San Bernardino County Grand Jury
2012-2013
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 (18)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
12 findings
F1:
Cities/Special Districts 2. County 3. Human Services 4. Law & Justice Each of these committees is responsible for handling assignments within the Cities and County, including Special Districts. For whatever reason, when it is felt that a standing committee is unable to absorb an issue into its scope, an Ad Hoc Committee is formed to examine that specific complaint, problem or issue. The 2012-2013 Grand Jury formed three Ad Hoc Committees. The following is a summary of the issues.
F2:
Newberry Community Services District – the Grand Jury reviewed issues regarding practices, Policy and Procedures and Board actions of the agency. A report follows in this section with recommendations.
F3:
San Bernardino County Sheriff Department Taser Policy – The main focus of investigation was to address taser use and was extended to Taser Training, what types of individuals should not be tasered, and what precautions were in place to minimize injury and/or death from the use of the Taser. The Grand Jury reviewed local and National cases and statistics regarding taser-related deaths. The results of these investigations, including the Findings and Recommendations are included in the following Final reports. BAIL SOLICITATION OF INMATES AT COUNTY DETENTION CENTERS BACKGROUND The Grand Jury received a complaint regarding the activities of bondsmen at the San Bernardino County Sheriff Department (SBCSD) Detention Centers, including the use of government websites by bondsmen for inappropriate purposes. In order to identify and investigate issues and concerns, it was essential the Grand Jury understand the processes and legal procedures of bail bond transactions. Interviews of bail bond agents, representatives of the California Department of Insurance, and various government agencies were conducted. Policies and procedures for bail bondsmen visits to detention centers, including their need for face-to-face visitations with inmates, were collected and researched. A bail is defined as a bond which is posted by a bail bond company to the court as a guarantee for the arrestee’s appearance to all mandated court appearances and for the release of the person from detention. The bail bond fee is the sum of money or collateral which is exchanged between the arrestee and the bail bond company to secure the bond. The arrestee promises to attend all court appearances, as necessary. Bail bonds may be posted at any County detention center or holding facility, and at the rehabilitation facility for women only. However, the majority of bails bonds are posted at the West Valley Detention Center, Central Detention Center and Adelanto Detention Center/Victor Valley Jail. The scope of bail bond activities and magnitude of the potential revenues during a one-month period is illustrated in the Table below. TOTAL ARRESTS FOR JULY 2012 San Bernardino Detention Arrests Number of Arrestees Average Bail -- $25,000 Centers July 2013 Posted Bail Bonds Bail fee is $2,500 Bail fee @ 10% of bail amount West Valley Detention Center 7,731 397 $992,500 Central Detention Center 1505 56 $140,000 Adelanto Detention Center/ 1,116 65 $162,500 Victor Valley Jail Total 10,352 518 $1,295,000 Source: San Bernardino County Sheriff Department –Detention Centers 70 If the total arrests for the month of July (10,352) were annualized, that number would be approximately 120,000 arrests each year in this County. Bail Bond Process When a person is arrested on suspicion of a crime and the Court has an established monetary value (bail) they have the right to seek and post a bail bond for their release. At the time of arrest and during the booking process the arrestee has an opportunity to make a call to a bail bond company to initiate the process of obtaining a bail bond. A posted directory is in each holding cell. The law states that a bail bondsman (bondsman) must be solicited for bail directly by the arrestee, the arrestee’s attorney of record, or an adult friend or family member. A bondsman has the authority to negotiate and complete the process of acquiring a bond from a surety insurer for any person who has been arrested and detained on a bondable offense. The California Department of Insurance has the administrative and enforcement authority for licensing and regulating of the activities of bondsmen. The bondsman is licensed upon conformance with the following qualifications:
• a minimum age of 18 years;
• residency in the State of California;
• completion of a minimum of 20 hours of approved classroom study;
• passage of a California licensing examination;
• provides a bond in the sum of $1,000; and
• notice of appointment by a surety insurer. A bondsman may have more than one appointment by a surety insurer and the surety companies do not have to be located within the State of California. Penal Codes §1300 through §1301, and California Code of Regulation (CCR), Title 10, §2054 through §2104 provide the legal basis for bail bond licenses, bondsmen and bail transactions. When the bondsman working with a bail bond company posts the guarantee of the total bail amount for the release of a suspect, the company assumes the responsibility for making sure the suspect will be present in court at all court required appearances. Because the bail bond company is taking a risk on the suspect, now identified as a bailee, it is necessary for the collateral to be as significant to the risk being taken, and significant for the bailee to be willing to comply with the court appearance requirements. Bail bonds are negotiated in several ways. In a perfect world where all bondsmen follow the letter and spirit of the law, bondsmen charge ten percent of the bail amount as the fee. For example, on a $25,000 bail the ten percent fee is $2,500. However, to become more competitive, 71 a bondsman can negotiate a lower fee by using the ‘rebate’ law as approved by Proposition 103 legislation. This is accomplished by calculating a lower fee percentage as a ‘rebate’ back to the bailee. Recently, the economic climate has affected the ability of many to make financial arrangements for bail fees. Thus, the amount of the fee can be lowered anywhere from an eight percent fee to a two percent fee (i.e., 8% of $25,000 is $2,000 and 2% is $500.) The rebate or discount process has brought the bail fee to a level which can be more affordable. There is also the process by some bail bond companies to offer a ‘credit bail’ where a down payment is made and partial payments are accepted until fully paid. It is illegal to charge interest on bail fees. The bondsman may require the bond to be secured by a lien on an arrestee’s or his family/friend’s real estate property. This procedure is used in cases of high bail amounts when the bail fee is also substantial (i.e., ten percent of $100,000.) In this situation, the bondsman usually requires ten percent of the fee in cash, with the remaining amount secured by asset(s). The business costs of the bail bond company are 20% of the bail fee to be paid to the surety company, of which ten percent is placed into a buffer account. The buffer account is a holding account which provides a bail bond company the ability to absorb losses due to bond forfeitures. Once the buffer account has reached its maximum threshold, the ten percent payment is not necessary. The remainder of the bail fee is gross profit to the bail bond company. A bond company and/or bondsman may surrender the bailee to the court or custody if it is determined the bailee is a potential flight risk. Per CCR §2090, if the bailee is surrendered, the bail fee is refundable minus administrative costs. It is not legal for the bondsman to surrender a bailee to custody for non-payment of bail fees. If the bailee does not appear in court as required, the court orders the ‘bail is forfeited’ and notifies the bail bond company there are 185 days to locate the defendant and surrender him to detention or present him to the court. The bondsman has the authority to hire a bounty hunter to locate and retrieve the bailee. Bounty hunters are not licensed by the State of California. Bounty hunters have no more enforcement powers than an average citizen, as in a ‘citizen’s arrest’ or ‘citizen’s hold for arrest.’ At the end of the initial 185 days, the bail bond company may file a request for an extension, if a good cause can be shown, for an additional 180 days to locate and retrieve the bailee. A good cause would be the bailee has been located in another state and additional time is necessary to return him to the local jurisdiction. If the client appears voluntarily or has been placed in custody for an additional crime, the bond forfeiture is vacated and the bond is exonerated. A bail bond company may file a motion to exonerate the forfeited bond prior to the 365 days allowed for returning the client once the bail has been forfeited. The motion may be based upon evidence the client cannot be produced due to death, permanent inability to appear because 72 of disability, long-term hospitalization, mental illness, military detention, or incarceration. All motions for bail exoneration must be reviewed and approved by the San Bernardino County Counsel which will analyze the merits of the motion and determine if in agreement or opposition to the motion. Opposition may be raised by evidentiary objections based upon investigating and authenticating the foundations set forth in the bond company motion. In the cases when the bond is forfeited by Summary Judgment, the bond company has 30 days to pay the amount of the bail to the court. Failure to make the payment results in the bond company being disqualified from posting any bails within the jurisdiction of the court. If a bond company appeals the Summary Judgment for bond forfeiture, they must post an appeal bond, with an outside surety company. FACTS Inmate Locator System The website for the San Bernardino County Sheriff Department includes an Inmate Locator page. The purpose of the page is to provide a means of identifying an arrestee, the detention facility in which an arrestee is detained, if the detainee has been released, and other case related data. Most arrestees at a County detention center are pretrial inmates and under suspicion of committing a crime. Queries of the Inmate Locator System are subject to certain access restrictions. To make a query, the user must enter either the arrestee’s name and age, or the booking number. The Inmate Locater System monitors the number of queries based upon the user’s internet address. After five unsuccessful booking number queries in a 24-hour period from the same internet address (‘information not found’), the system prevents any additional access or response for two hours. The intent of restricting access to this data, as opposed to merely listing all the names of the arrestees, is to protect the privacy of the individual. The bondsman, following appropriate protocols, would have sufficient information from the inmate or family/friend, to query the system for necessary details to post the bail. For the bondsman and bail bond companies, being able to view and monitor new bookings by detention center and bail amount, is more than just informational; it is a list of potential new bail clients. The Inmate Locator System access rule for limiting queries to five attempts per internet address can be defeated simply by either using multiple computers or devices (each device has its own internet address), or by using the services of an internet address switching and/or masking company. These companies may route customer activity through servers throughout the world in order to hide the actual internet address of the user. Once the tactic for making unlimited number of queries