Shasta County Grand Jury
2001-2002
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
10 findings
F1:
Federal regulations {49 C.F.R. 213.9(a)} adopted under the Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970 establish the maximum allowable operating speeds for all freight and passenger trains for each class of track on which they travel. The maximum allowable operating speed increases with each class of track, with ranges from Class l to Class 9.
F2:
Union Pacific railroad tracks traveling through Shasta County, including Redding, are Class 4 tracks. The maximum allowable speed for Class 4 tracks is 60 mph for freight trains and 80 mph for passenger trains.
F3:
Federal law regarding train speed limits preempts any local ordinance.
F4:
The 1965 City of Redding ordinance limiting train speeds to 45 mph through the city limits has been preempted by federal law and, therefore, is not binding on the railroad.
F5:
The above notwithstanding, the Union Pacific Railroad has established, by internal policy, a maximum speed limit of 45 mph for all trains traveling through the downtown Redding area.
F6:
The RPD Commendation or Complaint brochure provides information on other means of recourse if a complainant is dissatisfied with the results of an investigation. The other means referenced include contacting the City Council, City Manager, District Attorney’s Office, the California Department of Justice or the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The brochure does not reference the Grand Jury as an alternate means of recourse.
F7:
Statistical data on the number of commendations received is not maintained by RPD. However, during the calendar year 2001, the Redding Police Department replied to over 100 letters of appreciation or commendation on behalf of its employees.
F8:
It is Department policy, when recruiting new officers, to have a member of the public participate on the interview selection panel. In addition to the police academy, successful applicants are required to complete a 10 to 17 week in-house orientation and training program before being allowed to patrol unaccompanied.
F9:
Police officer recruitment has become more challenging with fewer candidates applying for RPD openings than in previous years. However, some officers are opting to transfer from urban areas at a substantial cut in pay in exchange for the rural life style of the north state.
F10:
RPD has adopted a “Ride-Along” program that provides the general public an opportunity to ride with a patrol officer for several hours during the normal course of duties. This program enables the participant a first-hand look at local law enforcement in action. Participants must complete a Release of Liability Agreement prior to the ride along.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
1. In light of more recent federal regulations, the Grand Jury recommends the City of Redding review its 1965 ordinance limiting train speeds. If warranted, the City of Redding should consider repealing said ordinance. RESPONSE REQUIRED: Redding City Council REDDING POLICE DEPARTMENT REASON FOR INVESTIGATION: California Penal Code Section 925a provides that the Grand Jury may at any time examine the books and records of any incorporated city located in the county. Since the Redding Police Department (RPD) had not been the subject of a general investigation for over ten years, the Grand Jury felt it timely to conduct a review with emphasis on citizen complaints and the internal affairs investigation process. Section 832.5(a) of the Penal Code requires, “Each department or agency in this state which employs peace officers shall establish a procedure to investigate citizen’s complaints against the personnel of such departments or agencies, and shall make a written description of the procedure available to the public.” BACKGROUND: The mission of the Redding Police Department is to work in partnership with the community to protect life and property, solve neighborhood problems, and enhance the quality of life in our city. RPD employs 110 sworn peace officers along with 50 full time and 20 part-time civilian staff. The Chief of Police is appointed by and reports to the City Manager. Departmental organization consists of three divisions: Field Operations, Investigations, and Administrative Services, each overseen by a Division Commander with the rank of Captain. RPD’s annual budget of $15.2 million for the 2001/02 fiscal year represents 35% of Redding’s general fund budget. METHOD OF INVESTIGATION: The Grand Jury interviewed: • Redding Chief of Police • RPD Division Commanders • A Shasta County Public Defender • A private investigator • A Shasta County deputy district attorney • A private criminal defense attorney • Shasta County Jail management The Grand Jury obtained and reviewed: • General Orders Manual, Redding Police Department • Instructions Manual, Redding Police Department • Redding Police Department’s Mission Statement • Department organizational charts • Redding Crime Statistics Reports • Redding Police Department informational brochures • Statistical data regarding complaints for the past five years • Statewide citizen complaint statistics • Five typical internal investigation files selected at random FINDINGS: 1. The Redding Police Department has prepared a written description of the department’s procedures to investigate complaints along with instructions on how to commend or complain about a police department employee. The Commendation or Complaint brochure is available in the lobby of RPD. 2. Formal complaints are investigated in accordance with Penal Code Section 832.5 and established RPD procedures. The supervisor taking the complaint provides the complainant with a copy of their statement. The complainant is required to sign a Personnel Complaint and Procedures Report, which defines the right to make a complaint and the law regarding false accusations. The complaint is assigned to an investigating officer who conducts an inquiry and prepares a report of findings. The Chief of Police reviews and approves the results of all internal affairs investigations. Complainants are notified of the disposition of the complaint in writing; however, any disciplinary actions taken against the officer are confidential. The Grand Jury found the internal affairs investigation process to be professional, thorough, objective and well documented. 