Gran Jurado del Condado de San Diego
2008-2009
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
4 hallazgos
F01:
Publicly funded redevelopment activities in the City of San Diego are carried out through an organizational structure marked by confusing lines of operational and financial authority and responsibility.
F02:
The information and tools currently available to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Diego, the City Council, and the Mayor to oversee the city’s redevelopment activities are inadequate to ensure effective operational and financial accountability. 14
F03:
Essential information about the finances and operations of the publicly funded redevelopment activities in the City of San Diego is not made available to the public on a timely basis.
F2009:
The purposes of the recommended amendments range from the very general (number 17, for example states “Corporation Boards must follow redevelopment law.”) to the very specific (number 5 states “City has right to order a performance audit, to be paid for in full by corporation, no more than once per year.”). 11 /2009 (filed May 6, 2009) IBA is necessary to build public confidence in the transparency of the operations and finances of the City’s redevelopment activities. There is also widely shared agreement among City officials and administrators that CCDC and SEDC should be required to undergo regularly scheduled, independent financial and/or performance audits, with the ensuing reports made available to the public. In fact, the terms of the current Agency operating agreements with both SEDC and CCDC already require submission to the Agency by each nonprofit entity of certified financial statements and a detailed report of audit by an independent Certified Public Accountant within 120 days of the close of the entities’ fiscal years. The Mayor’s Office and the SEDC board also agree that SEDC should submit a monthly consulting report to its board, disclosing consultant contracts entered into in the preceding month and related information. Requiring presentation of such a monthly report by SEDC and CCDC, including details of consultant compensation for the period, also to the Mayor’s Office, the City Council, and the IBA would build public confidence in the transparency of the redevelopment process. Making that report available to the public would also enhance public confidence. City officials and employees expressed widespread agreement in interviews with the Grand Jury that training on California redevelopment law for all public representatives and employees involved in the City’s redevelopment activities should be mandatory. Training in fiduciary duties should be an additional requirement for board members of the City’s redevelopment agencies. Independent Budget Analyst Report 09-01 states the standard for board training succinctly: “On a frequent and routine basis, the Board [should] receive training that shall, at a minimum, cover the Board’s fiduciary responsibilities, general redevelopment and redevelopment-related finance.” The Mayor’s March 20, 2009 Memorandum to the City Council’s Audit Committee also recommends that “Corporation Board member training in ethics, fiduciary duties and governance shall occur every 2 years.” Conclusion Unfortunately the public perception of the City’s redevelopment activities today is one of dysfunctional organizations, weak governance, and opaque operations. Many public officials and employees agree that there is a lack of effective oversight of the operations and finances of the City’s redevelopment activities, exacerbated by insufficient transparency. In general, the City’s redevelopment activities lack distinct lines of responsibility and authority. City employees are often unsure whether the official chain of command is the same as the de facto chain through which they carry out their redevelopment duties. The Mayor is not a member of the board of the Redevelopment Agency and cannot vote on its decisions, but the Mayor is Executive Director of the Agency and has a veto over those decisions. The Mayor, however, serves as Executive Director and holds a veto power solely at the pleasure of the Agency’s board – the City Council. Further, out of concerns for possible conflicts of interests or other uncertainties, the Mayor in fact performs little or no work for the Agency. The legal instruments -- bylaws and operating agreements -- on which the Agency and the City’s redevelopment 12 /2009 (filed May 6, 2009) corporations (SEDC and CCDC) base their operations have not been modified effectively, if at all, to reflect the realities of the strong-mayor form of government. The present structure is, in short, a “legal construct” that is hard to follow even by those who are part of it. These circumstances make a strong case for basic organizational changes to clarify the lines of responsibility and authority for the redevelopment activities of the City. A fundamental characteristic of the operational and financial aspects of the City’s present redevelopment activities is opacity. The inevitable result of opacity is the inability of City officials and the public to assess performance confidently -- to measure efficiency and effectiveness with certainty. It is the sense of the Grand Jury that, however much reorganization may be needed, the most important step toward minimizing the recurrence of the reported problems with the City’s redevelopment