
The fence did have an alarm but it was disconnected years ago because animals were setting it off.
F4:
The building would not withstand a natural disaster. Victorville
Related Recommendations (1)
R11-38:
Move the Rialto facility to a permanent building. (Finding 4)
F5:
The Victorville Center is attached to the courthouse.
F6:
There were no working cameras.
F7:
The door that is the employee’s entrance at the 911 call center is close to the door used to release inmates. The employees have been accosted in the parking lot by these inmates asking for money or a ride.
Related Recommendations (2)
R7:
11-42 In Victorville, repair or replace broken workstations and chairs. (Finding
R11-41:
In Victorville, provide every employee an escort to their vehicle. (Finding 7)
F8:
The dispatch room is overcrowded and some of the work stations needed repair. Some keyboards were being propped up with pieces of wood and chairs were broken.
Related Recommendations (2)
R8:
Responding Agency Recommendations Date Due Board of Supervisors 11-38 through 11-42 August 30, 2011 68 A copy of this report, or more information on the San Bernardino County Grand Jury, may be obtained by contacting: San Bernardino County Grand Jury San Bernardino Courthouse, Room 200 351 North Arrowhead Avenue San Bernardino, CA 92415-0243 (909) 387-3820 mvartanian@sb-court.org
R11-42:
In Victorville, repair or replace broken workstations and chairs. (Finding 8)
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
The benefit package should not be more than the salary for the BOS. (See Graph #1) Graph #1: Annual Salaries and Benefits Charts:
F2:
Health Insurance Coverage varies for the three supervisors who participate in the program. The three amounts are $6,569.00, $19,810.00 and $30,720.00.
Related Recommendations (2)
R11-01:
The Board of Supervisors car allowance follows the Federal guidelines (presently $.51 per mile). (Finding 2)
R11-02:
The Chief Executive Officer continue his efforts to adjust the salary and benefit ratio to be competitive. (Findings 2, 3)
F3:
The retirement plans paid for all of the BOS are excessive when compared to retirement plans of other counties. One supervisor's retirement benefits exceed $85,000. Members of the Board of Supervisors are enrolled in more retirement plans than the compared counties. (See Graph #2)
F4:
The BOS benefit packages range from the highest (First District) $158,403.00 to the lowest (Third District) $99,304.00. (See Graph #2) 3 Graph #2: Detailed Salaries and Benefits Detail First District Second District Third District Fourth District Fifth District Salary $150,197.00 $150,197.00 $150,197.00 $150,197.00 $150,197.00 401K $12,016.00 $12,016.00 $12,016.00 $12,016.00 $12,016.00 401a $16,500.00 $7,510.00 $7,510.00 $7,510.00 $16,500.00 457b $1,502.00 $1,502.00 $1,502.00 $1,502.00 $1,502.00 Flexible Benefit Plan $5,980.00 $4,200.00 $5,980.00 $4,200.00 $5,980.00 Medical Reimbursement Account $1,040.00 $1,040.00 $1,040.00 $520.00 $1,040.00 Life Insurance County Paid $52.00 $52.00 $52.00 $52.00 $52.00 Variable Universal Life $249.00 $229.00 $229.00 $1,579.00 $1,047.00 Retirement Medical Trust $2,628.00 $4,130.00 $4,130.00 $4,130.00 $1,502.00 Workers Comp $1,030.00 $967.00 $900.00 $986.00 $986.00 Medicare $2,669.00 $2,508.00 $2,277.00 $2,517.00 $2,523.00 Vision $147.00 $147.00 $147.00 $147.00 $147.00 Long Term Disability $500.00 $500.00 $500.00 $500.00 $500.00 Health Insurance Coverage $30,720.00 $0.00 $6,569.00 $0.00 $19,810.00 Retirement Employer Pick Up $18,403.00 $18,090.00 $14,825.00 $20,826.00 $21,897.00 Retirement Employer Pick Up Cash $6,168.00 $5,580.00 $8,367.00 $2,879.00 $1,861.00 Survivor Benefit $26.00 $26.00 $26.00 $26.00 $26.00 Retirement Employee General $34,473.00 $32,096.00 $30,834.00 $32,189.00 $32,329.00 Automobile Allowance $21,900.00 $11,400.00 $0.00 $14,600.00 $14,600.00 Cell Phone Allowance $2,400.00 $2,400.00 $2,400.00 $2,400.00 $2,400.00 TOTAL $308,600.00 $254,590.00 $249,501.00 $258,776.00 $286,915.00
F5:
When compared to other counties, the car allowance is excessive. All three counties used to make comparisons, San Diego, Ventura and Riverside, showed that car allowances were the same for all supervisors. (See Graph #3) Graph #3: Annual Car Allowance District San Ventura Riverside San Diego Bernardino County County County County First $21,900 $4,500 $.51 per mile* $8,820 Second $11,400 Third Car provided Fourth $14,600 Fifth $14,600 *At $.51 per mile, the $4,500 for Ventura computes to 8,823 miles and San Diego’s $8,820 computes to 17,294 miles 4
Findings & Recommendations
10 findings
F1:
In the 2003-2004 Grand Jury report, the Audit/Fiscal Committee addressed the issue of the outdated Financial Management System the county was using (AMS Advantage version 2.1.1), and the problems that will occur if the system was not upgraded. The Grand Jury made this recommendation to the Auditor/Controller- Recorder (ACR) who, in response to the recommendation, was in agreement. (See Attachment #1) In the interviews the Grand jury conducted with the ACR and staff members, there was no opposition to upgrading the system; and in fact, in the years following the report, there were some efforts to upgrade or replace the system. These efforts fell short of the mark due to miscommunications between departments, and budget restraints. The bottom line is, seven years later, the county is still using AMS Advantage version 2.1.1 as its Financial Management System. The Grand Jury is very aware of budgetary problems plaguing the entire nation, from the smallest of villages to the federal level. The county efficiently managing its assets should be very high on its list of priorities. 9
Related Recommendations (4)
R11-03:
Acquire the AMS Advantage Version 4.0 System (or the most current version) to upgrade the Financial Management System; and put a procedure in place that mandates periodic updating. (Finding 1)
R11-04:
With the acquisition of a new computer system comes the need for additional technical support. Insure employees have the necessary training in order to best operate, and support, the new system. (Finding 1)
R11-05:
As a courtesy, the BOS provide the Grand Jury copies of all financial audits completed by state agencies including copies of all replies. (Findings 1, 2)
R11-06:
The Board of Supervisors (BOS) increase the authority and scope of the Audit Committee by empowering it to see that the procedures for accounting 21 for funds in federally funded grants is implemented according to the concurrence, agreements, and promises of the Controller’s Office. (Finding 1)
F2:
The Grand Jury made an appointment with the Assessor to discuss the nine areas the BOE had pointed out for improvement. We also inquired of the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) as to which office in the county kept a log of the state audits. We were informed that no one is assigned that task because the state audits are random and timing cannot be anticipated.