3. Of the 48 citizen complaints investigated in the past five years, ten were sustained and discipline administered; the remaining 38 were either exonerated, not sustained, or unfounded. The following table is a summary of citizen complaints filed against RPD for the past five calendar years: Year Citizen Complaints Sustained 1997 17 5 1998 11 3 1999 4 2 2000 9 0 2001 7 0 Five-Year Total 48 10 4. During the past five years, the RPD averaged 10 citizens’ complaints per year. The annual statewide rate for citizen complaints against peace officers averaged 57 complaints per 100,000 population, with eight being sustained. 5. Pursuant to section 13020 of the Penal Code, the Redding Police Department must report to the State Attorney General at the end of each calendar year regarding the disposition of citizen complaints. 6. The RPD Commendation or Complaint brochure provides information on other means of recourse if a complainant is dissatisfied with the results of an investigation. The other means referenced include contacting the City Council, City Manager, District Attorney’s Office, the California Department of Justice or the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The brochure does not reference the Grand Jury as an alternate means of recourse. 7. Statistical data on the number of commendations received is not maintained by RPD. However, during the calendar year 2001, the Redding Police Department replied to over 100 letters of appreciation or commendation on behalf of its employees. 8. It is Department policy, when recruiting new officers, to have a member of the public participate on the interview selection panel. In addition to the police academy, successful applicants are required to complete a 10 to 17 week in-house orientation and training program before being allowed to patrol unaccompanied. 9. Police officer recruitment has become more challenging with fewer candidates applying for RPD openings than in previous years. However, some officers are opting to transfer from urban areas at a substantial cut in pay in exchange for the rural life style of the north state. 10. RPD has adopted a “Ride-Along” program that provides the general public an opportunity to ride with a patrol officer for several hours during the normal course of duties. This program enables the participant a first-hand look at local law enforcement in action. Participants must complete a Release of Liability Agreement prior to the ride along. RECOMMENDATIONS: Redding Police Department’s Commendation or Complaint brochure should also reference the Shasta County Grand Jury as an alternate means of recourse. RESPONSE REQUIRED: The Redding City Council RESPONSE INVITED: The Redding Chief of Police COMMENDATIONS: The Redding Police Department is a professional, well-managed and progressive organization that provides exceptional public safety for the community
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
16 findings
F1:
Shasta County Ordinance No. 477, enacted May 12, 1969, and still in effect, made California Government Code Section 26945 apply to Shasta County, but that ordinance has not been amended to reflect any of the subsequent changes to Government Code 26945.
F2:
When first elected in 1998, the current Shasta County Auditor-Controller met the minimum qualification criterion of Ordinance No. 477 (Government Code Section 26945(d)), that of continuous employment in a county deputy-auditor position for three years. While the Shasta County Auditor-Controller attended a California State University, majoring in business, he did not earn a degree.
F3:
The current Auditor-Controller does not possess a certification of public accountancy and is not authorized to sign official audits. The Shasta County Auditor-Controller’s office has only one Certified Public Accountant (CPA) on staff.
F4:
California Government Code Section 26945.1, if adopted by a county, requires that any person serving in the capacity of county auditor must complete at least 40 hours of qualifying continuing education for each two-year period in office. The Shasta County Board of Supervisors has not adopted this section.
F5:
California Government Code Section 25303 provides that the board of supervisors shall supervise the official conduct of all county officers and see that all county officers faithfully perform their duties. However, the Board of Supervisors cannot direct the specific manner in which these duties are performed.
F6:
For the past 20 years, incumbents running for re-election to the office of Auditor- Controller have run unopposed.
F7:
A board of supervisors has more control over an appointed department head than an elected one. Under state law, a board of supervisors may establish an office of Director of Finance (which would consolidate the offices of Auditor-Controller and Treasurer-Tax Collector) if approved by a majority vote of the electorate. The voters could designate that the Director of Finance would be appointed rather than elected. State law also allows the elective position of Auditor to be made appointive, without the consolidation with another office, again by majority vote.