activities is not reorganization, but the institutionalization of consistent measures to increase transparency in those activities. Without transparency, there can be no realistic prospect of effective oversight, whatever the organizational structure. In short, the remedy for the widely-held perception that there is little or no accountability in the City’s redevelopment activities is “sunshine” -- the assurance of transparency with respect to the operations and finances of the City’s redevelopment organizations. FACTS AND FINDINGS Fact: The City of San Diego (City) created the Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Diego (Redevelopment Agency or Agency) in 1958, with the City Council constituting the members or board of the Agency. Fact: The Redevelopment Agency is an independent legal entity, separate from the City. Fact: Since 2006 the City Council, acting as the Redevelopment Agency board, has appointed the Mayor of the City to successive terms as the Executive Director of the Redevelopment Agency. Fact: As the Executive Director of the Redevelopment Agency, the Mayor has no vote on matters decided by the Agency’s board, but the Mayor has been given a veto over development- related actions approved by the Agency’s board. Fact: The Redevelopment Agency has no direct employees; it operates through contracts with the City (service level agreements for administrative services, and operating agreements for managing redevelopment project areas) and contracts with two nonprofit corporations, Centre City Development Corporation (CCDC) and Southeastern Economic Development Corporation (SEDC) (operating agreements for managing redevelopment project areas). Fact: The City created both the CCDC and the SEDC as independent, nonprofit agencies of the City for the purpose of providing economic development services which can be done under contract with the Redevelopment Agency. 13 /2009 (filed May 6, 2009) Fact: The principal terms in the Redevelopment Agency’s current operating agreements with SEDC and CCDC relating to operational or financial oversight (other than those relating to budget submissions) require the corporations to: make their accounting books and records available for inspection by the Agency; submit to the Agency annually a report of a financial audit by an independent Certified Public Accountant; get approval from the Agency for transfers of funds between budget categories; submit to the Agency monthly vouchers for reimbursement of expenditures; and submit to the Agency a monthly statement of income and expenses (CCDC only). Fact: The City Council, acting as the board of the Redevelopment Agency, has the power under the operating agreements with SEDC and CCDC to terminate those agreements after giving ninety days’ notice. Fact: The City Council has the power under the bylaws of both CCDC and SEDC to elect the directors of the corporations and to remove directors by a two-thirds vote. Fact: The principal provisions of the current bylaws of SEDC and CCDC relating to operational or financial oversight state that: SEDC and CCDC will make their accounting books and records available for inspection by the City of San Diego; SEDC will submit to the City an annual report of financial information; SEDC and CCDC will supply annually to the City, upon request, financial statements based on an audit by an independent accountant. Fact: The City of San Diego is the sole member of both CCDC and SEDC, and under the bylaws of both CCDC and SEDC, the City (acting through the City Council) has the power to amend, or to adopt new, bylaws for both corporations. Fact: Audit reports and annual reports of the Redevelopment Agency have not been timely filed with the State of California in the past. Fact: The information available to the public through the internet sites of the Redevelopment Agency, CCDC, and SEDC relating to the entities’ operations and finances is limited, inconsistent, incomplete, out of date, and sometimes erroneous. Finding #01: Publicly funded redevelopment activities in the City of San Diego are carried out through an organizational structure marked by confusing lines of operational and financial authority and responsibility. Finding #02: The information and tools currently available to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Diego, the City Council, and the Mayor to oversee the city’s redevelopment activities are inadequate to ensure effective operational and financial accountability. 14 /2009 (filed May 6, 2009) Finding #03: Essential information about the finances and operations of the publicly funded redevelopment activities in the City of San Diego is not made available to the public on a timely basis.
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
5 hallazgos
F01:
CWS workers concentrate their efforts on the protection of children. Fact: CWS workers give only oral reasons at the time of removal. Joint Statement by San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency and San Diego State University. P.8, CWS Booklet, A Parent’s Guide to the Child Welfare System. State of California Welfare and Institutions Code, Section 300. 4
F02:
Parents assert that they do not receive sufficient information from CWS workers to exercise their parental rights effectively. Fact: The Juvenile Court works with CWS to protect children from neglect, physical and emotional abuse, sexual molestation and exploitation.