is established, the inmate booking number field is accessible by the bond company employees. The San Bernardino County Sheriff Department booking number contains embedded information which identifies the detention center, the month, the year, and a sequential (booking) 73 number assigned to each arrestee. The sequential booking number starts over at the beginning of each month. With unlimited access to the booking numbers, it is a simple matter to zero in on the most current booking number for each facility and monitor the system for the next number. With the booking number, an arrestee’s personal data can be retrieved. This scheme is not by itself illegal, it is what can be accomplished with the information that facilitates illegal solicitation activities. The information which is acquired via the Inmate Locator System can be used as root data to locate additional personal facts about the arrestee. Internet websites offering to locate individuals through free subscriptions or paid websites, list employment information, various financial details, asset ownership, and identity of family/friends of the individual. The objective of the bond company, when using these sites is to ‘data mine’ for information that will identify family members/friends of the arrestee that can be targeted family/friend by a solicitation phone call. The bondsman calls the target and implies they are calling on behalf of the arrestee to inform the target the person has been arrested. If the targeted person would like to get the arrestee released, a bail bond can be arranged over the phone with follow-up later at the bond company office. The bondsman can additionally use the information obtained from the Inmate Locator System to seek a visitation with a potential client at the detention center and directly solicit bond services from the inmate, purporting to be acting “on request” of a family member or friend. Website ‘spoofing’ is the act of creating a website for the purposes of misleading users into believing the spoofed website actually belongs to a different organization. Web pages displaying government logos, entity trademarks or copyright, without permission and for malicious purposes, are clearly illegal. Web pages with large print headers such as “West Valley Detention Inmate Information” or “West Valley Detention Center Inmate Information” are misleading to all but the most observant user. Per the California Business and Professional Code §17.500, even though the spoofed website statement(s) may be true, if couched in such a manner that it is likely to mislead or deceive the consumer, are illegal. On September 16, 2011, at the request of the SBCSD, County Counsel issued a ‘Cease and Desist” order to an offending bond company. However, these types of websites continue to persist. The objective of spoofing the San Bernardino County Sheriff official website is to trick the user into believing they are utilizing the official website. This is where the bond company initiates the process of ‘phishing.’ Users who have logged onto this type of spoofed website are invited to enter their contact information in addition to the information regarding the arrestee they are trying to locate (i.e., name and birth date). These users voluntarily enter the requested information believing they are communicating with the SBCSD. However, in reality they are communicating with a bail bond company. Once their personal information is transmitted to the bond company, the bond company is ‘free’ to contact that person and offer bail services. Therefore, it is not considered to be initiating contact or solicitation because the bond company is responding to a customer. Official Visitor’s Process Bondsmen use the Official Visitor’s process to visit inmates in the San Bernardino Sheriff Detention Centers. The Official Visitors policy in the Police Officers Standards and Training (POST) Orders specific to the West Valley Detention Center identifies bondmen licensed by the State of California as being able to use Official Visitors process. When a bondsman requests to visit a detainee at the West Valley Detention Center, presents their license identification, completes a ‘Bail Agent Request’ with the information of who has contacted him to arrange the bail, and signs it, certifying the accuracy of the information. If the completed request is in order, the lobby Custody Assistant will call the unit where the inmate is located, notifying him of an Official Visitor. A visitor’s pass is provided along with a key to an attorney visiting room for the unsupervised visit. If multiple visit requests are made, the bondsman must return to the lobby and complete an additional form requesting the next inmate to be contacted. A deputy in the lobby will examine the bondsman’s briefcase and/or paperwork for contraband. The bondsman passes through a metal detector and is allowed entry into the secured area. Each detention facility commander has responsibility for establishing written procedures for inmate visiting, specific to the facility. The Grand Jury conducted a survey of Riverside, San Diego, Orange and Los Angeles Counties to review their local policies and procedures for how visits of inmates by bondsmen are handled at their detention centers. The Table on the following page compares these policies with those of the County of San Bernardino. Bondsmen designated Supervised as Request by bondsmen for visitation POLICY visitation verified? an official visitor of bondsmen County of Yes, and access is No, the visitation is provided in official Only in case staff has questions within the official San Bernardino visitor’s room visitor’s room Yes, if documents Yes, but has access in require signature, Only if staff is suspicious of County of Riverside the normal supervised use of pass through reason to see inmate. visiting areas. slot for deputy or inmate is used. Yes, bondsman may No, request to visit form Yes, if it can visit detainees in the includes the name of the County of reasonably be same capacity as a detainee and person who accommodated social visitor, via requested the agent’s San Diego without hindrance to phone behind jail operations. secured glass services. window. Yes, but access is Yes, bondsman may provided in the Yes, randomly, staff may call the visit in the same normal visiting number provided on the request capacity as a social County of Orange areas, unless form for the person who requested visitor, behind documents require their services. secured glass signature. window. No, but visitations The Watch Commander approves County of Yes, communication are conducted the interview request or notifies a with inmates is without compromise follow-up investigator if there are Los Angeles considered privileged. to Officer or inmate questions. security Based upon the survey results, it appears that other jurisdictions have initiated official visitation policies that limit direct access of bondsmen to inmates. Official Visitors are defined in the SBCSD POST orders as bondsmen, attorney, peace officers, clergy, any government official with proper identification, interpreters, and a Notary Public. Official Visitors can visit inmates at any time between 0830 and 2200 hours. This differs from regular visitors who must schedule visitations at the discretion of the detention facility. Additionally, Official Visitors are able to conduct unsupervised face–to-face visits in an enclosed room with inmates. The Official Visitors’ Log at the West Valley Detention Center and Victor Valley Jail reveal that bondsmen, representing one or two of the local bond companies, visit two through seven inmates as official visitors on a daily basis. The Central Detention Center does not have a log for bondsmen. However, most bondsmen maintain it is not routinely necessary to have a face-to-face visit with an inmate before posting the bail bond. The negotiation of a bail bond can be conducted by telephone or with a representative of the inmate, (i.e., family or friend). The only time it is necessary for a bondsman to meet with an inmate is to get signatures from the inmate when securing real estate property for posting the bond. That action, in itself, is not needed in all of those limited circumstances, as it is more common for the inmate’s family or friend to use their real estate property to secure the bond. In those cases, the inmate signature is not needed. In consideration of an issue raised in the original complaint, the Grand Jury evaluated the process of bail bond forfeitures and exonerations which are adjudicated in the San Bernardino County Courts. The County receives approximately three to four motions for exoneration per week. County Counsel’s Office tracks and litigates all the motions for bond exoneration to ensure compliance with jurisdictional prescriptions and statutory requirements. It is their responsibility to enforce and collect summary judgments of forfeited bail bonds. During the year 2011, nine summary judgments were satisfied on forfeited bonds totaling $444,750, and in 2012, 10 summary judgments were satisfied on forfeited bonds totaling $487,296. The monies from the paid judgments on forfeited bail bonds are received by the Court Clerk and then transferred by the Court Financial Services Department to the County Auditor who distributes the monies to the appropriate entity and into the San Bernardino County Treasury. The distribution of funds is governed by a statutory formula prescribed in Penal Code §1463. The distribution, by percentages of forfeited amount, go to the County where the arrest was made, to the municipality, if applicable, in which the arrest was made, and to the State depending on the charged crime, after any court and administrative fees have been deducted. The consequence of nonpayment on a forfeited bail bond, after the entry of summary judgment by a bail bond company or surety, results in the disqualification of the affected company from posting bail bonds and acting as surety. FINDINGS 1. Websites and web pages are currently in existence which are spoofing the San Bernardino County Sheriff Department (SBCSD) Inmate locater, detention centers, and official Websites.
F4:
The “Request for Visit” form used by bondsmen to visit inmates does not include a certification of accuracy and truthfulness by signature of the bondsman.
F5:
Bondsmen have conducted up to seven unsupervised official visits to different inmates in a day facilitating abuses by bondsmen in contacting inmates for bail services.
F6:
The SBCSD Detention Centers do not have consistent policies for maintaining logs for bondsmen visits.
F7:
The County of San Bernardino Office of County Counsel is effectively responding to motions for bond forfeitures and exonerations.
F8:
Inmates are not generally aware that it is illegal for bondsmen to solicit bail services.
F10:
Diligently review the list of disbursements to be approved on the consent agenda prior to scheduled Board meetings and (a) discuss questionable disbursements with the General Manager and/or (b) request to pull questionable disbursements from the consent agenda for public discussion and review. The General Manager should: 11. Train all participants in the purchase card program on the new and revised policies and procedures for purchase cards.
F12:
Review consultants or vendors with a single invoice over $5,000, or multiple invoices that, together, exceed $5,000 to ensure that they have a contract or total expenditure approved by the Board of Directors at a meeting. If the contract was not approved by at least two Board members, or no contract exists, steps should be taken to bring the purchase(s) into compliance with the Policy Handbook.
F13:
Carefully review all requests for reimbursements, including supporting documentation, against the policies and procedures in the District Policy Handbook prior to approval.