F8:
California Penal Code Section 927 provides that the grand jury may, and when requested by the board of supervisors shall, investigate and report upon the needs for increase or decrease in salaries of county-elected officials.
F9:
The Board of Supervisors is the sole authority to approve budget reviews and salary adjustments for the office of Auditor-Controller. Since the 1998 election of the current Auditor-Controller, the Board of Supervisors has approved eight salary increases for Shasta County’s elected officials in four separate packages, with the raises for the Auditor-Controller through January 12, 2003, reflected in the following chart: Approved by Effective Date Annual Salary Percentage Board of Supervisors Auditor-Controller Increase November 10, 1998 January 3, 1999 $75,348 3.50% November 10, 1998 July 4, 1999 77,580 2.50% November 10, 1998 September 26, 1999 79,580 2.50% January 11, 2000 January 16, 2000 81,864 3.00% December 19, 2000 January 14, 2001 84,300 3.00% December 19, 2000 January 13, 2002 88,524 5.00% January 15, 2002 January 13, 2002 91,152 3.00% December 19, 2000 January 12, 2003 94,800 4.00%
F10:
While investigating this department, it was reported to the Grand Jury during numerous interviews that the Auditor-Controller spends an insufficient amount of time in his office. This makes him unavailable to supervise his staff or respond immediately to needs of departments or districts.
F11:
The current Auditor-Controller has reported on his Statement of Economic Interests (California Form 700) that he holds outside employment.
F12:
The Office of Auditor-Controller has had a personnel turnover rate of over 60 percent during the past three years, which is twice the county average of 10% per year. In 1999, four new employees were hired and six left the office. In 2000, seven new employees were hired and six left the office. In 2001, four new employees were hired and three left the office. This does not include those who transferred to other county departments. Of the 26 staff members who were in this department in 1999, only nine remain.
F13:
The Auditor-Controller’s office has failed to process claims for payment for numerous departments and individuals in a timely manner. The Accounting Procedure Manual of the Shasta County Auditor-Controller, page CH-7, issued in 2002, states, “Orders for Payment forwarded to the Auditor-Controller will be processed for payment within three to four days of receipt”.
F14:
During the course of this investigation, the Grand Jury found that there has been a lack of communication and cooperation between the Auditor-Controller and at least six county departments and agencies. County departments/staff have indicated the Auditor-Controller does not sufficiently communicate in writing with departments regarding fiscal decisions and accounting procedures.
F15:
The Auditor-Controller has made decisions that unnecessarily conflict with departmental needs and has not resolved issues in a timely or efficient manner. These decisions have resulted in adverse financial consequences to the departments’ budgets. Some of the Auditor-Controller’s accounting policies have had an adverse effect on fiscal operations of county departments and agencies. In one example, the Auditor-Controller failed to resolve two accounting issues in the Fleet Management Division of the Department of Support Services. In 1994 and subsequent years, the California State Controller made a finding that the co- mingled funds for vehicle replacement and vehicle maintenance in Shasta County needed to be separated. As of March 30, 2002, neither the previous Auditor- Controller nor the current Auditor-Controller had separated the funds. The second issue has to do with how rates are established to charge the various departments for vehicle maintenance. Because of the lack of resolution of these issues, as of February 28, 2002, the Auditor-Controller had not processed any of the billings from the Fleet Management Division to the county departments for vehicle maintenance for the fiscal year which began July 1, 2001. The lack of resolution of these issues by the Auditor-Controller has been detrimental to the fiscal health of Shasta County because it resulted in unbilled expenses that were not being reimbursed by Federal and state agencies.
F16:
California Government Code 26883 provides that the board of supervisors “…shall have the power to require that the county auditor-controller shall audit the accounts and records of any department…” in the county. This option has not been exercised by the Shasta County Auditor’s Office during the current auditor’s term.
Additional Recommendations
16
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Shasta County Ordinance No. 477, enacted May 12, 1969, and still in effect, made California Government Code Section 26945 apply to Shasta County, but that ordinance has not been amended to reflect any of the subsequent changes to Government Code 26945.
R2:
When first elected in 1998, the current Shasta County Auditor-Controller met the minimum qualification criterion of Ordinance No. 477 (Government Code Section 26945(d)), that of continuous employment in a county deputy-auditor position for three years. While the Shasta County Auditor-Controller attended a California State University, majoring in business, he did not earn a degree.