F03:
The Juvenile Court acts to do what is in the best interest of the child and the most important thing is the child.8 Fact: CWS employs social workers to investigate reports of neglect, physical and emotional abuse, exploitation and sexual molestation of children. Fact: CWS employs social workers, some of whom, in the opinion of the Grand Jury, are biased, have personality differences with customers, or have little experience with the populations they serve.
F04:
It is essential to the administration of the child protection system that CWS screen its workers and train them to minimize personal bias, cultural ignorance or factual errors. Fact: CWS hires workers who have education in the social sciences and who often come directly from colleges and universities with the needed educational knowledge but little practical experience. Fact: The “Social Work Administrative Internships in Child Welfare” program is an available tool to screen and train a pool of experienced social workers. Fact: A majority of cases investigated involve the abuse of alcohol and drugs.
F05:
In the hiring of CWS social workers, in addition to education proficiency, it is useful to have people that also have experience with children and with knowledge of alcohol and drug abuse programs.
Recomendaciones adicionales
3
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
09-43:
Develop a form with a check-off list indicating the allegations that
09-44:
Expand the existing booklet given to parents regarding rights and
09-46:
Emphasize training for all CWS workers on alcohol and drug abuse.
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
2 hallazgos
F01:
Any action of the City Council to reduce or eliminate funding or to curtail investigative authority of the Commission could be perceived as presenting a conflict of interest. Fact: The citizens of San Diego voted overwhelmingly, on March 5, 2002, to give the Ethics Commission subpoena power. Fact: Subpoena power for testimony is currently allowed but only for official hearings of the Ethics Commission. Fact: The Ethics Commission has offered reasons for the Executive Director to have subpoena power for testimony during an investigation. Fact: The City Attorney’s office has raised concerns about individual rights during the investigative process if a person is compelled to appear before a Commission investigator to answer questions. Fact: The City Council has the authority to approve subpoena power for testimony for the Ethics Commission during the investigative process.
F02:
Subpoena power for testimony during the investigative process would better serve the citizens of San Diego by: shortening the investigative process, providing protection for people who provide information to the investigator and often eliminate the need for a Commission hearing as the information provided has disproved the allegation(s). 6
Recomendaciones adicionales
2
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
09-41:
Place a measure on the ballot to amend the City Charter to
09-42:
By Ordinance clarify the powers of the Ethics Commission to
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
3 hallazgos
F01:
The net cost of conducting Chula Vista Jail operations in the City of Chula Vista exceeded $900,000 for FY 07/08 according to figures supplied by the Chula Vista Police Department. Fact: Income to the Inmate Welfare Fund from the contract telephone service and commissary privileges managed by CVJ personnel is substantial. Fact: A cost analysis has never been performed on the operation of the CVJ or its Inmate Welfare Fund by the City or an outside examiner. Fact: CVJ management does not have a strategy for the use of the funds available now or in the future for the Inmate Welfare Fund.
F02:
A more effective set of financial controls should be placed on the Inmate Welfare Fund to avoid the potential for fraud or abuse. Fact: City management has stated several times in various forms (media releases, verbal communications, web site) that one of the primary justifications for operating CVJ was to increase patrol personnel and to save prisoner transportation costs to the county jail. Fact: The Sheriff’s Department charges the City to pick up prisoners from the CVJ and deliver them to the South Bay Court and ultimately to San Diego County detention facilities. Fact: The Chula Vista Police Department continues to transport prisoners to San Diego County Sheriff’s detention facilities on a routine basis.
F03:
Anticipated savings to the City of Chula Vista for the transportation of prisoners to the San Diego County facilities have been negligible.
Recomendaciones adicionales
3
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
09-33:
Conduct an examination and assessment of the Chula Vista Jail
09-34:
Present a public report to the Chula Vista City Council concerning
09-35:
Evaluate and revise the current policy and procedures relating to the
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
3 hallazgos
F01:
The City of Oceanside is currently unable to adequately monitor the use of City funds by MainStreet Oceanside.