F14:
Establish the following to ensure that the District is in compliance with the Policy Handbook and maintains adequate internal controls: (a) District Legal Counsel Log; (b) Policy handbook for the Fire Department; and, (c) Catalog of all retained District records. viii 15. Establish a Capital Asset Management System that records capital asset information such as the purchase date, condition it was in at the time of purchase, warranties, maintenance history, usage statistics, original useful life, remaining useful life, and replacement costs. The Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) should: 16. Review suggestions made in its 2009 report and include more robust analysis of governance and reorganization options for the next Service Review of the District, scheduled for 2014. ix 1. NCSD Governance As a public entity, the NCSD is bound by various laws embedded in the California State Government Code, which establish rules for open meetings and the retention of official records. In addition, best practices are employed by government entities around the world to ensure that the deliberations of public bodies are clearly communicated, and actions are well articulated and accurately recorded. Further, best practices establish various protocol for members of the public to be provided with the opportunity to comment on matters before elected bodies or on matters of general concern, in an orderly, respectful and efficient manner. NCSD Public Meetings Because the NCSD is a public entity that derives its authority from the voters, it is incumbent upon members of the elected Board of Directors to establish policies, procedures and rules that govern the manner in which it conducts the public’s business. Based on a review of records, testimony from individual Board members and observations at public meetings, the Grand Jury found that: (1) the Board has not formalized a robust policy framework, rules or protocol for conducting public meetings; (2) individual members of the Board and other persons often exhibit inappropriate behavior during public meetings; and, (3) records of official action are not consistently prepared or otherwise completed in a timely manner. Open Government Policy Framework and Rules Are Weak NCSD Policy 5070 establishes the “Rules of Order for Board and Committee Meetings.” Although loosely based on well-regarded rules defining parliamentary procedures, Section 5070.1.1 states that “These rules of order are intended to be informal and applied flexibly. The Board prefers a flexible form of meeting and, therefore, does not conduct its meetings under formalized rules – Roberts Rules of Order.” Subsection 5070.1.1.1 further states that “If a Director believes order is not being maintained, then he/she should raise a point of order – not requiring a second – to the President. If the ruling of the President is not satisfactory to the Director, then it may be appealed to the Board. A majority of the Board will govern and determine the point of order.” The intended flexibility of these Rules of Order is emphasized in other sections of the policy. Subsection 5070.5.1 states that “The President shall take whatever actions are necessary and appropriate to preserve order and decorum during Board meetings, including public hearings. The President may eject any person or persons making personal, impertinent or slanderous remarks, refusing to abide by a request from the President, or otherwise disrupting the meeting or hearing.” Further, Subsection 5060.6.1 states that “By motion made, seconded and approved by a majority vote, the Board may, at its discretion and at any meeting: a) temporarily suspend these rules in whole or in part; b) amend these rules in whole or in part; or, c) both.” The remainder of the Policy addresses procedures for individual Directors to obtain the floor; and, offering, commenting and moving motions to a vote. Although different parliamentary procedures have been developed over the years, Roberts Rules of Order are generally considered to be the standard for local government entities in the United 1 States. The Institute for Local Government1 states that formalized rules of order are necessary to “guide the discussion and decision-making process.” Although following parliamentary procedure is not required in California, it is considered to be a best practice, makes public meetings more efficient, and reduces the chances of official actions being declared illegal or challenged for procedural deficiencies. Further, the League of California Cities, in the organization’s publication Open and Public IV, has made the observation that there are certain key principles and goals that should be considered when government bodies develop their policies regarding public meetings:
• A legislative body's need to get its business done smoothly;
• The public's right to participate meaningfully in meetings, and to review documents used in decision-making at a relevant point in time;
• A local agency's right to confidentially address certain negotiations, personnel matters, claims and litigation; and,
• The right of the press to fully understand and communicate public agency decision-making. Although prepared in the context of the State’s Open Meeting Law (i.e., the “Brown Act”), these principles support the concept that in order to operate effectively, meetings require rules and procedures to ensure orderly, efficient, and productive sessions in a calm, professional setting. The limitations of the District’s current policy, including the desire for “flexibility” embedded in the policy foundation, do not support the accomplishment of these goals. The League of California Cities continues by stating, “An explicit and comprehensive public meeting and information policy, especially if reviewed periodically, can be an important element in maintaining or improving public relations. Such a policy exceeds the absolute requirements of the law . . . A narrow legalistic approach will not avoid or resolve potential controversies. An agency should consider going beyond the law, and look at its unique circumstances and determine if there is a better way to prevent potential problems and promote public trust.” As will be discussed below, the public trust appears to have been damaged in the NCSD, in part by the manner in which public meetings are conducted, the behavior of Directors during public meetings and inconsistencies with the preparation and maintenance of official records of action. As a first step toward improving public access and communication, the NCSD should adopt more robust policies regarding parliamentary procedure, adhering to the basic principles of Roberts Rules of Order, which have been in existence and used by local government agencies in the United States for well over 100 years. When developing these policies, the District should consult with the California Special District Association (CSDA), which can provide resources and make suggestions regarding best practices for special district organizations. Members of the Board Exhibit Inappropriate Behavior at Public Meetings and May Have Acted in Violation of California Law 1An affiliate of the California State Association of Counties (CSAC) and the League of California Cities. As part of the Grand Jury’s investigation, members attended NCSD Board meetings and listened to numerous tape recordings of other meetings to assess the effect of the weak policy foundation on proceedings. The following observations were made:
• Before the start of Board meetings, members of the public who wish to address the Board fill out a “Request to Be Heard” card and are provided with three minutes to voice their concerns. Although this is a typical practice in government organizations, members of the public were also permitted to engage in discussions at any time during the meeting, without filing the required Request to be Heard Card. Often, members of the public spoke to individual directors without going through the President and, although some persons would raise their hand to be recognized, in many instances other persons would simply begin to speak without being recognized. Sometimes, multiple conversations occurred simultaneously and discussions between persons in the audience were conducted separately while the Board merely watched and listened.
• In several instances, members of the Board engaged in arguments with one another and members of the public. During these exchanges, the meetings were disrupted as people talked over one another and made sarcastic and snide remarks. In some instances, the arguments between Board members became overly heated, causing some members to walk out while the meeting proceeded. In another instance, a Board member challenged a member of the public who had just finished addressing the Board. This resulted in a brief shouting match between the two. In another instance, a member of the public was talking loudly during the meeting and, when asked by a Board member to be silent, the person responded with an obscene gesture.
• Some Board members were seen slouching in their chairs, keeping their heads down and speaking in voices that could barely be heard by the audience. Such behavior gives the impression that these members are indifferent and/or disinterested in the proceedings, is disrespectful and unprofessional.
• The unprofessional behavior of the Board has been observed for some time by previous employees and members of the public. In March 2012, the resignation letter submitted by a former Fire Chief, stated that his departure was due, in part, to “. . . the public fights and bickering so prevalent on the NCSD Board.”
• At the February 26, 2013 meeting of the Board, an argument started regarding whether the Board member could remove an agenda item without a vote of the Board. The item in question concerned an accusation that a sitting member of the Board had committed fraud and conspiracy. During recess, three members of the Board (a quorum) were observed talking together in private, which is a clear violation of the Brown Act. The Newberry Springs Community Alliance, which describes itself as a “. . . grassroots organization of residents and property owners fostering an improvement of Newberry Springs through the engagement of educating the community” regularly blogs critical comments about the Board. In March 2013, this organization blogged “The CSD Board has had a hard time holding a single meeting that doesn’t contain a Brown Act violation.” These examples of poor behavior by Board members, and the inability of the President to control both Board member and audience interaction, suggest that the individual members of the Board 3 have not yet developed the necessary skills to lead or participate in public meetings in a professional manner. Combined with more robust policies, procedures and rules defining parliamentary procedures, Board members should be provided with training on duties, responsibilities and behavior as elected officials. Further, it is clear that members of the Board may not be familiar with the requirements of the California Open Meeting Law or Records Retention Act, as discussed in the section, below. Accordingly, the City Attorney should be requested to develop and lead workshops on these topics to ensure that current and future Board members have the background and knowledge to adhere to these laws. Board Members Have Not Been Provided With Appropriate Training Assembly Bill 1234 requires that all board members of special districts complete a two-hour, on- line Ethics Compliance Training Course after joining the Board. Based on records maintained by the District, all Board members have received this training. The California Special District Association (CSDA) provides training for elected officials and managers of special districts, including various orientation trainings, leadership summits, and related topics such as human relations and resource management. Other courses are provided through the Special District Leadership Foundation, and guides are available through the State Board of Equalization and other bodies. In addition, other trainings are offered by Statewide organizations, such as the California State Association of Counties (CSAC) that may be helpful to the District’s leadership. For example, CSAC has an agreement with California State University Northridge to provide special courses for elected officials and managers that can be attended to obtain credit towards a Master Degree in Public Administration. In addition, CSAC offers courses through the Institute for Excellence in County Government, which may be beneficial to the District directors, including:
• The Art and Practice of Elected Leadership;
• Getting Things Done: Working Effectively to Achieve Objectives;
• Chairing and Managing Effective Public Meetings;
• Making Impressions: Media Interviewing;
• Negotiation and Collaboration in Complex Environments; and,
• Advanced Practice in Negotiation.2 Although these courses are designed for County elected officials, the topics and content can also be applied to the operations of the NCSD. The members of the Board should explore the opportunity for attending selected courses, with the goal of improving the conduct of public meetings and interactions with each other and members of the public. Records of Board Actions Are Not Complete or Prepared in a Timely Manner 2 Go to http://www.csac.counties.org/sites/main/files/file-attachments/2013-winter-spring-publish_3.pdfto view a complete description of available courses for the Spring 2013 schedule. NCSD Policy 5060.1.1 states that: Copies of a meeting’s minutes shall be posted for a minimum of 10 days on the NCSD website within 14 (days) of NCSD meeting for public review. Copies of meeting minutes shall be distributed to Directors as part of the information packet for the next regular meeting of the Board, at which time the Board will consider approving the minutes as presented or with modifications. Once approved by the Board, the official minutes shall be kept in a fireproof vault or in a fire- resistant cabinet. The NCSD does not adhere to this policy. During the period of this review, the Grand Jury found that Board minutes were not being consistently recorded, posted and secured in the manner prescribed by Policy 5060.1.1. Minutes were generally not transcribed promptly and were not ready for approval at the next regularly scheduled Board meeting. When copies of minutes were requested, the current General Manager reported that she had to look in several locations before they were located. A number of Board minutes were audio recorded but not transcribed for weeks or months later, resulting in some Board members not recalling what actions were taken on agenda items when presented with the written notes for approval. Members of the Grand Jury reviewed the written notes and listened to numerous audio recordings of Board meetings. The background noise on some recordings made it difficult to hear or understand who was speaking and, in some cases, what was being said. Some audio recordings were started after the meetings were called to order and no references to the dates of the meetings were heard. This creates difficulties with providing an accurate written record of Board proceedings, even when the audio recordings are transcribed. For example, the Board minutes from the August 28, 2012 meeting included a typed side-note that stated the notes “ . . . are not transcripts of the meetings; only the hi-lights and hopefully accurate.” To ensure that there are accurate records of official actions, the Board should direct the General Manager to begin and maintain a process to record, transcribe, post, and safeguard official Board minutes within two weeks of any Board meeting, in accordance with the District’s current policy. Conclusions NCSD Board meetings are not conducted in accordance with rules of order or professional conduct recognized as best practices in public sector organizations. In addition, the NCSD does not consistently record or post official minutes in a timely manner, in violation of the District’s own policies, and compromising the ability of Board members to recall official actions when reviewing the minutes for accuracy. A clear violation of California’s Open Meeting Law, also known as the Brown Act, was observed by the Grand Jury and has been the topic of concern by members of the Newberry Springs community. Further, members of the Board have attended mandatory ethics training. However, expanded trainings on leadership and effectively chairing public meetings are available through the California Special District Association, the Special District Leadership Foundation, the California State Association of Counties, and other bodies. The Board should attend such trainings, and adopt and adhere to expanded, formal policies and rules regarding conduct at public meetings. In addition, NCSD management should take steps to 5 ensure that records of official Board action are routinely recorded, approved for accuracy, and indexed for timely access by the public.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
Reporting of EMS response times is not standardized throughout the County. However, improvements in ambulance response time measurements are being implemented to ensure public safety objectives are maintained. This is being accomplished via a Countywide adoption of a software package, which is being adopted nationwide.