R3:
The current Auditor-Controller does not possess a certification of public accountancy and is not authorized to sign official audits. The Shasta County Auditor-Controller’s office has only one Certified Public Accountant (CPA) on staff.
R4:
California Government Code Section 26945.1, if adopted by a county, requires that any person serving in the capacity of county auditor must complete at least 40 hours of qualifying continuing education for each two-year period in office. The Shasta County Board of Supervisors has not adopted this section.
R5:
California Government Code Section 25303 provides that the board of supervisors shall supervise the official conduct of all county officers and see that all county officers faithfully perform their duties. However, the Board of Supervisors cannot direct the specific manner in which these duties are performed.
R6:
For the past 20 years, incumbents running for re-election to the office of Auditor- Controller have run unopposed.
R7:
A board of supervisors has more control over an appointed department head than an elected one. Under state law, a board of supervisors may establish an office of Director of Finance (which would consolidate the offices of Auditor-Controller and Treasurer-Tax Collector) if approved by a majority vote of the electorate. The voters could designate that the Director of Finance would be appointed rather than elected. State law also allows the elective position of Auditor to be made appointive, without the consolidation with another office, again by majority vote.
R8:
California Penal Code Section 927 provides that the grand jury may, and when requested by the board of supervisors shall, investigate and report upon the needs for increase or decrease in salaries of county-elected officials.
R9:
The Board of Supervisors is the sole authority to approve budget reviews and salary adjustments for the office of Auditor-Controller. Since the 1998 election of the current Auditor-Controller, the Board of Supervisors has approved eight salary increases for Shasta County’s elected officials in four separate packages, with the raises for the Auditor-Controller through January 12, 2003, reflected in the following chart: Approved by Effective Date Annual Salary Percentage Board of Supervisors Auditor-Controller Increase November 10, 1998 January 3, 1999 $75,348 3.50% November 10, 1998 July 4, 1999 77,580 2.50% November 10, 1998 September 26, 1999 79,580 2.50% January 11, 2000 January 16, 2000 81,864 3.00% December 19, 2000 January 14, 2001 84,300 3.00% December 19, 2000 January 13, 2002 88,524 5.00% January 15, 2002 January 13, 2002 91,152 3.00% December 19, 2000 January 12, 2003 94,800 4.00%
R10:
While investigating this department, it was reported to the Grand Jury during numerous interviews that the Auditor-Controller spends an insufficient amount of time in his office. This makes him unavailable to supervise his staff or respond immediately to needs of departments or districts.
R11:
The current Auditor-Controller has reported on his Statement of Economic Interests (California Form 700) that he holds outside employment.
R12:
The Office of Auditor-Controller has had a personnel turnover rate of over 60 percent during the past three years, which is twice the county average of 10% per year. In 1999, four new employees were hired and six left the office. In 2000, seven new employees were hired and six left the office. In 2001, four new employees were hired and three left the office. This does not include those who transferred to other county departments. Of the 26 staff members who were in this department in 1999, only nine remain.
R13:
The Auditor-Controller’s office has failed to process claims for payment for numerous departments and individuals in a timely manner. The Accounting Procedure Manual of the Shasta County Auditor-Controller, page CH-7, issued in 2002, states, “Orders for Payment forwarded to the Auditor-Controller will be processed for payment within three to four days of receipt”.
R14:
During the course of this investigation, the Grand Jury found that there has been a lack of communication and cooperation between the Auditor-Controller and at least six county departments and agencies. County departments/staff have indicated the Auditor-Controller does not sufficiently communicate in writing with departments regarding fiscal decisions and accounting procedures.
R15:
The Auditor-Controller has made decisions that unnecessarily conflict with departmental needs and has not resolved issues in a timely or efficient manner. These decisions have resulted in adverse financial consequences to the departments’ budgets. Some of the Auditor-Controller’s accounting policies have had an adverse effect on fiscal operations of county departments and agencies. In one example, the Auditor-Controller failed to resolve two accounting issues in the Fleet Management Division of the Department of Support Services. In 1994 and subsequent years, the California State Controller made a finding that the co- mingled funds for vehicle replacement and vehicle maintenance in Shasta County needed to be separated. As of March 30, 2002, neither the previous Auditor- Controller nor the current Auditor-Controller had separated the funds. The second issue has to do with how rates are established to charge the various departments for vehicle maintenance. Because of the lack of resolution of these issues, as of February 28, 2002, the Auditor-Controller had not processed any of the billings from the Fleet Management Division to the county departments for vehicle maintenance for the fiscal year which began July 1, 2001. The lack of resolution of these issues by the Auditor-Controller has been detrimental to the fiscal health of Shasta County because it resulted in unbilled expenses that were not being reimbursed by Federal and state agencies.