F02:
MainStreet Oceanside’s financial reports have not shown a clear correlation between the amounts and categories of authorized funds, and how the funds have actually been used.
F03:
MainStreet Oceanside is not in compliance with the contract requirements for financial reporting to the City of Oceanside.
Recomendaciones adicionales
3
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
09-30:
Adopt procedures that will ensure that MainStreet Oceanside is
09-31:
Make a public report describing how the City of Oceanside intends to
09-32:
Adopt financial accounting procedures that will enable MainStreet
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
2 hallazgos
F01:
CWS removal and placement recommendations are based on the original caseworker’s initial investigation only.
F02:
The Ombudsman’s Office is limited by CWS in its ability to do a full and complete re-investigation of the facts underlying a case in which a complaint has been registered.
Recomendaciones adicionales
1
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
09-27:
Empower the CWS Office of the Ombudsman to reopen and
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
8 hallazgos
F01:
Training of DGS personnel on policies and procedures is ineffective. Fact: The policies and procedures for DGS are generic in content and not site specific. Fact: Information relative to the maintenance of specific sites and procedures unique to those sites is handed down verbally by experienced employees to less experienced employees.
F02:
There are no written maintenance policies and procedures that apply to varying conditions at the County’s detention facilities. Fact: The Sheriff’s Department has a Memorandum of Understanding with DGS for the performance of maintenance at facilities operated by the Sheriff’s Department. Fact: The Probation Department has a Service Level Agreement with DGS for performance of maintenance at facilities operated by the Probation Department.
F03:
Site inspections and testimony from knowledgeable witnesses indicate that the level of maintenance at Sheriff’s Department facilities is superior to the level of maintenance at Probation Department facilities.
F04:
The content of the agreements between DGS and the Sheriff’s Department and the Probation Department appears to affect the performance of maintenance at their respective detention facilities. Fact: Managers and supervisors in the Probation Department are not given access to information regarding funds available for maintenance at the facilities for which they are responsible.
F05:
The free flow of information regarding financial and operational issues is essential to good management of County facilities. Fact: The operation of computers is an essential part of DGS maintenance procedures. Fact: Many DGS employees are not proficient in the use of computer systems related to their job duties. Fact: DGS employees are required to utilize computers for the purpose of completing work orders.
F06:
Many DGS personnel are inadequately trained in the use of computers. Fact: There are no modesty panels in the shower facilities of the Juvenile Ranch Facility and the Camp Barrett Juvenile Facility. Fact: Modesty panels are installed in other juvenile detention facilities operated by the County.
F07:
The shower facilities at the Juvenile Ranch Facility and Camp Barrett Juvenile facility do not meet privacy standards present at other County Juvenile facilities. Fact: Mold and standing water were discovered in the shower area of the Juvenile Ranch Facility.
F08:
The condition of the shower area at the Juvenile Ranch Facility is potentially a health hazard to wards and employees at the facility.
Recomendaciones adicionales
7
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
09-20:
Create and adopt policies and procedures that are site specific relative
09-21:
Review the existing training protocol within DGS to determine its
09-22:
Systematically retrain employees until they can correctly fill out a
09-23:
Consider entering into a maintenance agreement with DGS that
09-24:
Adopt a written policy that ensures the free flow of information up
09-25:
Install modesty panels in the shower facilities of the Juvenile Ranch
09-26:
Eliminate mold in the shower area at the Juvenile Ranch Facility and
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
4 hallazgos
F01:
Immediate replacement of Las Colinas Detention Facility is necessary to provide a facility for female prisoners that meets modern correctional standards and does not exceed its capacity.
F02:
There are not enough effective video surveillance systems currently available in all San Diego County jails and detention facilities to promote security, protect staff and inmates from false claims of misconduct, and reduce resources expended to address unjustified claims and litigation.
F03:
Maintaining the medical records of juveniles in an electronic format would improve the quality of their medical care because the records would be more reliable and more readily available to medical staff.
F04:
The Probation Department lacks policies and procedures necessary to conduct effective oversight of the performance of contractors and subcontractors in the Work Furlough Program.