Related Recommendations (3)
R1:
11-07 The Board of Supervisors authorize the Audit Committee to look into the internal controls procedures of all County departments, and other entities for which the BOS sits as the governing body such as the Redevelopment Agency, to determine if upgraded internal controls would benefit these accounting centers. Consideration should be given to implementing uniform standards in all agencies and departments irrespective of whether they are subject to mandated or non-mandated audits. (Finding 2) 11-08 That the BOS authorize the Audit Committee to monitor the property tax allocation schedules of the Property Tax Division in the Treasurer-Tax Collectors Office as this relates to property tax increment payments to or from cities, special districts or redevelopment agencies; and that this monitoring of payments to/from cities or agencies is done each year irrespective of when the State of California conducts its audits. (Finding 2) 11-09 The Board of Supervisors consult with appropriate State Agencies to determine if the combination of the functions of Treasurer-Tax Collector and the Auditor-Controller is compatible with standards of good governance and fiduciary responsibility. A ruling from the State Attorney General be requested to determine if the County violated voter rights when it eliminated the elected office of Treasurer-Tax Collector when it became vacant and subsequently combined the duties of that office with another elected office which appears to create a conflict of interest. (Finding 3) 11-10 The use of the term “Independent Auditor” be reserved for only those audits done by outside firms or agencies and not be used by employees of the county when auditing elements of the County financial systems. (Finding 4) 22 11-11 The San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors enhance and improve the quality, efficiency, and performance of the internal audit function by using their authority to hire a Chief Audit Executive as a Civil Service employee. The independence of the internal audit function will enhance the accountability of the Chief Audit Executive in performing his/her internal financial, compliance, and performance audits. This Chief Audit Executive is to report directly to the San Bernardino County Chief Executive Officer (CEO) for administrative matters and to seek guidance on the scope and performance of the audit function from the Audit Committee. This chain of responsibility is different from the OC model but as we point out elsewhere in this report, in San Bernardino County there already is in place an Audit Committee that reports to the Board of Supervisors. (Finding 5) 11-12 Audit all County Departments and Special Districts every year. (Finding 6) 11-13 The Chief Deputy Auditor report to the County CEO for administrative issues. (Finding 7) 11-14 The Chief Deputy Auditor report to the Audit Committee to inform them of the issues coming up on the audit and look to them for direction and accountability. (Finding 8) 11-15 The County Board of Supervisors extend an invitation to each year’s sitting Grand Jury to attend the quarterly meetings of the Audit Committee. (Finding 10) Responding Agency Recommendations Date Due Board of Supervisors 11-06 through 11-09 August 30, 2011 11-11, 11-14, 11-15 Auditor/Controller-Treasurer 11-10, 11-12 August 30, 2011 Chief Executive Officer 11-13 September 30, 2011 23
R11-07:
The Board of Supervisors authorize the Audit Committee to look into the internal controls procedures of all County departments, and other entities for which the BOS sits as the governing body such as the Redevelopment Agency, to determine if upgraded internal controls would benefit these accounting centers. Consideration should be given to implementing uniform standards in all agencies and departments irrespective of whether they are subject to mandated or non-mandated audits. (Finding 2)
R11-08:
That the BOS authorize the Audit Committee to monitor the property tax allocation schedules of the Property Tax Division in the Treasurer-Tax Collectors Office as this relates to property tax increment payments to or from cities, special districts or redevelopment agencies; and that this monitoring of payments to/from cities or agencies is done each year irrespective of when the State of California conducts its audits. (Finding 2)
F3:
The standards for conducting government internal audits are set by the US Government Accounting Office (GAO) and the Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA). GAO and IIA state that the combination of auditing and controllership responsibilities impair the independence of the audit function and as such disqualify any resulting audit report as not meeting the independence and objectivity standards in fact or appearance. In San Bernardino County, the chief financial officer is the Auditor-Controller. Thus the combination of these two functions does not meet this standard of independence and objectivity. IAS staff agrees that this is a de facto conflict. Statements from more than one member of the auditing staff, reporting on Treasurer’s Investments as of September 30, 2009 and December 31, 2009, stated that “On February 25, 2010 the Board of Supervisors consolidated the elected offices of the Treasurer-Tax Collector and the Auditor-Controller/Recorder. As a result, the auditor, auditee, and subject matter of this report are within the same department”. These reports with this wording were distributed to both the Board of Supervisors and the Grand Jury with apparently no alarm expressed of the conflict the BOS created by allowing the consolidation after the prior Treasurer-Tax Collector vacated his elected office and an elected position was eliminated by assigning the tasks of Treasurer/Tax Collector to the elected position of Auditor-Controller/Recorder. The Grand Jury however, finds this situation problematic.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
11-07 The Board of Supervisors authorize the Audit Committee to look into the internal controls procedures of all County departments, and other entities for which the BOS sits as the governing body such as the Redevelopment Agency, to determine if upgraded internal controls would benefit these accounting centers. Consideration should be given to implementing uniform standards in all agencies and departments irrespective of whether they are subject to mandated or non-mandated audits. (Finding 2) 11-08 That the BOS authorize the Audit Committee to monitor the property tax allocation schedules of the Property Tax Division in the Treasurer-Tax Collectors Office as this relates to property tax increment payments to or from cities, special districts or redevelopment agencies; and that this monitoring of payments to/from cities or agencies is done each year irrespective of when the State of California conducts its audits. (Finding 2) 11-09 The Board of Supervisors consult with appropriate State Agencies to determine if the combination of the functions of Treasurer-Tax Collector and the Auditor-Controller is compatible with standards of good governance and fiduciary responsibility. A ruling from the State Attorney General be requested to determine if the County violated voter rights when it eliminated the elected office of Treasurer-Tax Collector when it became vacant and subsequently combined the duties of that office with another elected office which appears to create a conflict of interest. (Finding 3) 11-10 The use of the term “Independent Auditor” be reserved for only those audits done by outside firms or agencies and not be used by employees of the county when auditing elements of the County financial systems. (Finding 4) 22 11-11 The San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors enhance and improve the quality, efficiency, and performance of the internal audit function by using their authority to hire a Chief Audit Executive as a Civil Service employee. The independence of the internal audit function will enhance the accountability of the Chief Audit Executive in performing his/her internal financial, compliance, and performance audits. This Chief Audit Executive is to report directly to the San Bernardino County Chief Executive Officer (CEO) for administrative matters and to seek guidance on the scope and performance of the audit function from the Audit Committee. This chain of responsibility is different from the OC model but as we point out elsewhere in this report, in San Bernardino County there already is in place an Audit Committee that reports to the Board of Supervisors. (Finding 5) 11-12 Audit all County Departments and Special Districts every year. (Finding 6) 11-13 The Chief Deputy Auditor report to the County CEO for administrative issues. (Finding 7) 11-14 The Chief Deputy Auditor report to the Audit Committee to inform them of the issues coming up on the audit and look to them for direction and accountability. (Finding 8) 11-15 The County Board of Supervisors extend an invitation to each year’s sitting Grand Jury to attend the quarterly meetings of the Audit Committee. (Finding 10) Responding Agency Recommendations Date Due Board of Supervisors 11-06 through 11-09 August 30, 2011 11-11, 11-14, 11-15 Auditor/Controller-Treasurer 11-10, 11-12 August 30, 2011 Chief Executive Officer 11-13 September 30, 2011 23
R11-09:
The Board of Supervisors consult with appropriate State Agencies to determine if the combination of the functions of Treasurer-Tax Collector and the Auditor-Controller is compatible with standards of good governance and fiduciary responsibility. A ruling from the State Attorney General be requested to determine if the County violated voter rights when it eliminated the elected office of Treasurer-Tax Collector when it became vacant and subsequently combined the duties of that office with another elected office which appears to create a conflict of interest. (Finding 3)
F4:
According to our investigation the IAS performs financial statement audits to develop staff and increase the reliability of the County’s audited financial statements. In two situations internal audits were performed by employees in the 16 office of the Auditor/Controller-Recorder who hold Certified Public Accounting (CPA) credentials; these were printed on county letterhead stating that the audit is an “Independent Auditor’s Report.” On the face of it, this is misleading. An employee has duties to his employer and is directed by the employer; but an independent auditor cannot be obligated in any manner to the client or independence is lost. The words “Independent Auditor’s Report” do not per se make the auditor independent. The Grand Jury commends the IAS department for using an employee with expertise as a CPA to develop staff but there is potential here for misunderstanding of independent functions.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
11-07 The Board of Supervisors authorize the Audit Committee to look into the internal controls procedures of all County departments, and other entities for which the BOS sits as the governing body such as the Redevelopment Agency, to determine if upgraded internal controls would benefit these accounting centers. Consideration should be given to implementing uniform standards in all agencies and departments irrespective of whether they are subject to mandated or non-mandated audits. (Finding 2) 11-08 That the BOS authorize the Audit Committee to monitor the property tax allocation schedules of the Property Tax Division in the Treasurer-Tax Collectors Office as this relates to property tax increment payments to or from cities, special districts or redevelopment agencies; and that this monitoring of payments to/from cities or agencies is done each year irrespective of when the State of California conducts its audits. (Finding 2) 11-09 The Board of Supervisors consult with appropriate State Agencies to determine if the combination of the functions of Treasurer-Tax Collector and the Auditor-Controller is compatible with standards of good governance and fiduciary responsibility. A ruling from the State Attorney General be requested to determine if the County violated voter rights when it eliminated the elected office of Treasurer-Tax Collector when it became vacant and subsequently combined the duties of that office with another elected office which appears to create a conflict of interest. (Finding 3) 11-10 The use of the term “Independent Auditor” be reserved for only those audits done by outside firms or agencies and not be used by employees of the county when auditing elements of the County financial systems. (Finding 4) 22 11-11 The San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors enhance and improve the quality, efficiency, and performance of the internal audit function by using their authority to hire a Chief Audit Executive as a Civil Service employee. The independence of the internal audit function will enhance the accountability of the Chief Audit Executive in performing his/her internal financial, compliance, and performance audits. This Chief Audit Executive is to report directly to the San Bernardino County Chief Executive Officer (CEO) for administrative matters and to seek guidance on the scope and performance of the audit function from the Audit Committee. This chain of responsibility is different from the OC model but as we point out elsewhere in this report, in San Bernardino County there already is in place an Audit Committee that reports to the Board of Supervisors. (Finding 5) 11-12 Audit all County Departments and Special Districts every year. (Finding 6) 11-13 The Chief Deputy Auditor report to the County CEO for administrative issues. (Finding 7) 11-14 The Chief Deputy Auditor report to the Audit Committee to inform them of the issues coming up on the audit and look to them for direction and accountability. (Finding 8) 11-15 The County Board of Supervisors extend an invitation to each year’s sitting Grand Jury to attend the quarterly meetings of the Audit Committee. (Finding 10) Responding Agency Recommendations Date Due Board of Supervisors 11-06 through 11-09 August 30, 2011 11-11, 11-14, 11-15 Auditor/Controller-Treasurer 11-10, 11-12 August 30, 2011 Chief Executive Officer 11-13 September 30, 2011 23
R11-10:
The use of the term “Independent Auditor” be reserved for only those audits done by outside firms or agencies and not be used by employees of the county when auditing elements of the County financial systems. (Finding 4) 22
F5:
Our research of the organization of internal audit departments in other California counties shows that in Ventura and Riverside Counties the internal auditor reports to the Auditor-Controller as we do in San Bernardino County. Twenty-four of the fifty- eight California Counties have combined Assessor-Recorder’s, and at least 10 Counties including Sacramento, Fresno and Santa Clara have combined Auditor- Controller/Treasurer/Tax Collector, functions. It is notable that the Grand Jury found no county where as many important positions are held concurrently by one person as is the case with the San Bernardino County Auditor-Controller/Treasurer/Tax Collector/ and County Clerk. The combining of tasks occurred on the February 25, 2010 consolidation when the offices of Auditor- Controller/Recorder and Treasurer/Tax Collector were made into a single office. While the combination of offices is allowable under Government Code §24300, the Grand Jury finds, in practice, in San Bernardino County the Controller’s Office, not the Auditor’s Office, does the risk assessment that determines which departments are to be audited. This chain of authority may not have been anticipated when the consolidation was deemed to be beneficial to the County. San Bernardino County is not out of the norm in combining the Controller/Auditor function. However, we are not the first Grand Jury to point out the inherent problems in this and to recommend a separation of the Auditor’s function from the 17 Controller’s function. Orange County (OC) has organized an Internal Audit Department that reports directly to the Board of Supervisors and is connected to the Controller’s function. Currently the OC Director of Internal Audit is a CPA and Certified Auditor with numerous professional awards. The recommendation to have the OC top internal auditor removed from the controller’s function came from the 2007-2008 Orange County Grand Jury. That Grand Jury stated that they wanted to ensure the independence of the internal audit function from the direct influence of management. They understood the difficulty of auditing the boss. To accomplish this goal, the OC Grand Jury asked the Board of Supervisors to exercise their authority in California Government Code §25250 (governing financial powers), and §26881, and §26883 (governing clerks and county controllers) for authority to determine who shall conduct biennials audits of County Officers and who shall perform internal audits. Their research concluded that they could reassign internal audit responsibilities to a separate Internal Audit Department that would conduct financial, compliance, and performance audits of all county departments. The San Bernardino County Grand Jury finds that the OC method of separation of the Controller’s function from the Auditor’s function has merit. In OC, the BOS chose to have the head of the Internal Audit Department report directly to them.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
11-07 The Board of Supervisors authorize the Audit Committee to look into the internal controls procedures of all County departments, and other entities for which the BOS sits as the governing body such as the Redevelopment Agency, to determine if upgraded internal controls would benefit these accounting centers. Consideration should be given to implementing uniform standards in all agencies and departments irrespective of whether they are subject to mandated or non-mandated audits. (Finding 2) 11-08 That the BOS authorize the Audit Committee to monitor the property tax allocation schedules of the Property Tax Division in the Treasurer-Tax Collectors Office as this relates to property tax increment payments to or from cities, special districts or redevelopment agencies; and that this monitoring of payments to/from cities or agencies is done each year irrespective of when the State of California conducts its audits. (Finding 2) 11-09 The Board of Supervisors consult with appropriate State Agencies to determine if the combination of the functions of Treasurer-Tax Collector and the Auditor-Controller is compatible with standards of good governance and fiduciary responsibility. A ruling from the State Attorney General be requested to determine if the County violated voter rights when it eliminated the elected office of Treasurer-Tax Collector when it became vacant and subsequently combined the duties of that office with another elected office which appears to create a conflict of interest. (Finding 3) 11-10 The use of the term “Independent Auditor” be reserved for only those audits done by outside firms or agencies and not be used by employees of the county when auditing elements of the County financial systems. (Finding 4) 22 11-11 The San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors enhance and improve the quality, efficiency, and performance of the internal audit function by using their authority to hire a Chief Audit Executive as a Civil Service employee. The independence of the internal audit function will enhance the accountability of the Chief Audit Executive in performing his/her internal financial, compliance, and performance audits. This Chief Audit Executive is to report directly to the San Bernardino County Chief Executive Officer (CEO) for administrative matters and to seek guidance on the scope and performance of the audit function from the Audit Committee. This chain of responsibility is different from the OC model but as we point out elsewhere in this report, in San Bernardino County there already is in place an Audit Committee that reports to the Board of Supervisors. (Finding 5) 11-12 Audit all County Departments and Special Districts every year. (Finding 6) 11-13 The Chief Deputy Auditor report to the County CEO for administrative issues. (Finding 7) 11-14 The Chief Deputy Auditor report to the Audit Committee to inform them of the issues coming up on the audit and look to them for direction and accountability. (Finding 8) 11-15 The County Board of Supervisors extend an invitation to each year’s sitting Grand Jury to attend the quarterly meetings of the Audit Committee. (Finding 10) Responding Agency Recommendations Date Due Board of Supervisors 11-06 through 11-09 August 30, 2011 11-11, 11-14, 11-15 Auditor/Controller-Treasurer 11-10, 11-12 August 30, 2011 Chief Executive Officer 11-13 September 30, 2011 23