R16:
California Government Code 26883 provides that the board of supervisors “…shall have the power to require that the county auditor-controller shall audit the accounts and records of any department…” in the county. This option has not been exercised by the Shasta County Auditor’s Office during the current auditor’s term. RECOMMENDATIONS:
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
Public services provided by the District include the distribution of public informational brochures and the availability of staff to conduct educational seminars. SMVCD participates in community activities and presentations.
F2:
The District strives to respond to calls from the public within 24 hours.
F3:
SMVCD operates independently of Shasta County, except for the following: a. The County assesses, bills, and collects property taxes for the District b. The District deposits its funds with the Shasta County Treasurer c. The Auditor-Controller processes the District’s board-approved claims for payment and mailing
F4:
The District is funded from a share of property taxes and a special assessment.
F5:
A five-member board of trustees governs the District. Two members are appointed by the Shasta County Board of Supervisors, and one each by the city councils of Anderson, Redding and City of Shasta Lake. Board members serve four-year terms with reappointment at the discretion of the appointing agency. The combined service of the current board is over 50 years.
F6:
The District staff totals 13 full time and 2 to 4 seasonal employees. All personnel with the exception of the office secretary are licensed vector control technicians. In addition to on-the-job training, application technicians are required to attend continuing education classes.
F7:
If the District were required to obtain a NPDES permit and because water would have to be tested before and after each application, the laboratory testing could cost from $800 to $1000 per application of chemicals. The District performs approximately 1000 applications per year; testing costs could potentially double the District’s annual budget.
F8:
The District effectively treats identified water areas and continuously monitors for signs of encephalitis, malaria, Dengue fever, and West Nile Virus.
F9:
At the time of this review, the District did have a personnel manual but did not have an operational manual. The District refers to the California Health and Safety Code for operational guidance.
Additional Recommendations
9
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Public services provided by the District include the distribution of public informational brochures and the availability of staff to conduct educational seminars. SMVCD participates in community activities and presentations.
R2:
The District strives to respond to calls from the public within 24 hours.
R3:
SMVCD operates independently of Shasta County, except for the following: a. The County assesses, bills, and collects property taxes for the District b. The District deposits its funds with the Shasta County Treasurer c. The Auditor-Controller processes the District’s board-approved claims for payment and mailing
R4:
The District is funded from a share of property taxes and a special assessment.
R5:
A five-member board of trustees governs the District. Two members are appointed by the Shasta County Board of Supervisors, and one each by the city councils of Anderson, Redding and City of Shasta Lake. Board members serve four-year terms with reappointment at the discretion of the appointing agency. The combined service of the current board is over 50 years.
R6:
The District staff totals 13 full time and 2 to 4 seasonal employees. All personnel with the exception of the office secretary are licensed vector control technicians. In addition to on-the-job training, application technicians are required to attend continuing education classes.
R7:
If the District were required to obtain a NPDES permit and because water would have to be tested before and after each application, the laboratory testing could cost from $800 to $1000 per application of chemicals. The District performs approximately 1000 applications per year; testing costs could potentially double the District’s annual budget.
R8:
The District effectively treats identified water areas and continuously monitors for signs of encephalitis, malaria, Dengue fever, and West Nile Virus.
R9:
At the time of this review, the District did have a personnel manual but did not have an operational manual. The District refers to the California Health and Safety Code for operational guidance. RECOMMENDATION:
Findings & Recommendations
11 findings
F1:
The Grand Jury found the Shasta County Main Jail to be a clean, orderly and well run facility.
F2:
Section 4021 of the Penal Code requires a female custodial person to be available to supervise female inmates 24 hours a day. The Main Jail meets this requirement, although recruitment of female deputies has become increasingly difficult.