Recomendaciones adicionales
5
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
09-15:
Replace Las Colinas Detention Facility with a facility that meets
09-16:
Provide effective video surveillance systems, including active
09-17:
Provide effective video surveillance systems, including active
09-18:
Convert the paper medical records of juveniles to a secure electronic
09-19:
Establish written policies and procedures that provide for effective
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
11 hallazgos
F1:
2. No overhead cost allocation plan. *
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1:
The Organization board should immediately begin the budgeting process for the upcoming fiscal year by reviewing current revenue and expenditures and comparing them to the Organizations goals and objectives. Issue (2): The Organization has not established a Cost Allocation Plan for the spreading of overhead costs to each of the programs or events the Organization conducts. The lack of such a plan prohibits the proper allocation of these costs to these programs or events which would skew the overall financial success of the program or event by understating their true costs.
F3:
The Organization employs one bookkeeper who is responsible for all accounting, payroll and personnel functions (no succession/cross-training).#
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3:
Management should immediately begin the process of cross training of the bookkeepers duties to ensure transparency should the bookkeepers position become vacant for any reason. Issue (4): During our review of past independent audits of the Organization we noted comments by the auditors indicating related party transactions. The auditors in both reports (2005 and 2007) that board members provided the Organization with services for which they were compensated. The services provided by the board members included construction, artistic services, graphic arts services, electrical services, painting and t-shirts. Members providing services to the Organization could appear to be a conflict of interest whereby the services provided could have been obtained for a lower cost from other vendors.
F4:
Conflict of interest involving board member noted by external auditors (2005 and 2007).#
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4:
The Organization Board should establish a policy that no current members of the board provide remunerated services to the Organization while currently serving as a board member in order to prevent any conflict of interest. Control Issues The functions of the bookkeeper clearly indicate a proper lack of segregation duties as required by basic accounting principals. During our review of records and interviews we noted the following exceptions to these principals: GRAND JURY AUDIT OF THE April 2009 CITY OF OCEANSIDE CONTRACT WITH Report No. A09-024 MAINSTREET OCEANSIDE, INC. FINAL REPORT Control Issues (Continued) Issue (5): The monthly bank reconciliations are performed by the bookkeeper who also records all financial transactions in the Organization's financial accounting software. This function would allow the bookkeeper to commit fraud by hiding certain financial transactions.
F5:
Segregation of duties: The monthly bank reconciliations are performed by the bookkeeper who also records all financial transactions in the MSO's accounting system.*
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R5:
The monthly bank reconciliations should be performed by someone other than the bookkeeper who is properly trained on how to perform them. Issue (6): Bank statements are given directly to the bookkeeper who also performs the monthly bank reconciliation without review by the Executive Director. The person responsible for maintaining the financial records should not be the one performing the bank reconciliations in order to protect the integrity of the financial records.
F6:
Bank statements are given directly to the bookkeeper who also performs the monthly bank reconciliation without review by the Executive Director.# Bank deposits are not made daily. # 7.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R6:
The monthly bank statements should be directed to the executive director or their designee and not given to the bookkeeper. They should be reviewed by this person to look for any unusual activity. Issue (7): The bookkeeper sets up all new vendors in the financial system without review by upper management. The bookkeeper should not be allowed to set up new vendors since she is also the one who prepares the accounts payable records including issuing of the checks to the vendors. GRAND JURY AUDIT OF THE April 2009 CITY OF OCEANSIDE CONTRACT WITH Report No. A09-024 MAINSTREET OCEANSIDE, INC. FINAL REPORT Control Issues (Continued)
F7:
8. Bookkeeper not taking vacation.#
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R7:
All new accounts payable vendors should be set up in the accounting program by someone other than the bookkeeper to ensure no fictitious vendors are established. These vendors should be approved by management prior to establishment. Issue (8): Invoices received for payment are not reviewed and approved by management prior to payment. This practice could lead to payments to vendors who may not be entitled to payments for various reasons.