R11-11:
The San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors enhance and improve the quality, efficiency, and performance of the internal audit function by using their authority to hire a Chief Audit Executive as a Civil Service employee. The independence of the internal audit function will enhance the accountability of the Chief Audit Executive in performing his/her internal financial, compliance, and performance audits. This Chief Audit Executive is to report directly to the San Bernardino County Chief Executive Officer (CEO) for administrative matters and to seek guidance on the scope and performance of the audit function from the Audit Committee. This chain of responsibility is different from the OC model but as we point out elsewhere in this report, in San Bernardino County there already is in place an Audit Committee that reports to the Board of Supervisors. (Finding 5)
F6:
Staff in the Internal Audits Section (IAS) was reduced. Three years ago, the IAS had twenty positions, with most of them filled. The current lack of funding impacts all aspects of county government in this era of post 2008 financial-melt-down; and hard decisions need to be made. When budget cuts are required, priorities must be set.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
11-07 The Board of Supervisors authorize the Audit Committee to look into the internal controls procedures of all County departments, and other entities for which the BOS sits as the governing body such as the Redevelopment Agency, to determine if upgraded internal controls would benefit these accounting centers. Consideration should be given to implementing uniform standards in all agencies and departments irrespective of whether they are subject to mandated or non-mandated audits. (Finding 2) 11-08 That the BOS authorize the Audit Committee to monitor the property tax allocation schedules of the Property Tax Division in the Treasurer-Tax Collectors Office as this relates to property tax increment payments to or from cities, special districts or redevelopment agencies; and that this monitoring of payments to/from cities or agencies is done each year irrespective of when the State of California conducts its audits. (Finding 2) 11-09 The Board of Supervisors consult with appropriate State Agencies to determine if the combination of the functions of Treasurer-Tax Collector and the Auditor-Controller is compatible with standards of good governance and fiduciary responsibility. A ruling from the State Attorney General be requested to determine if the County violated voter rights when it eliminated the elected office of Treasurer-Tax Collector when it became vacant and subsequently combined the duties of that office with another elected office which appears to create a conflict of interest. (Finding 3) 11-10 The use of the term “Independent Auditor” be reserved for only those audits done by outside firms or agencies and not be used by employees of the county when auditing elements of the County financial systems. (Finding 4) 22 11-11 The San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors enhance and improve the quality, efficiency, and performance of the internal audit function by using their authority to hire a Chief Audit Executive as a Civil Service employee. The independence of the internal audit function will enhance the accountability of the Chief Audit Executive in performing his/her internal financial, compliance, and performance audits. This Chief Audit Executive is to report directly to the San Bernardino County Chief Executive Officer (CEO) for administrative matters and to seek guidance on the scope and performance of the audit function from the Audit Committee. This chain of responsibility is different from the OC model but as we point out elsewhere in this report, in San Bernardino County there already is in place an Audit Committee that reports to the Board of Supervisors. (Finding 5) 11-12 Audit all County Departments and Special Districts every year. (Finding 6) 11-13 The Chief Deputy Auditor report to the County CEO for administrative issues. (Finding 7) 11-14 The Chief Deputy Auditor report to the Audit Committee to inform them of the issues coming up on the audit and look to them for direction and accountability. (Finding 8) 11-15 The County Board of Supervisors extend an invitation to each year’s sitting Grand Jury to attend the quarterly meetings of the Audit Committee. (Finding 10) Responding Agency Recommendations Date Due Board of Supervisors 11-06 through 11-09 August 30, 2011 11-11, 11-14, 11-15 Auditor/Controller-Treasurer 11-10, 11-12 August 30, 2011 Chief Executive Officer 11-13 September 30, 2011 23
R11-12:
Audit all County Departments and Special Districts every year. (Finding 6)
F7:
The IAS is currently operating with eleven full-time positions. The organizational chart specifically identifies a Chief Deputy Auditor with a secretary, a Management Services Manager, two Systems Accountant Level III, four Systems Accountant 18 Level II, one Accountant Level III, and one Accountant Level II. The positions for another Accountant Level II and a Public Service Employee are vacant due to recent promotions. The IIA’s International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing require that the chief audit executive (in San Bernardino this would be the Chief Deputy Auditor) report to a level within the organization that allows the internal audit activity to fulfill its responsibilities. To achieve necessary independence, best practices suggest the chief audit executive should report directly to the Audit Committee or its equivalent. For day to day administrative purposes, the chief audit executive should report to the senior executive of the organization.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
11-07 The Board of Supervisors authorize the Audit Committee to look into the internal controls procedures of all County departments, and other entities for which the BOS sits as the governing body such as the Redevelopment Agency, to determine if upgraded internal controls would benefit these accounting centers. Consideration should be given to implementing uniform standards in all agencies and departments irrespective of whether they are subject to mandated or non-mandated audits. (Finding 2) 11-08 That the BOS authorize the Audit Committee to monitor the property tax allocation schedules of the Property Tax Division in the Treasurer-Tax Collectors Office as this relates to property tax increment payments to or from cities, special districts or redevelopment agencies; and that this monitoring of payments to/from cities or agencies is done each year irrespective of when the State of California conducts its audits. (Finding 2) 11-09 The Board of Supervisors consult with appropriate State Agencies to determine if the combination of the functions of Treasurer-Tax Collector and the Auditor-Controller is compatible with standards of good governance and fiduciary responsibility. A ruling from the State Attorney General be requested to determine if the County violated voter rights when it eliminated the elected office of Treasurer-Tax Collector when it became vacant and subsequently combined the duties of that office with another elected office which appears to create a conflict of interest. (Finding 3) 11-10 The use of the term “Independent Auditor” be reserved for only those audits done by outside firms or agencies and not be used by employees of the county when auditing elements of the County financial systems. (Finding 4) 22 11-11 The San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors enhance and improve the quality, efficiency, and performance of the internal audit function by using their authority to hire a Chief Audit Executive as a Civil Service employee. The independence of the internal audit function will enhance the accountability of the Chief Audit Executive in performing his/her internal financial, compliance, and performance audits. This Chief Audit Executive is to report directly to the San Bernardino County Chief Executive Officer (CEO) for administrative matters and to seek guidance on the scope and performance of the audit function from the Audit Committee. This chain of responsibility is different from the OC model but as we point out elsewhere in this report, in San Bernardino County there already is in place an Audit Committee that reports to the Board of Supervisors. (Finding 5) 11-12 Audit all County Departments and Special Districts every year. (Finding 6) 11-13 The Chief Deputy Auditor report to the County CEO for administrative issues. (Finding 7) 11-14 The Chief Deputy Auditor report to the Audit Committee to inform them of the issues coming up on the audit and look to them for direction and accountability. (Finding 8) 11-15 The County Board of Supervisors extend an invitation to each year’s sitting Grand Jury to attend the quarterly meetings of the Audit Committee. (Finding 10) Responding Agency Recommendations Date Due Board of Supervisors 11-06 through 11-09 August 30, 2011 11-11, 11-14, 11-15 Auditor/Controller-Treasurer 11-10, 11-12 August 30, 2011 Chief Executive Officer 11-13 September 30, 2011 23
R11-13:
The Chief Deputy Auditor report to the County CEO for administrative issues. (Finding 7)