F2:
ConFire’s gaining accreditation was a key stepping stone to enable the members and contracted agencies to pursue updates for their EMS resource response plans.
F3:
ConFire is the only dispatch facility in the County accredited by the National Academies of Emergency Dispatch.
F4:
Some fire management personnel within the County recognize not all medical emergencies require dispatching a large number of resources. COMMENDATION The Grand Jury commends the Consolidated Fire Agencies of the East Valley for achieving and maintaining accreditation from the National Academies of Emergency Dispatch, along with the participating Fire Chief’s efforts for enabling paradigm shifting changes to prehospital emergency medical service’s resource response plans.
F5:
Programs promoting the RCAC have not been discontinued or deleted.
F6:
Management, staff and volunteers, exhibit professionalism and commitment in the operation of RCAC.
F7:
RCAC is transparent in its operation. VICTOR VALLEY COLLEGE POLICE DEPARTMENT
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
The SAFE Call Box Program is not publicized adequately to inform the motoring public of its existence and/or its funding. COMMENDATION The 2012-2013 Grand Jury wishes to commend SANBAG’s SAFE Call Box Program for its exceptional management of the Program. With the decline in call box calls, they are being proactive in pursuing new technology to utilize the existing call boxes in ways that will continue to assist the motoring public. We also thank them for providing all requested documentation, some of which is included in this report, and for facilitating our visits to the PCN-CAC in Riverside and the CHP-ICC in Fontana. The staff at the PCN-CAC welcomed our visit and provided us with an excellent overview of their role in the administration of the SAFE Call Box Program. During our tour, we observed the operators handling incoming calls in a professional manner and negotiating through their video screens with little effort as they obtained the necessary information from the callers. It is safe to assume that not all motorists have communication devices available to them, or if they do, a clear signal may not always be available. This makes San Bernardino County’s SAFE Call Box Program a vital public safety service.
F2:
WIB members do not participate in preparing or approving its monthly County or State financial program status reports. The WIB staff assumes this responsibility.
F3:
Some members of the WIB Executive Committee are unaware of WIB financial reports, such as the Trial Balance Sheets for Fiscal Year ended June 30, 2011 and June 30, 2012.
F4:
WIB Executive Committee members review only the summary portion of annual audits conducted on their programs and administration expenditures. They depend on WIB staff to advise them of any audit issues.
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
Regarding the evaluation and assessment for accountability to the public
• The one-time-only redesign presents a vivid, revealing and un-retouched candid snapshot of CFS, which stands in contrast to the usual documentation CFS presents. Its pattern of identifying strengths and recommending opportunities for change in 13 elements implies a measure of accountability.
• CFS has an obligation to measure its accountability to the public and express it in terms which can be understood by the public.
• Normally CFS publications include: o CFS’ brief contribution to the Human Services Annual Report, which is a public document; o the bound Annual Report, which contains little in the way of accountability, and the intended audience is CFS, not the public; o documents such as the DAMR provide some insight into CFS operations, which are not available to the public; and o the Self-Reassessment, based on the SIP results (formerly published after three years, now extended to five years), is clearly intended for a professional audience, not the public.
• Two annual goals are cited in the CFS Report incorporated in the Human Services Annual Report and other publications, yet the Grand Jury was unable to readily find the outcomes for these goals reported in either CFS public documents or on the CFS website. They are cited in the Human Services Department annual budget.
• CFS’ current method of reporting evaluation of its effectiveness and accountability to the public is inadequate. It is too dependent on the outcomes of the periodic SIP goals and the unreported outcomes of annual internal goals. This makes it difficult for the public to be able to determine if CFS is operating effectively within its budget. 51
• CFS has a statistics unit, which can generate data to enhance the CFS image and communication with the public.
F2:
Regarding the public face of CFS
• Except for the raw numbers, the Annual Reports vary little from year-to-year. This year’s delayed and expanded draft still follows the formula.
• CFS reports lack a date of publication and clear attribution as to the person(s) responsible for their publication or whom to contact for further information.
• The Grand Jury finds that the CFS website is lacking in informative value and is out- of-date. COMMENDATION The Grand Jury commends the CFS Executive team for having the foresight to establish pilot studies in the field; for seeking employee initiatives since 2007 to develop proposals for change, which eventually were incorporated in the Redesign; and recognizing the need for significant changes in the structure, management, and operations of CFS; and responding with the commission for, and implementation of, the Redesign. (Finding 1-1)
F3:
THE PUBLIC FACE OF CFS The Grand Jury was given an annual report for 2011 and a pocket folder of miscellaneous applications, forms, and other documents utilized by the agency. CFS publishes two annual reports. One is brief and is prepared as part of the County Human Services Annual Report. CFS indicated that the other Annual Report was “boilerplate” and intended for an internal audience. It also appears on the CFS Intranet. As this investigation was drawing to a close in response to inquiries, the Grand Jury received a final draft of the 2012 Annual Report (to be published at a later date). The Annual Report contains:
• a listing of independent CFS programs, and those performed in collaboration with other agencies, indiscriminate as to relative importance;
• a recitation of “accomplishments:” numbers of children served in some capacity or activity in that year; and
• a “testimonial,” a narrative account of one child’s experience out of 5,000 in the system. Although the 2012 draft Annual Report is more attractive and colorful and has more narrative content and pages, conformity to the boilerplate was still evident. Statistics comparing CFS operations over time and with other counties and the State were absent. In its 2011 report to the County, CFS does present a table on referrals over several years, but no outcome measures are reported. The section’s text states, “CFS has the ability to produce reports based on very specific criteria including demographics, program information services provided, and case information.” Such statistics are not only available, but CFS produces them in-house. One internal document given to the Grand Jury, “Department Assessment Management Reports: August 2012” (DAMR) provides 17 pages of comparative tables on CFS performance on multiple measures over the prior year and regions of the County. The DAMR provides evidence that CFS can compile summary data and present it in more comprehensible terms than the Self- 50 Assessment. In addition to the DAMR, the Grand Jury was given a loose, single-page line graph showing a decline in the number of children in the system with the successive implementation of new programs from 1999 to the present. These documents were prepared by CFS’ own statistics unit. This unit tracks clients and sends the data off regularly to the University of California at Berkeley. On two occasions, a CFS executive referred the Grand Jury to data from the website of the Center for Social Services Research, School of Welfare, U.C. Berkeley. The website tables do provide extensive data comparing our local CFS performance with other counties, and the statewide figures over time. As informative as this site is as a source for agency accountability, it is not referenced in any CFS publications except for its central role in the outcomes of the opaque Self-Reassessment. The final element of CFS’ public face: in the 21st century, the Internet has become a primary resource of information for a great many people including those seeking information on CFS. FINDINGS 1. Regarding the evaluation and assessment for accountability to the public
• The one-time-only redesign presents a vivid, revealing and un-retouched candid snapshot of CFS, which stands in contrast to the usual documentation CFS presents. Its pattern of identifying strengths and recommending opportunities for change in 13 elements implies a measure of accountability.
• CFS has an obligation to measure its accountability to the public and express it in terms which can be understood by the public.
• Normally CFS publications include: o CFS’ brief contribution to the Human Services Annual Report, which is a public document; o the bound Annual Report, which contains little in the way of accountability, and the intended audience is CFS, not the public; o documents such as the DAMR provide some insight into CFS operations, which are not available to the public; and o the Self-Reassessment, based on the SIP results (formerly published after three years, now extended to five years), is clearly intended for a professional audience, not the public.
• Two annual goals are cited in the CFS Report incorporated in the Human Services Annual Report and other publications, yet the Grand Jury was unable to readily find the outcomes for these goals reported in either CFS public documents or on the CFS website. They are cited in the Human Services Department annual budget.
• CFS’ current method of reporting evaluation of its effectiveness and accountability to the public is inadequate. It is too dependent on the outcomes of the periodic SIP goals and the unreported outcomes of annual internal goals. This makes it difficult for the public to be able to determine if CFS is operating effectively within its budget. 51
• CFS has a statistics unit, which can generate data to enhance the CFS image and communication with the public.