F8:
Bookkeeper not taking vacation.#
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R8:
All invoices received by the Organization should be reviewed and approved by management before the bookkeeper processes them in the accounting system. Issue (9): Accounts payable checks presented to the check signers do not include supporting documentation for the payment. This practice could allow over or under payments to the vendor or unauthorized payments to the vendor.
F9:
Use of a generic receipt book.*
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R9:
Accounts payable checks should include supporting documentation when given to the authorized check signers. Issue (10): Daily bank deposits are not made. The practice of the Organization is to make a deposit once weekly. They use a courier from their bank to transport the deposits to the bank. We were unable to find any agreement that indemnifies the Organization GRAND JURY AUDIT OF THE April 2009 CITY OF OCEANSIDE CONTRACT WITH Report No. A09-024 MAINSTREET OCEANSIDE, INC. FINAL REPORT Control Issues (Continued) should the deposits be lost or stolen, putting the Organization at financial risk.
F10:
Bookkeeper has sole payroll responsibilities.*
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R10:
Bank deposits should be made on a daily basis, when warranted. Should the Organization continue to use the bank courier they should obtain documentation from the bank that any lost or stolen deposits are not the responsibility of the Organization. Issue (11): Cash receipts are not adequately safeguarded. All payments received by the Organization whether they are cash or checks are kept in a cabinet in the front office. Everyone in the office has access to these receipts. Additionally, these receipts are subject to additional theft should the office be broken into. The Organization does have a safe but we were told that it was inconvenient to use due to its location.
F11:
The Organization has several Visa and other charge cards assigned to employees, including a contract employee.#
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R11:
The Organization should procure a suitable safe or place the safe in a better location for controlling the daily cash receipts. Management should also limit the number of employees who have access to the daily receipts and petty cash boxes. Issue (12): The bookkeeper is not required to take periodic scheduled vacations. According to the bookkeeper the last time she took a full week off was February 2008.
F12:
Contract employee approves part-time employee time cards. # * These findings were independently confirmed by OAAS through observation and testing # These findings were independently confirmed by OAAS through interviews with MSO Staff Office of Audits & Advisory Services County of San Diego FY 2008-09 GRAND JURY AUDIT OF THE April 2009 CITY OF OCEANSIDE CONTRACT WITH Report No. A09-024 MAINSTREET OCEANSIDE, INC. FINAL REPORT Attachment 1 Report on a Review of the Internal Accounting Controls of Main Street Incorporated Miller Consulting CITY OF OCEANSIDE REPORT ON A REVIEW OF THE INTERNAL ACCOUNTING CONTROLS OF MAIN STREET INCORPORATED James E. Miller Miller Consulting Company For the City of Oceanside January 2009 Oceanside, California 760.435.3864 [email protected] Office of Audits & Advisory Services County of San Diego FY 2008-09 GRAND JURY AUDIT OF THE April 2009 CHIVIEN CITY OF OCEANSIDE CONTRACT WITH Report No. A09-024 MAINSTREET OCEANSIDE, INC.FINAL REPORT 11 TABLE OF CONTENTS Scope and Objectives I. 1
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R12:
Mandatory vacations of all accounting staff should be established as part of the Organizations financial policies and procedures. GRAND JURY AUDIT OF THE April 2009 CITY OF OCEANSIDE CONTRACT WITH Report No. A09-024 MAINSTREET OCEANSIDE, INC. FINAL REPORT Control Issues (Continued) Issue (13): Cash receipt books utilized for providing customers verification of receipt for monies due the Organization are not unique to the Organization and can be purchased at any stationary store. The lack of unique receipts to the Organization could allow any employee to receive payment and issue a receipt from a book that is not Organization purchased and thus allow the abstraction of Organization funds.