F8:
Although for FYE 2010 the IAS reviewed department accrual packages designated as high risk by the Controller’s Division General Accounting Section, some internal audits are not being performed. The Grand Jury received a letter from the office of the Auditor/Controller/Treasurer (ACT) explaining why there were no audit reports for the quarter ended September 30, 2010. We were reminded that, “As discussed during our recent meeting, this office has the responsibility to pay employees and vendors, produce financial reports, and perform audits. During times of reduced resources, the first three listed activities are deemed a higher priority. Internal audit activity is deferred much as fixed asset maintenance is for other entities in difficult economic environments.” The Grand Jury received a schedule of audits accomplished for FYE June 2008 and
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
11-07 The Board of Supervisors authorize the Audit Committee to look into the internal controls procedures of all County departments, and other entities for which the BOS sits as the governing body such as the Redevelopment Agency, to determine if upgraded internal controls would benefit these accounting centers. Consideration should be given to implementing uniform standards in all agencies and departments irrespective of whether they are subject to mandated or non-mandated audits. (Finding 2) 11-08 That the BOS authorize the Audit Committee to monitor the property tax allocation schedules of the Property Tax Division in the Treasurer-Tax Collectors Office as this relates to property tax increment payments to or from cities, special districts or redevelopment agencies; and that this monitoring of payments to/from cities or agencies is done each year irrespective of when the State of California conducts its audits. (Finding 2) 11-09 The Board of Supervisors consult with appropriate State Agencies to determine if the combination of the functions of Treasurer-Tax Collector and the Auditor-Controller is compatible with standards of good governance and fiduciary responsibility. A ruling from the State Attorney General be requested to determine if the County violated voter rights when it eliminated the elected office of Treasurer-Tax Collector when it became vacant and subsequently combined the duties of that office with another elected office which appears to create a conflict of interest. (Finding 3) 11-10 The use of the term “Independent Auditor” be reserved for only those audits done by outside firms or agencies and not be used by employees of the county when auditing elements of the County financial systems. (Finding 4) 22 11-11 The San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors enhance and improve the quality, efficiency, and performance of the internal audit function by using their authority to hire a Chief Audit Executive as a Civil Service employee. The independence of the internal audit function will enhance the accountability of the Chief Audit Executive in performing his/her internal financial, compliance, and performance audits. This Chief Audit Executive is to report directly to the San Bernardino County Chief Executive Officer (CEO) for administrative matters and to seek guidance on the scope and performance of the audit function from the Audit Committee. This chain of responsibility is different from the OC model but as we point out elsewhere in this report, in San Bernardino County there already is in place an Audit Committee that reports to the Board of Supervisors. (Finding 5) 11-12 Audit all County Departments and Special Districts every year. (Finding 6) 11-13 The Chief Deputy Auditor report to the County CEO for administrative issues. (Finding 7) 11-14 The Chief Deputy Auditor report to the Audit Committee to inform them of the issues coming up on the audit and look to them for direction and accountability. (Finding 8) 11-15 The County Board of Supervisors extend an invitation to each year’s sitting Grand Jury to attend the quarterly meetings of the Audit Committee. (Finding 10) Responding Agency Recommendations Date Due Board of Supervisors 11-06 through 11-09 August 30, 2011 11-11, 11-14, 11-15 Auditor/Controller-Treasurer 11-10, 11-12 August 30, 2011 Chief Executive Officer 11-13 September 30, 2011 23
R11-14:
The Chief Deputy Auditor report to the Audit Committee to inform them of the issues coming up on the audit and look to them for direction and accountability. (Finding 8)
F9:
According to the Auditor-Controller/Recorder/Treasurer/Tax Collector, and County Clerk, in the letter to the Board of Supervisors accompanying the CAFR we learned it is “the responsibility for both the accuracy of the presented data and the completeness and fairness of the presentation, including all disclosure, rests with the County.” Also in the CAFR, we know the role of the outside CPA firm does not include examining the effectiveness of internal control and it does not provide assurances on internal control. This demonstrates that the responsibility for the value of the data rests upon the client. In this case the County of San Bernardino. This conclusion is confirmed in the second page of the letter to the Board of Supervisors in the section under Internal Controls. “The County‘s internal accounting control system exists to provide reasonable, but not absolute, assurance that assets are safeguarded against loss or unauthorized disposition and to provide reliable records for preparing financial statements and maintaining accountability for assets.” According to the Audit Committee charter: Members of the Audit Committee are:
F10:
In San Bernardino County, the role of the Audit Committee is multifaceted. The Audit Committee receives and examines the Single Audit opinion by the outside independent auditing firm including the management letter. Members also review the audit activities of the Auditor-Controller’s office and review the accounting process that develops the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). In that role the Audit Committee would be opining about internal controls and the function of internal audits. The Audit Committee also reviews the Fraud Waste and Abuse hotline. Using an Audit Committee that meets at least on a quarterly basis was the
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
11-07 The Board of Supervisors authorize the Audit Committee to look into the internal controls procedures of all County departments, and other entities for which the BOS sits as the governing body such as the Redevelopment Agency, to determine if upgraded internal controls would benefit these accounting centers. Consideration should be given to implementing uniform standards in all agencies and departments irrespective of whether they are subject to mandated or non-mandated audits. (Finding 2) 11-08 That the BOS authorize the Audit Committee to monitor the property tax allocation schedules of the Property Tax Division in the Treasurer-Tax Collectors Office as this relates to property tax increment payments to or from cities, special districts or redevelopment agencies; and that this monitoring of payments to/from cities or agencies is done each year irrespective of when the State of California conducts its audits. (Finding 2) 11-09 The Board of Supervisors consult with appropriate State Agencies to determine if the combination of the functions of Treasurer-Tax Collector and the Auditor-Controller is compatible with standards of good governance and fiduciary responsibility. A ruling from the State Attorney General be requested to determine if the County violated voter rights when it eliminated the elected office of Treasurer-Tax Collector when it became vacant and subsequently combined the duties of that office with another elected office which appears to create a conflict of interest. (Finding 3) 11-10 The use of the term “Independent Auditor” be reserved for only those audits done by outside firms or agencies and not be used by employees of the county when auditing elements of the County financial systems. (Finding 4) 22 11-11 The San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors enhance and improve the quality, efficiency, and performance of the internal audit function by using their authority to hire a Chief Audit Executive as a Civil Service employee. The independence of the internal audit function will enhance the accountability of the Chief Audit Executive in performing his/her internal financial, compliance, and performance audits. This Chief Audit Executive is to report directly to the San Bernardino County Chief Executive Officer (CEO) for administrative matters and to seek guidance on the scope and performance of the audit function from the Audit Committee. This chain of responsibility is different from the OC model but as we point out elsewhere in this report, in San Bernardino County there already is in place an Audit Committee that reports to the Board of Supervisors. (Finding 5) 11-12 Audit all County Departments and Special Districts every year. (Finding 6) 11-13 The Chief Deputy Auditor report to the County CEO for administrative issues. (Finding 7) 11-14 The Chief Deputy Auditor report to the Audit Committee to inform them of the issues coming up on the audit and look to them for direction and accountability. (Finding 8) 11-15 The County Board of Supervisors extend an invitation to each year’s sitting Grand Jury to attend the quarterly meetings of the Audit Committee. (Finding 10) Responding Agency Recommendations Date Due Board of Supervisors 11-06 through 11-09 August 30, 2011 11-11, 11-14, 11-15 Auditor/Controller-Treasurer 11-10, 11-12 August 30, 2011 Chief Executive Officer 11-13 September 30, 2011 23
R11-15:
The County Board of Supervisors extend an invitation to each year’s sitting Grand Jury to attend the quarterly meetings of the Audit Committee. (Finding 10)
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
The City of Rialto follows the State of California Guidelines involved in approving building plans.