F3:
The Sheriff’s Office anticipates 35% of its staff will be retiring within the next three years while, at the same time, recruitment of deputy sheriffs has become increasingly difficult, particularly to work in the jail. To enhance recruitment and retention, in December 2001, the Board of Supervisors approved the Sheriff’s proposal to replace some 62 Shasta County deputy sheriffs employed at the Main Jail and Annex with correctional officers. Deputy sheriffs currently assigned to the detention facilities would be transitioned to field assignments over a three- year period as substitute correctional officers are recruited. The transition is currently underway and, when complete, will result in savings of over $800,000 annually due to reduced salary and training requirements for correctional officers.
F4:
There is a shortage of facilities available in Shasta County for medical de- toxification.
F5:
Because of California state licensing requirements, it would be difficult and impractical for Shasta County to expand its psychiatric hospital. The hospital is currently licensed for 15 beds as a freestanding psychiatric health facility by California mandates that limit them to 16 beds or less. Increasing the number of beds would lead to the county losing this license and the federal participation funding.
F6:
The Shasta County Mental Health Department is attempting to address a human resource shortage in the areas of mental health professionals, nurses and social workers. At the beginning of 2001 there were 35 vacancies in the department. The administration is working with educational institutions to develop training programs and internships and with their own staff to provide continuing education programs.
F7:
The administrators of the Shasta County Mental Health Department are instituting a re-organization of the department that includes better utilization of state and federal funding resources, better access by mental health patients to medical care, more emphasis on interagency services, and more private sector contracting for services.
F8:
California Government Code 5604 requires each community mental health service to have a Local Mental Health Board and specifies the makeup of the board. The Shasta County Mental Health Board is made up of 15 volunteer members appointed by the Board of Supervisors. Membership is made up of consumers of mental health services, family members of consumers, representatives of the community, and a member of the Board of Supervisors.
F9:
The Shasta County Mental Health Board has adopted bylaws that reflect the statutory requirements as outlined in California Government Code 5604. Government Code 5604.2(a)(5) specifically requires the Mental Health Board to submit an annual report to the Board of Supervisors on the needs and performance of the county’s mental health system. The Grand Jury was unable to find any evidence that this report had been submitted by the Shasta County Mental Health Board in at least the last five years.
F10:
The purpose of the Mental Health Board should be to insure that the community’s mental health needs are being adequately met. The Grand Jury found that the Board lacks focus in establishing priorities that would lead to accomplishing that purpose. The Board appears to be trying to facilitate a number of projects, but needs more direction from the leadership and participation from all members in order to meet its goals.
F11:
The Shasta County Mental Health-Medical Community Partnership Solutions Project Task Force was formed in 2001 to identify problems and recommend solutions regarding mental health care in the community. The Task Force is made up of members of the private medical community, members of the Shasta County Mental Health Board, staff members of the Shasta County Mental Health Department, a member of the Shasta County Board of Supervisors, a staff member from the Shasta County Administrative Office, members of the private non-profit sector, members of law enforcement, members of other community groups, a member of the County Counsel’s office, members of the Public Guardian’s Office, staff from the Shasta Community Health Center, and other members of the community. Some of the recommendations that came out of this dialogue, such as facilitating the transfer of medical records, have been implemented and are beneficial to the department and the community. Continuing participation from the private medical community is essential to the further success of this Task Force.
Findings & Recommendations
16 findings
F1:
The Shasta County Administrative Officer has the primary responsibility to distribute the contract auditor’s report to all county offices affected by
F2:
The contract auditor’s “tests” of the general-purpose Financial Statements “ for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2001…disclosed no instance of noncompliance that are (sic) required to be reported under Government Auditing Standards…”.
F3:
The contract auditor found no material weaknesses involving the internal controls regarding financial reporting
F4:
Federal funding for county programs was audited using the required federal guidelines, OMG Circular A-133, Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non- Profit Organizations. The contract auditor found Shasta County complied “…in all material respects…” with the requirements for each major federal program.
F5:
The contract auditor made five recommendations as a result of the audit. On February 6, 2002, the County Auditor/Controller told the Joint Audit Committee all recommendations had been implemented except one, (Inventory, Fleet Management), which is in the implementation process. The pending
F6:
There were four recommendations made by the contract auditor during the previous audit (fiscal year ended June 2000). The current year contract auditor’s Management Report shows all four recommendations have been implemented.
F7:
During the exit interview on February 6, 2002, the contract auditor stated the Shasta County Auditor-Controller’s Office provided all required information and has established “…excellent…” internal control systems.
F8:
There are no policies and procedures directing the activities of the Joint Audit Committee. The Shasta County Grand Jury identified the need for policies and procedures for the committee and related the need to the CAO.