Recomendaciones adicionales
5
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R2:
The Organization should conduct a study for allocating overhead costs when developing their budget so it may determine the true cost of each program, event or administrative expense. Issue (3): The Organization employs one bookkeeper who is responsible for all accounting, payroll and personnel functions. The bookkeeper is responsible for maintaining the Organization's accounting system. There is no one within the Organization that is trained in the bookkeeper's duties. Should the bookkeeper be unable to conduct her duties there would be a void in the Organization for performing her duties and could have serious consequences on the Organization's ability to pay bills and record revenues. GRAND JURY AUDIT OF THE April 2009 CITY OF OCEANSIDE CONTRACT WITH Report No. A09-024 MAINSTREET OCEANSIDE, INC. FINAL REPORT Planning Issues (Continued)
R13:
They should eliminate the use of paper receipt books. Management should explore the possibility of having the person(s) receiving payments from vendors be entered directly into the accounting system and reconcile the amounts entered to actual receipts on hand. Issue (14): The bookkeeper is in charge of the entire payroll function including adding new employees and terminating employees from the payroll function. These combined duties could allow the bookkeeper to establish "ghost" employees (employees who do not actually exist) in the system and create fictitious payments to these employees.
R14:
All new employees and employee terminations should be handled by someone other than the bookkeeper to ensure the integrity of the payroll process. Issue (15): The Organization has several Visa and other charge cards assigned to employees, including a contract employee, who was previously and employee of the Organization. This leaves the Organization April 2009 GRAND JURY AUDIT OF THE Report No. A09-024 CITY OF OCEANSIDE CONTRACT WITH 21 MAINSTREET OCEANSIDE, INC. FINAL REPORT Control Issues (Continued) exposed to unauthorized charges.
R15:
Management should review the number of Visa and stationary store charge cards to ensure that they are assigned only to necessary personnel and not to independent Organization contractors. Issue (16): Part-time employee timecards are approved by a contract employee and not a member of Organization management. The lack of Management does not approve all time cards prior to issuing payroll which could lead to unauthorized time paid.
R16:
Part-timer employee time cards should not be signed by contract Organization personnel, but signed by a member of Organization management. The executive director should ultimately sign all organization employee time cards prior to the payroll being run.
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
3 hallazgos
F01:
The Ordinance is inequitable because it forces some residents to pay for trash services, while it provides trash services to others without an additional fee. Fact: No-fee curbside pickup and disposal of residential trash costs the City $37 million per year. Fact: No-fee curbside pickup of recyclables and green waste costs the City $8.8 million per year. Fact: Recycling landfill fees imposed under AB 939 cost the City $6.9 million per year. Fact: Residents receiving no-fee trash service never see a bill and are generally unaware of the true cost of this service. Fact: Trash services are not listed as a special tax on property tax bills.
F02:
The total annual cost to the City for all trash and recycling services provided without a fee to San Diego residents if $52.7 million per year. Fact: There is no limit on the amount of waste the City will pick up without charge from an individual household. Fact: The mandatory recycling ordinance does not include economic incentives to achieve full compliance. Fact: Variable-rate pricing programs provide incentives for residents to recycle, compost and reduce the amount of waste generated. Fact: Variable-rate pricing is the single most effective method for reducing residential waste going to the landfill. Fact: Variable-rate pricing programs have been and are being adopted in thousands of communities nationwide.
F03:
A variable-rate pricing strategy would reduce the amount of waste going to the City’s landfill and increase the amount of material being recycled.
Recomendaciones adicionales
2
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
09-02:
Place a measure on the ballot to repeal the Ordinance.
09-03:
Consider adopting a variable-rate fee schedule for trash services
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
1 hallazgos
F01:
The City may face additional financial liability for environmental cleanup costs when the remaining non-aeronautical-use tenants are forced to leave the site.
Recomendaciones adicionales
1
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
09-01:
Require the remaining non-aeronautical-use tenants at Brown Field to
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
3 hallazgos
F01:
MM was turned into an unqualified success in terms of achieving the stated goals for construction of school projects. Fact: There are people now working with the School District who have participated at all levels in managing the projects that have been completed under MM. Fact: A basic criterion used in bringing in a new manager for MM was that the manager needed to have extensive experience running large projects. Fact: In 2000 the School District hired a manager with the needed experience.