Related Recommendations (5)
R11-05:
As a courtesy, the BOS provide the Grand Jury copies of all financial audits completed by state agencies including copies of all replies. (Findings 1, 2)
R11-16:
Establish a well-defined building inspection process that ensures State Building Codes are being followed. (Finding 1) 29
R11-17:
Establish a computer based program to track, monitor new home construction and building complaints to replace the current paper-based program. (Findings 1, 3)
R11-19:
Implement a two tiered set of regulations for urban and rural areas. For example not imposing curbs and gutters in extreme rural areas that have no sewers, no containment, and water control programs. (Finding 1)
R11-24:
Implement policy changes that restrict the creation of outstanding indebtedness for purposes of qualifying for SFP hardship status. (Findings 1, 2, 3)
F2:
The City of Rialto has an inadequate record keeping system that requires numerous man-hours to search for new home construction and building complaint information.
Related Recommendations (3)
R11-18:
Develop a better sign-off process that requires both printed name, signature and license or employee identification number on the building inspection reports. (Finding 2)
R11-20:
Treat local residents who request services from our County with courtesy and respect to encourage dialogue. (Finding 2)
R11-22:
Ensure prompt responses to communications. (Findings 2, 3)
F3:
The process of issuing Correction Notices is not monitored.
Related Recommendations (1)
R11-21:
More “Face to Face” meetings between the First District County Supervisor, staff members, and Special District members. (Finding 3)
F4:
The Baker Community Service District has implemented its own improvements without County approval, mainly in the road paving area.
F5:
The opinion shared by the majority of members of the Baker Community Service District Board is that they are happy with the way things are presently. 32
Related Recommendations (1)
R11-23:
The Community of Baker consider forming their own city, when appropriate. (Finding 5)
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
During the investigation into the CAC partnership, members of the Grand Jury heard many times the Children’s Assessment Center is a gift to our county and our children. Nationally there are approximately 180 Board Certified Pediatric Forensic Physicians and San Bernardino County is fortunate to have two such physicians currently and one additional physician soon to be certified. They work tirelessly, and fiercely, for the rights and safety of abused children. Clients of the Center are child victims of alleged abuse from birth to age 18 referred to the Assessment Center by Children and Family Services, a law enforcement agency, and/or the Family Law Court.
F2:
The Children’s Assessment Center is an important tool for the protection of suspected child victims of abuse from duplicative interviews for legal, medical, child protection, and clinical purposes. This streamlining of the process is shown in Attachments #1 and #2, which dramatically shows through the eyes of a child how the Assessment Center approach is less intrusive. The role of LLUMC and the forensic physicians is to medically evaluate the abuse. The role of CFS is to safeguard the children in an immediate crisis (e.g. removal from home, take to the CAC or the emergency room) and to provide recommendations for future steps to correct problems (e.g. parenting classes, nutritional classes, anger, and addiction management). It is the role of law enforcement to identify and deal with the perpetrator of the abuse. 39
Related Recommendations (2)
R11-26:
The Governing Board of the Children’s Assessment Center determine appropriate standards and policies to address differences in the role of each agency. (Finding 2)
R11-27:
The Executive Committee provide a good medium for discussion so that each agency is in agreement of the best course of action for the children. (Findings 2, 3) 42
F3:
The CAC offers an opportunity for all parties to work together while gathering information, and provide a unified response to the family. Services at the Center include forensic interviews by CFS workers who have received specialized training in child forensic interviewing. Evidentiary medical exams are performed at a minimal cost by the three forensic pediatric specialists from the LLUMC. These forensic physicians also provide expert testimony in court. Written reports are provided regarding the outcomes of the interviews and medical appointments. Crisis intervention and referrals for counseling are provided to family members by a Victim Witness Advocate from the District Attorney office assigned to the Center. The Multidisciplinary Team (MDT) meetings discuss cases and the Child Death Review Team meets to discuss the cause of a death.
F4:
The relationship among the partners began to deteriorate in 2007. It became clear to the Grand Jury through statements we heard from enough sources there was dissension among CFS, the Center, and the partnership arrangement. With budgetary concerns in mind, CFS learned that it was not statutorily mandated to fund the CAC, and not mandated to request a forensic medical examination for a child believed to have been sexually or physically abused. Only law enforcement is required to seek a forensic medical examination of a sexual assault victim. The cost of such an examination is billed to the requesting law enforcement agency. After learning this information CFS discontinued the CAC Advisory Board, and no longer attended the MDT meetings. The partnership started to fall apart.
Related Recommendations (1)
R11-25:
The Governing Board of the Children’s Assessment Center take a pro- active role in resolving conflicts among the partner agencies so that they work together toward the well- being of the children. (Findings 4, 5)
F5:
The Grand Jury interviewed many individuals affiliated with the CAC. The following allegations were repeated by numerous witnesses:
• There seems to be a progressive change for the worse in the attitude of Children and Family Services towards the Children’s Assessment Center. There is a lack of communication and cooperation. CFS went from being a partner to being an overseer trying to control all the functions at the Center. 40
• The Social Workers who bring cases to the CAC are re-active instead of pro-active. They have a fundamental misunderstanding of the cases. They have protocol but don’t follow it. There is confusion as to how to work a case. Morale is low.
• CFS hides behind a screen of confidentiality, and does not want to give out any information. Pertinent information was needed by the Child Death Review Team (CDRT) to determine the cause of death of a child. The team was asked to get a subpoena for the information. CFS refused to let the Grand Jury review even redacted data. We requested statistics and were given a bunch of meaningless numbers. The information that corresponded with the numbers was confidential and not provided. Members of the Grand Jury were invited to attend a meeting of the Child Death Review Team. There they signed a confidentiality statement. Before the next meeting of the CDRT the Grand Jury was “uninvited” by some members because of confidentiality reasons.