Additional Recommendations
25
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Implement countywide homelessness prevention strategies to prevent individuals and families from becoming homeless.
R2:
Use funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Homeless Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program (HPRP), for supplemental resources including rental assistance and utility assistance.
R3:
Implement a community outreach and education campaign that raises awareness about households at risk of becoming homeless and provides information about resources available through homeless prevention programs. The effort was to leverage the 2-1-1 System (Homeless Resources) for easy access when appropriate.
R4:
Formalize protocols and improve the coordination of discharge planning so that new persons do not find themselves living without social and economic supports.
R5:
Establish a Central Contact Center that would respond to community calls and concerns for traditional street outreach and engagement and/or assertive community treatment.
R6:
Expand Street Outreach and Engagement Services to include multi-disciplinary practitioners and services. 32
R7:
Expand Street Outreach and Engagement Services to include volunteers from various community groups.
R8:
Establish Regional One-Stop Centers which contain standardized intake and assessment with related protocols to guarantee consistency between regional centers. The social services to be included are: employment, healthcare, housing placement, mental healthcare, substance abuse counseling and treatment with coordination between private and public agencies.
R9:
Use a comprehensive tool that determines potential eligibility for mainstream resources and integrate this tool into the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS).
R10:
Appropriate case management services should be available to all homeless persons whether they are on the street, in emergency shelters or transitional housing or receiving permanent supportive services. Also, re-establish new Continuum of Care Programs which link case management with HMIS.
R11:
Develop and execute a rapid exit strategy focusing on early identification and resolution of the barriers to housing through case management services in order to facilitate the return of a homeless person to permanent housing as quickly as possible.
R12:
Implement a Rapid Re-Housing Approach for Households with dependent children.
R13:
Increase the number of emergency and transitional housing units.
R14:
Implement a Housing First Approach which is the belief that homeless families are more responsive to interventions and social services when living in their own housing.
R15:
Obtain more shelter plus care certificates. This housing assists homeless individuals and families with mental illness, chronic substance abuse and/or infected with HIV/AIDS with long-term affordable rental housing, and increases the participants’ independent living skills.
R16:
Increase the number of permanent housing units with an emphasis on the development of Safe Havens. This includes apartment buildings, single and multi- family housing, single room occupancy and low-demand units requiring clients to abstain from alcohol and drug use and not to exhibit threatening behavior.
R17:
Encourage all local jurisdictions to adopt an inclusionary housing policy that requires a certain percentage of new housing to be affordable to extremely low and very low income residents. 33
R18:
Assess the feasibility of a Housing Trust Fund for County and local levels of government. Six counties in the State of California have created housing trust funds which support the production and preservation of affordable housing.
R19:
Expand the capacity of Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) so that agencies may make better use of data, decrease time and effort at intake and enhance the planning and development functions of the Continuum of Care. HMIS is a Congressional Housing of Urban Development (HUD) Directive for understanding the homeless and measuring program effectiveness.
R20:
Conduct periodic Homeless 101 Training concerning community issues such as: a) law enforcement policies and homeless persons, b) responses by residents, business employees, and homeless persons, c) appropriate actions and responses by social service providers when contacted by the above-mentioned, d) information distribution concerning resources and referral contacts.
R21:
Increase awareness of the collaborative Justice Courts and alternative sentencing programs for defendants experiencing homelessness. Courts included are: Homeless, Adult Drug, Mental Health and Veteran. This would be for the purpose of reducing state costs and ultimately improving public safety.
R22:
Implement and educate the community on the principles, goals and recommendations of this report.
R23:
Enlist the support of faith-based organizations to help implement the goals and recommendations of this report.
R24:
Create an Interagency Council on Homelessness for San Bernardino County charged with coordinating and evaluating policies concerning these recommendations and related activities within the plan.
R25:
Appoint the partnership members as an advisory body to the Interagency Council and appoint representatives as standing members to the Interagency Council. INTRODUCTION The Grand Jury reviewed the 10-Year Strategy to End Homelessness report in its entirety and agreed to follow-up on various components of the Planning Committee, conducting a number of interviews. FACT 1 The Office of Homeless Services, Department of Behavioral Health (OHS) was created in 2007 as the result of the Board of Supervisor of the Fifth District. Their role is primarily administrative and to support the Homeless Provider Network (HPN), Interagency Council on Homelessness (ICH), faith-based and non-profit organizations. The agency also promotes, coordinates and ensures that the Continuum of Care encouraged by HUD is carried out by agencies providing homeless services. Since establishment of the Homeless Services Division, HUD has required this agency to count on a biennial basis, a point-in-time estimate which has resulted in a lower number of the homeless population. Each city in San Bernardino County is now required to account for its own homeless population when requesting funds. The population of the homeless in 2007 was 7,331. This number includes all homeless, sheltered and unsheltered. In 2011, there were 2,876 individuals and families homeless; 1,692 unsheltered; 1,039 sheltered and 145 hotel/motel vouchers. In an effort to obtain an accurate accounting of the homeless, hundreds of volunteers are solicited to participate in this activity. It requires the agency at least six months to coordinate this event. The OHS participates with San Bernardino County Homeless Partnership in hosting homeless summits and providing information in bridging the gaps of homelessness. Twice a year, “Homeless Project Connects,” a community organization, sponsors free on-site services, resources and referrals for low-income individuals and families. Also, there is no limit to the time that a homeless individual may reside in low-income housing. There is only a permanent housing supply as per HUD rules, especially if a person is disabled. The OHS indicated that additional housing had increased since inception of the program. Also noted, there had been an increase in the number of emergency and transitional housing units. In addition, the Pettis Memorial Veterans Hospital located in Loma Linda works closely with veterans who have become homeless, servicing most of their needs. An initial recommendation made by the 10-Year Planning Committee included implementing a management information system (data collected on the homeless). Since 2007, this implementation has been in place and administered by the Community Action Partnership (CAP). San Bernardino County law enforcement agencies are participating in ongoing training, specifically crisis intervention. The San Bernardino County Sheriff Department has established a 35 direct line of communication for obtaining assistance for the homeless. There is a button mounted on the dashboard of their vehicles enabling them to contact the 2-1-1 Helpline System. The operators of this system are a part of United Way and provide information about various services available. Since AB 109 was implemented, homeless individuals are referred to Homeless Court. The court works with the Probation and Sheriff Departments with re-entry providers for assistance. The Continuum of Care is composed of agencies which apply for federal grant dollars on a competitive basis. Applications are made once a year. The OHS is responsible for contacting and monitoring agencies who submit applications for funding. The OHS is not a pass-through agency; instead the federal government transmits funds directly to the specific agency applying. The OHS has been successful in receiving over $8,000,000 during the past three years for the Continuum of Care agencies throughout San Bernardino County. Of the $8,000,000, $3,000,000 are for new programs and $5,000,000 for renewal programs. In 2009, the President of the United States signed the Homeless Emergency and Rapid Transition of Housing Act (HEARTH) formerly known as the McKinney-Vento Act established by HUD for Continuum of Care Programs. The funds provided are Emergency Solution Grants (ESG) and Emergency Food and Shelter Programs (EFSP) for food, which are directly from FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). In October 2012, the OHS supplied the Grand Jury with a report entitled: Recalibrating for Results: A Three-Year Evaluation of the 2009-2019 San Bernardino County 10-Year Plan to End Homelessness. The evaluation was overseen by the San Bernardino County Homeless Provider Network Committee chairs in cooperation with the San Bernardino County Office of Homeless Services and the Institute for Urban Initiatives. The evaluation began January 2011 and ended June 2012. The 10-Year Strategy was adopted in 2009. As a result of the initial recommendations 15 were renewed, expanded upon, folded into new recommendations and others were eliminated. The amended recommendations included the following:
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
The Grand Jury received SBIA’s Policies and Procedures manuals on November 7,
F2:
The Grand Jury members have been attending the SBIAA Board meetings since October,
F3:
Due to the court actions taken on behalf of SBIAA by the current Interim Executive Director, the previous Master Leaseholder/Construction Manager has been removed from any involvement in SBIA operations. FINDINGS
Findings & Recommendations
1 findings
F1:
The SAFE Call Box Program is not publicized adequately to inform the motoring public of its existence and/or its funding. COMMENDATION The 2012-2013 Grand Jury wishes to commend SANBAG’s SAFE Call Box Program for its exceptional management of the Program. With the decline in call box calls, they are being proactive in pursuing new technology to utilize the existing call boxes in ways that will continue to assist the motoring public. We also thank them for providing all requested documentation, some of which is included in this report, and for facilitating our visits to the PCN-CAC in Riverside and the CHP-ICC in Fontana. The staff at the PCN-CAC welcomed our visit and provided us with an excellent overview of their role in the administration of the SAFE Call Box Program. During our tour, we observed the operators handling incoming calls in a professional manner and negotiating through their video screens with little effort as they obtained the necessary information from the callers. It is safe to assume that not all motorists have communication devices available to them, or if they do, a clear signal may not always be available. This makes San Bernardino County’s SAFE Call Box Program a vital public safety service.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
1 findings
F1:
Regarding the evaluation and assessment for accountability to the public
• The one-time-only redesign presents a vivid, revealing and un-retouched candid snapshot of CFS, which stands in contrast to the usual documentation CFS presents. Its pattern of identifying strengths and recommending opportunities for change in 13 elements implies a measure of accountability.
• CFS has an obligation to measure its accountability to the public and express it in terms which can be understood by the public.