F02:
The School District now has in place experience that should enable it to successfully manage similar large projects in the future, and it has learned the need to have experienced project management. Fact: Pursuant to the terms of MM, an ICOC was formed to oversee the progress of MM. Fact: The ICOC was composed of dedicated volunteers who had a variety of related expertise and who were willing to spend considerable time on MM matters. Fact: The ICOC recognized the need for bringing in a construction project manager with extensive prior experience.
F03:
The ICOC was instrumental in helping to make MM a success. COMMENDATIONS The 2008/2009 San Diego County Grand Jury commends all of the staff from the San Diego Unified School District who contributed to the success of MM. Particular commendation is owed to the new management that was hired in 2000. The Grand Jury also especially commends the Independent Citizens’ Oversight Committee for their efforts in overseeing the progress of MM. Further commendation goes to the school personnel who participated in the various school construction projects, and to the local contractors who helped make MM a success. The Grand Jury takes note of the fact that the overall success of MM is virtually unprecedented in the administration of public school bond projects in the State of California. The Grand Jury urges the District not to lose sight of the factors that made MM a success as the District manages future school bond issues, including the recently passed Proposition S bond issue. REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS The California Penal Code §933(c) requires any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the agency. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court); except that in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such comment shall be made within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code §933.05(a), (b), (c), details, as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a) As to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. (b) As to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. (c) If a finding or recommendation of the grand jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the grand jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decision making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with the Penal Code §933.05 are required from the: Responding Agency Recommendations Date None
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
4 hallazgos
F01:
The facts raise the possibility of Brown Act violations regarding the December 18 meeting of the Tri-City Board of Directors. Fact: The actions taken with regard to the Tri-City administrators at the December 18 meeting led to the filing of lawsuits by eight of those administrators against Tri-City which may result in significant costs to Tri-City. Fact: Following the December 18 meeting there has been a significant amount of negative press coverage of Tri-City. Fact: It has been alleged by some of those interviewed and in newspaper accounts that other negative consequences for Tri-City have resulted from the December 18 meeting, such as lowered public confidence in Tri-City and lowered staff morale at Tri-City. Fact: There is a dispute among those interviewed as to whether replacing the administrators was justified or not.
F02:
The actions taken at the December 18 meeting led to negative consequences for Tri-City. Fact: Tri-City is facing increasing competition from other health care organizations in its district area. Fact: Rules and regulations that apply to health care organizations have become increasingly complex over time. Fact: The area served by Tri-City has changed from largely rural to largely urban. Fact: Tri-City has recently lost patients and physicians. Fact: Tri-City has recently had problems with its debt load.
F03:
The challenges faced by modern health care organizations are much different than they were when Tri-City Hospital opened in 1961.
F04:
All of the circumstances surrounding the actions taken at the December 18 meeting lead to the conclusion that the current model of governance by elected Board members may not be a productive model for use in meeting the kinds of complex problems faced by modern health care organizations.
Recomendaciones adicionales
1
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
09-40:
Authorize a complete, independent review of the model of governance
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
5 hallazgos
F01:
The Board has a difficult time conducting business.
F02:
The Board in the performance of its official duties and the District are dysfunctional.
F03:
The Lincoln Acres community has shown little interest in the District.
F04:
The District should be dissolved and all of the administrative, management duties and responsibilities should be assumed by CSA 135.
F05:
The County of San Diego Board of Supervisors has the authority to initiate proceedings with LAFCO to dissolve the District.
Recomendaciones adicionales
2
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
09-28:
Dissolve the Lower Sweetwater Fire Protection District and have all of
09-29:
Work with the San Diego County Board of Supervisors and LAFCO
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
2 hallazgos
F01:
Both the 2001 and 2006 Five Year Golf Business Plans exist in certain forms but are not readily available to the general public.
F02:
The Golf Advisory Council has not been convened by the City since 2006.
Recomendaciones adicionales
3
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
09-37:
Make budgets, Statements of Revenues and Expenses, and all golf
09-38:
The Golf Advisory Council should be reactivated as a liaison between
09-39:
Make the Five Year Golf Operations Business Plan available at the
* This report's PDF did not contain easily extractable text and required Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for analysis. There may be minor errors in the extracted findings and recommendations due to OCR limitations with scanned documents.