• The mission at CFS is blurred. They appear to have placed a higher priority on budget and lawsuits. Children and Family Services wrote a Request for Proposal (RFP) wanting to sever the partnership with Loma Linda stating it was too expensive. They asked for bids from other medical facilities; one of which was Arrowhead Regional Medical Center (ARMC). A physician from ARMC was brought to tour the Children’s Assessment Center facility in order to possibly assume the medical services. However, Loma Linda University Medical Center is the only Children’s Hospital with forensic pediatricians in the Inland Empire. ARMC could not find anyone who was qualified. No other facility had personnel with the expertise or could compete financially with the minimal cost of bringing a child to the Assessment center.
F6:
There is little accountability for Children and Family Services to an outside authority. There is no transparency. Riverside County CFS had an outside audit 41 conducted by the Child Welfare League of America (see Attachment #3). They now use a system called Technical Assistance, Review and Consultation (TRAC) which has been very successful. Training for this system was offered to San Bernardino County CFS by the Riverside County CFS. The offer was turned down. When the Director of Children and Family Services was asked about TRAC, she stated she had never heard of it. She also stated she is not high on any risk assessment tool. On occasion the state will take “a sampling” of cases to look for compliance.
Related Recommendations (1)
R11-28:
Retain a firm with the qualifications and expertise such as the Child Welfare League of America to perform an audit of Children and Family Services to ensure that mechanisms are in place for oversight of the division. (Finding 6)
F7:
In order to maintain the Center, and the partnership, a new protocol was written by Dr. Clare Sheridan, one of the Forensic Pediatricians from Loma Linda. She suggested two new committees; a Governing Board to meet regularly to decide policy and procedure for the Assessment Center, and an Executive Committee for the month to month management of the Center with Dr. Sheridan as the Chair. The Sheriff’s Department has assumed the financial contract responsibility for the medical examinations related to law enforcement cases but it has not been formalized yet. The Grand Jury commends CEO, Greg Devereaux for becoming personally involved with supporting the work of the Children’s Assessment Center.
F1998:
The number of Children receiving services increased steadily over these first few years of operation. In 1999, a larger, more permanent facility was needed for the Assessment Center. Children's Fund, a non-profit organization whose purpose is to raise funds for children in need, entered into a new partnership with San Bernardino County to make that facility a reality. Children’s Fund began a capitol campaign to raise the funding for the purchase 38 and remodeling of the new facility, which is owned and maintained by San Bernardino County. A contract was formed between the administrators of Loma Linda University Children's Hospital, and Children and Family Services under San Bernardino County’s Human Services Department. CFS provided forensic interviewers, the Center's management staff, and financial assistance. Currently 80-100 children are seen monthly. Since opening in 1994 over 8,000 children have received services at the Assessment Center. FINDINGS 1. During the investigation into the CAC partnership, members of the Grand Jury heard many times the Children’s Assessment Center is a gift to our county and our children. Nationally there are approximately 180 Board Certified Pediatric Forensic Physicians and San Bernardino County is fortunate to have two such physicians currently and one additional physician soon to be certified. They work tirelessly, and fiercely, for the rights and safety of abused children. Clients of the Center are child victims of alleged abuse from birth to age 18 referred to the Assessment Center by Children and Family Services, a law enforcement agency, and/or the Family Law Court.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
The regulatory criterion that current outstanding indebtedness of the school district, at the time of the financial hardship request, is at least 60% of the 2010-2011 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 36
Related Recommendations (1)
R11-24:
Implement policy changes that restrict the creation of outstanding indebtedness for purposes of qualifying for SFP hardship status. (Findings 1, 2, 3)
F2:
The OPSC has not approved the school application for hardship status as of the date of this report.
F3:
Although the OPSC regulations do not appear to prohibit school districts from the practice of intentionally increasing outstanding indebtedness to qualify for hardship status, the practice appears to run counter to the goal of the SFP to require school districts to raise funds for the local SFP match.
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
The City of Rialto follows the State of California Guidelines involved in approving building plans.
Related Recommendations (2)
R11-16:
Establish a well-defined building inspection process that ensures State Building Codes are being followed. (Finding 1)
R11-17:
Establish a computer based program to track, monitor new home construction and building complaints to replace the current paper-based program. (Findings 1, 3)
F2:
The City of Rialto has an inadequate record keeping system that requires numerous man-hours to search for new home construction and building complaint information.
Related Recommendations (1)
R11-18:
Develop a better sign-off process that requires both printed name, signature and license or employee identification number on the building inspection reports. (Finding 2)
F3:
The process of issuing Correction Notices is not monitored.
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
In 2007 the department was under-funded by $2 million. In 2009 the budget was cut by an additional $2 million, allowing only one maintenance person per 60 acres. The standard is one maintenance person per 10 acres. The current budget is $5.3 million. Expenditures from this budget are for maintenance, personnel, recreation, senior programs, human services and administration. City Parks and Recreation applied for statewide park development funding. In areas where there are newer homes and parks, volunteers assist with park maintenance. Residents have pride in their parks. Older parks in other parts of the city have large homeless and transient populations. 2010-2011 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 53
Related Recommendations (1)
R11-31:
Continue to seek funding and provide additional staffing for park maintenance personnel. (Finding 1)
F2:
The San Bernardino Police Department and the Parks and Recreation Department are aware of the homeless and transient populations.
Related Recommendations (1)
R11-32:
San Bernardino Police Department to dissuade the homeless and transient populations from gathering in the parks. (Finding 2)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
The county receives approximately 400 code enforcement complaints per month. That number covers a variety of complaints, including Joshua Trees.
F2:
There are three code enforcement inspectors who respond to Joshua Tree code violations.
F3:
When a Joshua Tree code violator is caught, three courses of action may be taken: • criminal citation • administrative citation • civil remediation The first two citations can result in fines up to $500. Civil remediation requires a court appearance where more serious penalties may be imposed. There have been no civil court actions filed by the County in seven years.
F4:
When a Joshua Tree code violation involves only a few trees it is referred to the Environmental Planning Division of the Land Use Department. When clearing land for a major development, the Building and Safety Division responds. An inspector can issue a “stop-work” order on the project until the situation is resolved.
F5:
The County Code Enforcement Division does not keep a database of Joshua Tree code violations. 2010-2011 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 56
F6:
The City of Victorville has a Joshua Tree inspection application process in its code enforcement operation for the protection and preservation of the plant. There were no reported violations during the years 2007 through 2010.
F7:
The Town of Apple Valley enforces Joshua Tree protection under its Development Code (Section 9.76.040) which provides the criteria for a permit process to remove or relocate trees. A certified arborist must provide a written report on the condition, and any recommendation for removal of Joshua Trees. This report accompanies the permit application. Apple Valley furnished copies of code violations which resulted in citations and fines, but no totals for the years 2006 through 2010.
F8:
The City of Hesperia has a Protective Plant Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 16.24) which addresses the removal and relocation of Joshua Trees. Developers are required to prepare a Protection Plan for Plants which covers Joshua Trees and other species, after which a permit is issued for grading purposes. The Community Development Department (Building & Safety and Planning Division) inspects for compliance. Only one case of non-compliance was reported for the period of 2006 through 2010. A citation was issued and a fine paid for the violation.