• Normally CFS publications include: o CFS’ brief contribution to the Human Services Annual Report, which is a public document; o the bound Annual Report, which contains little in the way of accountability, and the intended audience is CFS, not the public; o documents such as the DAMR provide some insight into CFS operations, which are not available to the public; and o the Self-Reassessment, based on the SIP results (formerly published after three years, now extended to five years), is clearly intended for a professional audience, not the public.
• Two annual goals are cited in the CFS Report incorporated in the Human Services Annual Report and other publications, yet the Grand Jury was unable to readily find the outcomes for these goals reported in either CFS public documents or on the CFS website. They are cited in the Human Services Department annual budget.
• CFS’ current method of reporting evaluation of its effectiveness and accountability to the public is inadequate. It is too dependent on the outcomes of the periodic SIP goals and the unreported outcomes of annual internal goals. This makes it difficult for the public to be able to determine if CFS is operating effectively within its budget. 51
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
Reporting of EMS response times is not standardized throughout the County. However, improvements in ambulance response time measurements are being implemented to ensure public safety objectives are maintained. This is being accomplished via a Countywide adoption of a software package, which is being adopted nationwide.
F2:
ConFire’s gaining accreditation was a key stepping stone to enable the members and contracted agencies to pursue updates for their EMS resource response plans.
F3:
ConFire is the only dispatch facility in the County accredited by the National Academies of Emergency Dispatch.
F4:
Some fire management personnel within the County recognize not all medical emergencies require dispatching a large number of resources. COMMENDATION The Grand Jury commends the Consolidated Fire Agencies of the East Valley for achieving and maintaining accreditation from the National Academies of Emergency Dispatch, along with the participating Fire Chief’s efforts for enabling paradigm shifting changes to prehospital emergency medical service’s resource response plans.
F5:
Programs promoting the RCAC have not been discontinued or deleted.
F6:
Management, staff and volunteers, exhibit professionalism and commitment in the operation of RCAC.
F7:
RCAC is transparent in its operation. 11 2012-2013 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report VICTOR VALLEY COLLEGE POLICE DEPARTMENT
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
Reporting of EMS response times is not standardized throughout the County. However, improvements in ambulance response time measurements are being implemented to ensure public safety objectives are maintained. This is being accomplished via a Countywide adoption of a software package, which is being adopted nationwide.
F2:
ConFire’s gaining accreditation was a key stepping stone to enable the members and contracted agencies to pursue updates for their EMS resource response plans.
F3:
ConFire is the only dispatch facility in the County accredited by the National Academies of Emergency Dispatch.
F4:
Some fire management personnel within the County recognize not all medical emergencies require dispatching a large number of resources. COMMENDATION The Grand Jury commends the Consolidated Fire Agencies of the East Valley for achieving and maintaining accreditation from the National Academies of Emergency Dispatch, along with the participating Fire Chief’s efforts for enabling paradigm shifting changes to prehospital emergency medical service’s resource response plans.
F5:
Programs promoting the RCAC have not been discontinued or deleted.
F6:
Management, staff and volunteers, exhibit professionalism and commitment in the operation of RCAC.
F7:
RCAC is transparent in its operation. 11 2012-2013 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report VICTOR VALLEY COLLEGE POLICE DEPARTMENT
F8:
Inmates are not generally aware that it is illegal for bondsmen to solicit bail services.
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
A biennial audit covering a two-year period;
R2:
Accounting and Financial Management NCSD Lacks State-Mandated Financial Audits NCSD has not completed annual financial audits for fiscal years 2009-2010, 2010-2011, and 2011-2012. NCSD is therefore not in compliance with State Government Code Section 26909 for 2009-2010 and 2010-2011, which requires annual audits of financial condition for all special districts within 12 months of the end of a fiscal year. The State Controller’s Office prescribed minimum auditing requirements for special districts, set out in Title 2, Section 1131.2 of the California Code of Regulations, consist of 17 general statements that county auditors or independent accounting firms should consider in preparing an audit program. These 17 statements include the following important steps, among others:
• A proper study and evaluation of the existing internal control and the financial organizational structure;
• A review of the district’s report of financial transactions to the State Controller to see that it agrees with official records of the district for the period. The State Controller should be informed of any material difference;
• A determination that expenditures were properly documented, authorized and incurred and are proper charges to the fund and appropriation against which they have been charged; and,
• A verification of all assets and liabilities in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards. The failure to follow these and the other requirements set out by the State Controller has led to negative consequences for NCSD including: (1) putting NCSD out of compliance with State Code; (2) leaving residents and taxpayers without a reasonable assurance that financial statements are presented fairly and accurately; and, (3) putting the District at greater risk of waste, fraud and abuse due to the absence of any review of internal controls. The lack of audited financial statements is also not consistent with industry best practices, such as those promulgated by the Institute for Local Government, which notes that “audited financial reports alert governing body members if there are irregularities in financial practices and financial reporting.”3 3 The Institute for Local Government is an affiliate of the California State Association of Counties and the League of California Cities. The best practices information can be found online at this address: http://www.ca‐ ilg.org/sites/main/files/file‐attachments/resources__3r_Financial_Reporting_and_Accounting.pdf 7 2012-2013 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report Auditor-Controller Monitoring of Audit Requirements Has Had Limited Effectiveness with NCSD State code places responsibility on the County Auditor-Controller for making sure special districts are audited annually or on a different frequency under certain restrictions. Specifically, Section 26909 of the State Government Code requires county auditors to: Either make or contract with a certified public accountant or public accountant to make an annual audit of the accounts and records of every special district within the county for which an audit by a certified public accountant or public accountant is not otherwise provided. The Internal Audits Section of the County Auditor-Controller, which is responsible for performing operational and financial audits of special districts, has taken steps to monitor special districts’ compliance with State auditing requirements. However, these efforts have not been successful with NCSD. The Auditor-Controller has procedures that call for repeated, increasingly assertive correspondence with general managers and district boards that have not completed a financial audit on time. In the case of NCSD’s FY 2011-12 audit, the Auditor-Controller relied on the District’s general manager’s and its certified public accountant’s assertions that a contract was in place to conduct audit services. However, as noted later in this section, the work performed by the certified public accountant does not comply with State audit requirements. The enforcement of Section 26909 is somewhat complicated by the Code’s requirement that any costs incurred by the county auditor, including any contracts with accountants, be borne by the special district. County Auditor-Controller management staff has asserted to our audit team that there has been some hesitancy to enforce the annual audit requirement on NCSD due to the District’s budgetary constraints. However, there has been no formal steps taken or analysis conducted by the Auditor-Controller to determine the most cost effective method of complying with State audit requirements. NCSD and Auditor-Controller Have Not Pursued Potential Alternatives to Annual Audits Neither NCSD nor the Auditor-Controller have studied or pursued potential alternatives to annual audits allowed for in the State Government Code under certain restrictions. Specifically, Government Code Section 26909 allows for the following three alternatives if requested unanimously by the special district’s governing board and unanimously approved by the Board of Supervisors:
R3:
An audit conducted at specific intervals, as recommended by the County Auditor, which shall be completed at least once every five years. 8 2012-2013 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report Given the District’s relatively small budget of approximately $250,000 per year, the Auditor- Controller and District Board members should consider these alternatives, which would require fewer resources to be devoted to financial audits, but would still be in compliance with State requirements. 2011-12 Financial Review Did Not Meet Minimum Audit Requirements Financial reports required by State Government Code to be filed with the State Controller’s Office have been submitted by NCSD, but were based upon unaudited and unverified data. Contrary to State code requirements, the District’s FY 2011-12 annual report of financial transactions to the State Controller has not been reviewed by an independent public accountant to ensure that they agree with the official records of the District. In September 2012, NCSD contracted with a certified public accountant for audit services covering financial transactions in FY 2011-12. The Auditor stated the District did not provide adequate or sufficient documentation to complete an audit and express an audit opinion. However, these services did not meet the minimum requirements prescribed by the State Controller’s Office for audits of special districts. Rather, in his transmittal letter to the District’s Board of Directors the certified public accountant stated that his work was limited to putting together the financial report that must be filed annually with the State Controller. Further, the letter states that “I have not audited or reviewed the financial statements referred to above and accordingly do not express an opinion or any other form of assurance on them.” The State Controller’s prescribed minimum audit requirements are contained in the California Code of Regulations (Title 2, Section 1131.2). As previously mentioned, these minimum requirements include the statement that: the district’s report of financial transactions to the State Controller should be reviewed to see that it agrees with the official records of the district for the period. The State Controller should be informed of any material difference. The General Manager should prepare the District’s financial statements on an annual basis before they are reviewed by the Auditor-Controller or a certified public accountant to ensure they are an accurate reflection of the District’s financial condition. Financial Data Reported to State Controller Indicate Financial Instability and Structural Deficits Although the data provided to the State Controller’s Office is unaudited, a review of such data indicates financial instability, which further underlies the need for regular financial audits. As seen in Table 2.1 below, the District appears to have run a deficit in FY 2009-10 of approximately $18,000 or about 8 percent of total revenues. Further, the lighting and lighting maintenance function has run deficits ranging from $41,142 to $5,011 from FY 2008-09 to FY 2010-11 and the Recreation and Park Function has run deficits of approximately $25,000 in FY 2009-10 and about $2,300 FY 2010-11. NCSD management has been unable to identify the cause(s) of these deficits. Additionally, the District’s methodology for assigning district-wide costs such as Director’s fee, office costs, and accounting and legal fees between the three functional departments is not documented, and therefore cannot be verified. 9 2012-2013 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report Table 2.1 NCSD Expenditure Data Reported to State Controller Activity FY 2008-09 FY 2008-09 FY 2009-10 FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2010-11 Revenues Expenditures Revenues Expenditures Revenues Expenditures Fire Protection $152,701 $119,179 $124,762 $112,437 $136,411 $109,611 Lighting and Lighting 3,434 44,576 2,141 7,152 2,210 8,698 Maintenance Recreation and Park 155,645 142,136 98,935 124,115 100,563 102,910 Total $311,780 $287,891 $225,838 $243,704 $239,184 $221,219 Source: State Controller’s Office NCSD Lacks Sufficient Accounting Procedures and Controls NCSD lacks sufficient accounting procedures and controls. According to State Government Code 61053, NCSD must: adopt a system of accounting and auditing that shall completely and at all times show the district’s financial condition. The system of accounting and auditing shall adhere to generally accepted accounting principles. However, the District does not have: (1) a hierarchical account numbering system; (2) a financial or accounting manual; or, (3) a consistent system to classify expenditures carried out by the District. Further, although the State Controller requires special districts to use the modified accrual basis of accounting, it is not employed at NCSD. NCSD Lacks Account Numbering System and Financial Manual Beginning in FY 2012-13, the District abandoned utilizing its numerical and hierarchical account structure in favor of an accounting scheme based on account titles. A fundamental objective of accounting is to accurately classify transactions such as expenditures and receipts into proper “buckets” or accounts. Accounts are generally identified utilizing a numeric or alpha-numeric scheme. Accounting identifiers are usually broken down into some type of hierarchical components to accommodate data correlation and reporting activities. The numerical assignment of an accounting identifier also facilitates system to system and intra-system exchanges of data, such as from a Purchase Order system to the General Ledger. The abandonment of account numbers inhibits accurate and efficient hand-offs of accounting data for establishment and performance measurement of budgets and future growth into new and more sophisticated computer system interfaces. NCSD lacks a financial or accounting manual, which would provide guidance to the General Manager and other staff on how to create and maintain District accounts and prepare the District’s income statement, general ledger, and annual financial statement. In addition, a 10 2012-2013 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report financial or accounting manual would assist the staff in using modified accrual based accounting, which is required by the State Controller for non-enterprise funds. The lack of a financial or accounting manual may have led to the following odd general ledger and income statement entries observed by the Grand Jury from FY 2011-12:
• On the District’s Income Statement, a revenue line title “Deposits Not Recorded” shows a value of $121,248.76, which is 47 percent of the District’s fiscal year revenue. No explanation was found for the purpose or intended usage of this account.
• Account 5100 titled “Directors Stipend” reflects amounts that are not in increments of $50 even though Directors are paid $50 per authorized meeting.
• Account 5101 titled “Secretary Salary” reflects payments made to five individuals ranging from $39.67 to $12,640.02. However, the District did not have five secretaries during FY 2011-12. Expenditures Not Consistently Classified to Support Proper Accounting NCSD does not consistently classify or document expenditures to allow for proper accounting of the various functions carried out by the District. For example, approximately $20,000 of purchase card expenditures was placed in a general ledger clearing account because the former General Manager, lacking documentation, could not determine the appropriate cost account. Additionally, a 4,000 gallon Water Tender Truck was acquired via a capital lease, but is being accounted for as an operating lease. This misstates both the District’s assets and liabilities. The failure to properly classify expenditures leaves the District non-compliant with the State Code requirement to adopt a system of accounting and auditing that shall completely and at all times show the District’s financial condition. It also affects the accuracy of the District’s State- mandated financial reporting. District Has Weak Check Reconciliation Process NCSD’s check reconciliation process has been deficient. The District’s FY 2011-2012 account for workers’ compensation insurance was overstated by the value of one extra quarterly payment in the amount of $2,172, which resulted from a voided check not being reversed off the books. This is an indicator of a weak check reconciliation process. Reconciling bank statements to check registers and to General Ledger account balances is a fundamental management practice and a basic internal control process. This process ensures the bank’s records are in-line with the District’s records, and that any voided or un-cashed checks are identified for follow-up and corrective action if needed. A check that has been voided must also have its charged reversed on the accounting ledgers. Failure to reverse an entry in the accounting ledger will overstate expenditures and under-state the District’s actual cash position. The General Manager has indicated that improvements to the check reconciliation process have been implemented. Identifying any additional prior year problems requires the completion of outstanding audit work. 11 2012-2013 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report Conclusions The Newberry Community Services District (NCSD) has not completed annual financial audits for the previous three fiscal years (2009-2010, 2010-2011, and 2011-2012). State Government Code requires public agencies, including special districts, to conduct annual financial audits within 12 months of the end of each fiscal year. The Board of Directors failure to execute this responsibility is in noncompliance with California Government Code at Section 26909 and 61118 for 2009-2010 and 2010-2011. Further, while State Code requires the County Auditor- Controller to ensure such audits are completed, efforts to monitor and enforce this provision have had limited effectiveness. Financial reports required by State Government Code to be filed with the State Controller’s Office have been submitted by NCSD, but were based upon unaudited and unverified data. Contrary to State code requirements, the District’s FY 2011-12 annual report of financial transactions to the State Controller has not been reviewed by an independent public accountant to ensure that it agrees with the official records of the District. The financial information that has been provided, while unaudited, indicates some financial instability, which further underlies the need for regular financial audits. NCSD lacks basic accounting procedures and controls. Specifically, District does not have: (1) a hierarchical account numbering system; (2) a financial or accounting manual; or, (3) a consistent system to classify expenditures carried out by the District. Further, the District lacks a consistent method for authorizing, classifying, and documenting expenditures from purchase cards. Recommendations The Newberry Community Services District Board of Directors should direct the General Manager to: 4 Re-adopt a numerical and hierarchical account numbering structure for use in the District’s general ledger and income statement. Work with the Board, County Auditor, and utilize resources such as the California Special Districts Association to develop a basic accounting manual. The Auditor Controller should: 6 Revise Outside Audit Report procedures to include corrective actions for special districts that do not comply with State audit requirements for an extended period of time. Such corrective actions could include conducting audits and billing the districts for Auditor- Controller staff time or hiring an outside certified public accountant to conduct the audit and billing the district for the accountant’s work. Work with the Newberry Community Services District General Manager to determine a feasible approach to complying with audit requirements established in State Government Code Section 26909. Such approaches could, with the unanimous request of the Board of Directors and the unanimous approval of the Board of Supervisors, include: 12 2012-2013 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report (a) A biennial audit covering a two-year period; (b) An audit covering a five-year period, if the District’s annual revenues do not exceed an amount specified by the Board of Supervisors; or, (c) An audit conducted at specific intervals, as recommended by the County Auditor- Controller, which shall be completed at least once every five years. Costs and Benefits The costs of implementing with these recommendations would include District staff time to draft and adopt policies and procedures. The benefits of implementing these recommendations would include stronger controls over accounting and management of the District’s finances and greater transparency in the reporting of the District’s financial condition. The benefits would also include compliance with State Government Code audit requirements for special districts. 13 2012-2013 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
1 findings
F1:
Regarding the evaluation and assessment for accountability to the public
• The one-time-only redesign presents a vivid, revealing and un-retouched candid snapshot of CFS, which stands in contrast to the usual documentation CFS presents. Its pattern of identifying strengths and recommending opportunities for change in 13 elements implies a measure of accountability.
• CFS has an obligation to measure its accountability to the public and express it in terms which can be understood by the public.
• Normally CFS publications include: o CFS’ brief contribution to the Human Services Annual Report, which is a public document; o the bound Annual Report, which contains little in the way of accountability, and the intended audience is CFS, not the public; o documents such as the DAMR provide some insight into CFS operations, which are not available to the public; and o the Self-Reassessment, based on the SIP results (formerly published after three years, now extended to five years), is clearly intended for a professional audience, not the public.
• Two annual goals are cited in the CFS Report incorporated in the Human Services Annual Report and other publications, yet the Grand Jury was unable to readily find the outcomes for these goals reported in either CFS public documents or on the CFS website. They are cited in the Human Services Department annual budget.
• CFS’ current method of reporting evaluation of its effectiveness and accountability to the public is inadequate. It is too dependent on the outcomes of the periodic SIP goals and the unreported outcomes of annual internal goals. This makes it difficult for the public to be able to determine if CFS is operating effectively within its budget.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R15:
"Review suggestions made in its COMMISSIONERS (LAFCO) 2009 report and include more robust analysis of JIM BAGLEY governance and reorganization options for the next Service Pubhc Member Review of the District, scheduled for 2014." (Italics included by KIMBERLY COX, Vice Cha.r Spec1al Distnct LAFCO staff) JAMES V. CURATALO, Chait Special D1stnct Response: On August 21 and September 18 LAFCO reviewed ROBERT A LOVINGOOD Recommendation #15 outlined above as well as the Grand Jury Board of Supervisors concerns related to the operations of the Newberry Community LARRY McCALLON City Member Services District. By action taken September 18, LAFCO has JAMES RAMOS directed its staff to undertake an immediate off-cycle service review Board of Supervisors for the Newberry Community Services District as well as the Yermo DIANE WILLIAMS City Member and Daggett Community Services Districts to address the concerns outlined in the Grand Jury Report and Recommendation #15. The ALTERNATES Commission chose to look at all three communities on the basis DAWN ROWE that the original report addressed the regional area and outlined the City Member concerns for future sustainability of services. Due to the severity of JANICE RUTHERFORD Board of Supervisors the issues identified in the Grand Jury report, LAFCO was SUNIL SETHI concerned that the next service review, while currently scheduled PubliC Member for 2014, would be delayed. Therefore, an off-cycle response was ROBERT W SMITH Special District approved. STAFF The Commission's direction to its staff is to undertake a detailed KATHLEEN ROLLJNGS-McDONALD analysis of the various service delivery options (which will include ExecutiVe OffiCer but will not limited to consolidation, transfer of service to a more SAMUEL MARTINEZ Ass•stant Executive OffiCer regional entity, etc.) available for the area. A copy of the report MICHAEL TUERPE presented to the Commission for the September hearing is included Project Manager for your information. LAFCO staff will be contacting the three REBECCA LOWERY Clef!< to the Commission LEGAL COUNSEL CLARK H ALSOP Community Services Districts in the near future to request submission of financial and service plan documents to commence the study. Should you have any questions on this response or LAFCO actions to be undertaken, please do not hesitate to contact me directly at the address or phone number listed above or by email at: kmcdonald@lafco.sbcounty.gov. -JiLl ~/' ~;N R LUNGS-McDONALD Executive Officer
Findings & Recommendations
1 findings
F1:
The SAFE Call Box Program is not publicized adequately to inform the motoring public of its existence and/or its funding.