F9:
The City of Twenty-nine Palms did not respond to the Grand Jury’s request.
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R11-33:
The County Code Enforcement Division staffing of code enforcement officers should be increased to adequately respond to the number of complaints. (Finding 2, 3 – Joshua Trees; Finding 1 – Illegal Dumping; Findings 1, 3 - Graffiti)
R11-34:
The County Land Use Department develop and maintain, for its Code Enforcement Division, a computerized system to properly document, categorize and retrieve information about county code violations by type. (Finding 5 – Joshua Trees; Finding 4 - Graffiti)
R11-35:
A uniform data exchange system be established between the county and the cities of Victorville, Hesperia, and the Town of Apple Valley in order to provide a more comprehensive picture of how laws are applied in County and local jurisdictions. (Findings 6, 7, 8 - Joshua Trees; Finding 2 - Graffiti)
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
From an internet search, our committee discovered that the California Board of Equalization (BOE) had completed an extensive Assessment Practices Survey of the San Bernardino County Assessor’s Office. This document is the current report of their BOE audit. The perspective of the BOE was very helpful in assisting the Grand Jury understand mechanics of the Assessor’s function. Instructions on the cover page of the Survey state that the responses to the BOE from the Assessor’s Office should be sent to the Grand Jury. The report was not provided to the Grand Jury and we found it during our own independent investigation.
Related Recommendations (1)
R11-05:
As a courtesy, the BOS provide the Grand Jury copies of all financial audits completed by state agencies including copies of all replies. (Findings 1, 2)
F2:
The Grand Jury made an appointment with the Assessor to discuss the nine areas the BOE had pointed out for improvement. We also inquired of the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) as to which office in the county kept a log of the state audits. We were informed that no one is assigned that task because the state audits are random and timing cannot be anticipated.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
The benefit package should not be more than the salary for the BOS. (See Graph #1) Graph #1: Annual Salaries and Benefits Charts:
Related Recommendations (2)
R11-03:
Acquire the AMS Advantage Version 4.0 System (or the most current version) to upgrade the Financial Management System; and put a procedure in place that mandates periodic updating. (Finding 1)
R11-04:
With the acquisition of a new computer system comes the need for additional technical support. Insure employees have the necessary training in order to best operate, and support, the new system. (Finding 1)
F2:
Health Insurance Coverage varies for the three supervisors who participate in the program. The three amounts are $6,569.00, $19,810.00 and $30,720.00.
Related Recommendations (2)
R11-01:
The Board of Supervisors car allowance follows the Federal guidelines (presently $.51 per mile). (Finding 2)
R11-02:
The Chief Executive Officer continue his efforts to adjust the salary and benefit ratio to be competitive. (Findings 2, 3)
F3:
The retirement plans paid for all of the BOS are excessive when compared to retirement plans of other counties. One supervisor's retirement benefits exceed $85,000. Members of the Board of Supervisors are enrolled in more retirement plans than the compared counties. (See Graph #2)
F4:
The BOS benefit packages range from the highest (First District) $158,403.00 to the lowest (Third District) $99,304.00. (See Graph #2) 3 2010-2011 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report Graph #2: Detailed Salaries and Benefits Detail First District Second District Third District Fourth District Fifth District Salary $150,197.00 $150,197.00 $150,197.00 $150,197.00 $150,197.00 401K $12,016.00 $12,016.00 $12,016.00 $12,016.00 $12,016.00 401a $16,500.00 $7,510.00 $7,510.00 $7,510.00 $16,500.00 457b $1,502.00 $1,502.00 $1,502.00 $1,502.00 $1,502.00 Flexible Benefit Plan $5,980.00 $4,200.00 $5,980.00 $4,200.00 $5,980.00 Medical Reimbursement Account $1,040.00 $1,040.00 $1,040.00 $520.00 $1,040.00 Life Insurance County Paid $52.00 $52.00 $52.00 $52.00 $52.00 Variable Universal Life $249.00 $229.00 $229.00 $1,579.00 $1,047.00 Retirement Medical Trust $2,628.00 $4,130.00 $4,130.00 $4,130.00 $1,502.00 Workers Comp $1,030.00 $967.00 $900.00 $986.00 $986.00 Medicare $2,669.00 $2,508.00 $2,277.00 $2,517.00 $2,523.00 Vision $147.00 $147.00 $147.00 $147.00 $147.00 Long Term Disability $500.00 $500.00 $500.00 $500.00 $500.00 Health Insurance Coverage $30,720.00 $0.00 $6,569.00 $0.00 $19,810.00 Retirement Employer Pick Up $18,403.00 $18,090.00 $14,825.00 $20,826.00 $21,897.00 Retirement Employer Pick Up Cash $6,168.00 $5,580.00 $8,367.00 $2,879.00 $1,861.00 Survivor Benefit $26.00 $26.00 $26.00 $26.00 $26.00 Retirement Employee General $34,473.00 $32,096.00 $30,834.00 $32,189.00 $32,329.00 Automobile Allowance $21,900.00 $11,400.00 $0.00 $14,600.00 $14,600.00 Cell Phone Allowance $2,400.00 $2,400.00 $2,400.00 $2,400.00 $2,400.00 TOTAL $308,600.00 $254,590.00 $249,501.00 $258,776.00 $286,915.00
F5:
When compared to other counties, the car allowance is excessive. All three counties used to make comparisons, San Diego, Ventura and Riverside, showed that car allowances were the same for all supervisors. (See Graph #3) Graph #3: Annual Car Allowance District San Ventura Riverside San Diego Bernardino County County County County First $21,900 $4,500 $.51 per mile* $8,820 Second $11,400 Third Car provided Fourth $14,600 Fifth $14,600 *At $.51 per mile, the $4,500 for Ventura computes to 8,823 miles and San Diego’s $8,820 computes to 17,294 miles 4 2010-2011 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
The interaction and co-operation between the Court, Public Defender’s Office and Central Collections has created an effective system of collecting indigent defense fees owed the county. After a client’s case is resolved the sum of the fines, state fees and indigent defense fees are added together and this sum is collected over a three- to five-year period depending on the client’s ability to pay. As fees are collected they are paid out in a specific order: (1) Victim’s restitution (2) State Surcharge (3) Fines (4) Other Reimbursable Costs 2010-2011 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 49
Related Recommendations (1)
R11-30:
Have Central Collections continue to track the effectiveness of the recommended fee increase to support future fee adjustments. (Finding 1)
F2:
The fees assessed in San Bernardino County for indigent defense Fee Type Calendar Year 2008 Calendar Year 2011 Misdemeanor $300 $100 Felony $500 $150 Juvenile $500 $500 The Grand Jury could not find the reason for this change. After a comparison to other counties, it appears that San Bernardino County charges for indigent defense are too low. Fees charged by some of the other California Counties for Indigent Defense Los Angeles $51 to $8,265 Lake County $100 to $4,000 Riverside $90/hour Del Norte $75/hour San Luis Obispo $65/hour Madera $33.50/hour
Related Recommendations (1)
R11-29:
Raise indigent defense fees for adults back to $300 for misdemeanors and $500 for felonies. (Finding 2)