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
Due to increases of County jail population under AB 109, space must now be severely rationed with the highest priority being to house the most dangerous inmates.
F2:
The County does not have enough high security housing for the convicted inmates who prior to AB 109 would have been housed at State prisons.
F3:
AB 109 needs to be addressed by State Legislators and amended to keep violent career criminals under State jurisdiction.
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
Reporting of EMS response times is not standardized throughout the County. However, improvements in ambulance response time measurements are being implemented to ensure public safety objectives are maintained. This is being accomplished via a Countywide adoption of a software package, which is being adopted nationwide.
F2:
ConFire’s gaining accreditation was a key stepping stone to enable the members and contracted agencies to pursue updates for their EMS resource response plans.
F3:
ConFire is the only dispatch facility in the County accredited by the National Academies of Emergency Dispatch.
F4:
Some fire management personnel within the County recognize not all medical emergencies require dispatching a large number of resources.
F5:
Programs promoting the RCAC have not been discontinued or deleted.
F6:
Management, staff and volunteers, exhibit professionalism and commitment in the operation of RCAC.
F7:
RCAC is transparent in its operation. 2012-2013 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 12
Additional Recommendations
25
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Implement countywide homelessness prevention strategies to prevent individuals and families from becoming homeless.
R2:
Use funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Homeless Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program (HPRP), for supplemental resources including rental assistance and utility assistance.
R3:
Implement a community outreach and education campaign that raises awareness about households at risk of becoming homeless and provides information about resources available through homeless prevention programs. The effort was to leverage the 2-1-1 System (Homeless Resources) for easy access when appropriate.
R4:
Formalize protocols and improve the coordination of discharge planning so that new persons do not find themselves living without social and economic supports.
R5:
Establish a Central Contact Center that would respond to community calls and concerns for traditional street outreach and engagement and/or assertive community treatment.
R6:
Expand Street Outreach and Engagement Services to include multi-disciplinary practitioners and services. 2012-2013 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 33
R7:
Expand Street Outreach and Engagement Services to include volunteers from various community groups.
R8:
Establish Regional One-Stop Centers which contain standardized intake and assessment with related protocols to guarantee consistency between regional centers. The social services to be included are: employment, healthcare, housing placement, mental healthcare, substance abuse counseling and treatment with coordination between private and public agencies.
R9:
Use a comprehensive tool that determines potential eligibility for mainstream resources and integrate this tool into the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS).
R10:
Appropriate case management services should be available to all homeless persons whether they are on the street, in emergency shelters or transitional housing or receiving permanent supportive services. Also, re-establish new Continuum of Care Programs which link case management with HMIS.
R11:
Develop and execute a rapid exit strategy focusing on early identification and resolution of the barriers to housing through case management services in order to facilitate the return of a homeless person to permanent housing as quickly as possible.
R12:
Implement a Rapid Re-Housing Approach for Households with dependent children.
R13:
Increase the number of emergency and transitional housing units.
R14:
Implement a Housing First Approach which is the belief that homeless families are more responsive to interventions and social services when living in their own housing.
R15:
Obtain more shelter plus care certificates. This housing assists homeless individuals and families with mental illness, chronic substance abuse and/or infected with HIV/AIDS with long-term affordable rental housing, and increases the participants’ independent living skills.
R16:
Increase the number of permanent housing units with an emphasis on the development of Safe Havens. This includes apartment buildings, single and multi- family housing, single room occupancy and low-demand units requiring clients to abstain from alcohol and drug use and not to exhibit threatening behavior.
R17:
Encourage all local jurisdictions to adopt an inclusionary housing policy that requires a certain percentage of new housing to be affordable to extremely low and very low income residents. 2012-2013 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 34
R18:
Assess the feasibility of a Housing Trust Fund for County and local levels of government. Six counties in the State of California have created housing trust funds which support the production and preservation of affordable housing.
R19:
Expand the capacity of Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) so that agencies may make better use of data, decrease time and effort at intake and enhance the planning and development functions of the Continuum of Care. HMIS is a Congressional Housing of Urban Development (HUD) Directive for understanding the homeless and measuring program effectiveness.
R20:
Conduct periodic Homeless 101 Training concerning community issues such as: a) law enforcement policies and homeless persons, b) responses by residents, business employees, and homeless persons, c) appropriate actions and responses by social service providers when contacted by the above-mentioned, d) information distribution concerning resources and referral contacts.
R21:
Increase awareness of the collaborative Justice Courts and alternative sentencing programs for defendants experiencing homelessness. Courts included are: Homeless, Adult Drug, Mental Health and Veteran. This would be for the purpose of reducing state costs and ultimately improving public safety.
R22:
Implement and educate the community on the principles, goals and recommendations of this report.
R23:
Enlist the support of faith-based organizations to help implement the goals and recommendations of this report.
R24:
Create an Interagency Council on Homelessness for San Bernardino County charged with coordinating and evaluating policies concerning these recommendations and related activities within the plan.
R25:
Appoint the partnership members as an advisory body to the Interagency Council and appoint representatives as standing members to the Interagency Council.
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
Websites and web pages are currently in existence which are spoofing the San Bernardino County Sheriff Department (SBCSD) Inmate locater, detention centers, and official Websites.
F2:
The SBCSD Inmate locater website access/restriction controls are deficient and facilitate opportunities for inappropriate solicitation options by bondsmen.
F3:
SBCSD has the authority to define who has privacy privileges and use of official visitor’s room.
F4:
The “Request for Visit” form used by bondsmen to visit inmates does not include a certification of accuracy and truthfulness by signature of the bondsman.
F5:
Bondsmen have conducted up to seven unsupervised official visits to different inmates in a day facilitating abuses by bondsmen in contacting inmates for bail services.
F6:
The SBCSD Detention Centers do not have consistent policies for maintaining logs for bondsmen visits.
F7:
The County of San Bernardino Office of County Counsel is effectively responding to motions for bond forfeitures and exonerations.
F8:
Inmates are not generally aware that it is illegal for bondsmen to solicit bail services.
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
A biennial audit covering a two-year period;
R2:
Accounting and Financial Management NCSD Lacks State-Mandated Financial Audits NCSD has not completed annual financial audits for fiscal years 2009-2010, 2010-2011, and 2011-2012. NCSD is therefore not in compliance with State Government Code Section 26909 for 2009-2010 and 2010-2011, which requires annual audits of financial condition for all special districts within 12 months of the end of a fiscal year. The State Controller’s Office prescribed minimum auditing requirements for special districts, set out in Title 2, Section 1131.2 of the California Code of Regulations, consist of 17 general statements that county auditors or independent accounting firms should consider in preparing an audit program. These 17 statements include the following important steps, among others:
• A proper study and evaluation of the existing internal control and the financial organizational structure;
• A review of the district’s report of financial transactions to the State Controller to see that it agrees with official records of the district for the period. The State Controller should be informed of any material difference;
• A determination that expenditures were properly documented, authorized and incurred and are proper charges to the fund and appropriation against which they have been charged; and,
• A verification of all assets and liabilities in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards. The failure to follow these and the other requirements set out by the State Controller has led to negative consequences for NCSD including: (1) putting NCSD out of compliance with State Code; (2) leaving residents and taxpayers without a reasonable assurance that financial statements are presented fairly and accurately; and, (3) putting the District at greater risk of waste, fraud and abuse due to the absence of any review of internal controls. The lack of audited financial statements is also not consistent with industry best practices, such as those promulgated by the Institute for Local Government, which notes that “audited financial reports alert governing body members if there are irregularities in financial practices and financial reporting.”3 3 The Institute for Local Government is an affiliate of the California State Association of Counties and the League of California Cities. The best practices information can be found online at this address: http://www.ca‐ ilg.org/sites/main/files/file‐attachments/resources__3r_Financial_Reporting_and_Accounting.pdf 2012-2013 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 8
R3:
An audit conducted at specific intervals, as recommended by the County Auditor, which shall be completed at least once every five years. 2012-2013 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 9
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
The Yucaipa Substation did not follow the policies and procedures of the SBCSD as it relates to the handling of a citizen complaint against a member of the SBCSD.
F2:
The Yucaipa Substation did not follow its own internal policies and procedures for handling of a citizen complaint.
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
WIB members do not participate in the preparation of its annual budget. 2012-2013 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 30
F2:
WIB members do not participate in preparing or approving its monthly County or State financial program status reports. The WIB staff assumes this responsibility.
F3:
Some members of the WIB Executive Committee are unaware of WIB financial reports, such as the Trial Balance Sheets for Fiscal Year ended June 30, 2011 and June 30, 2012.
F4:
WIB Executive Committee members review only the summary portion of annual audits conducted on their programs and administration expenditures. They depend on WIB staff to advise them of any audit issues.