F9:
The Audit and Finance Committee of the Shasta County Grand Jury drafted proposed Policies and Procedures for the Joint Audit Committee. The proposed policies and procedures have been provided to the County Administrative Officer for submission to the Joint Audit Committee for consideration and adoption.
F10:
The Joint Audit Committee has not, to date, adopted a policy regarding the longevity of a contract auditor’s contract.
F11:
Vavrink, Trine, Day and Company have been conducting contract audits of Shasta County for over five years.
F12:
The Office of Auditor-Controller has had a personnel turnover rate of over 60 percent during the past three years, which is twice the county average of 10% per year. In 1999, four new employees were hired and six left the office. In 2000, seven new employees were hired and six left the office. In 2001, four new employees were hired and three left the office. This does not include those who transferred to other county departments. Of the 26 staff members who were in this department in 1999, only nine remain.
F13:
The Auditor-Controller’s office has failed to process claims for payment for numerous departments and individuals in a timely manner. The Accounting Procedure Manual of the Shasta County Auditor-Controller, page CH-7, issued in 2002, states, “Orders for Payment forwarded to the Auditor-Controller will be processed for payment within three to four days of receipt”.
F14:
During the course of this investigation, the Grand Jury found that there has been a lack of communication and cooperation between the Auditor-Controller and at least six county departments and agencies. County departments/staff have indicated the Auditor-Controller does not sufficiently communicate in writing with departments regarding fiscal decisions and accounting procedures.
F15:
The Auditor-Controller has made decisions that unnecessarily conflict with departmental needs and has not resolved issues in a timely or efficient manner. These decisions have resulted in adverse financial consequences to the departments’ budgets. Some of the Auditor-Controller’s accounting policies have had an adverse effect on fiscal operations of county departments and agencies. In one example, the Auditor-Controller failed to resolve two accounting issues in the Fleet Management Division of the Department of Support Services. In 1994 and subsequent years, the California State Controller made a finding that the co- mingled funds for vehicle replacement and vehicle maintenance in Shasta County needed to be separated. As of March 30, 2002, neither the previous Auditor- Controller nor the current Auditor-Controller had separated the funds. The second issue has to do with how rates are established to charge the various departments for vehicle maintenance. Because of the lack of resolution of these issues, as of February 28, 2002, the Auditor-Controller had not processed any of the billings from the Fleet Management Division to the county departments for vehicle maintenance for the fiscal year which began July 1, 2001. The lack of resolution of these issues by the Auditor-Controller has been detrimental to the fiscal health of Shasta County because it resulted in unbilled expenses that were not being reimbursed by Federal and state agencies.
F16:
California Government Code 26883 provides that the board of supervisors “…shall have the power to require that the county auditor-controller shall audit the accounts and records of any department…” in the county. This option has not been exercised by the Shasta County Auditor’s Office during the current auditor’s term.
Additional Recommendations
16
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Shasta County Ordinance No. 477, enacted May 12, 1969, and still in effect, made California Government Code Section 26945 apply to Shasta County, but that ordinance has not been amended to reflect any of the subsequent changes to Government Code 26945.
R2:
The Shasta County Board of Supervisors shall ensure that the County Administrative Officer submits proposed policies and procedures to the Joint Audit Committee at its first meeting during Fiscal Year 2002/2003.
R3:
The Joint Audit Committee should initiate a Request for Proposal to establish a contract with a new auditing firm.
R4:
The Joint Audit Committee shall annually review the performance of the contract auditor to determine if the contract should be continued for another year. RESPONSE REQUIRED: Shasta County Board of Supervisors RESPONSE INVITED: Shasta County Administrative Officer Shasta County Auditor-Controller
R5:
California Government Code Section 25303 provides that the board of supervisors shall supervise the official conduct of all county officers and see that all county officers faithfully perform their duties. However, the Board of Supervisors cannot direct the specific manner in which these duties are performed.
R6:
For the past 20 years, incumbents running for re-election to the office of Auditor- Controller have run unopposed.
R7:
A board of supervisors has more control over an appointed department head than an elected one. Under state law, a board of supervisors may establish an office of Director of Finance (which would consolidate the offices of Auditor-Controller and Treasurer-Tax Collector) if approved by a majority vote of the electorate. The voters could designate that the Director of Finance would be appointed rather than elected. State law also allows the elective position of Auditor to be made appointive, without the consolidation with another office, again by majority vote.
R8:
California Penal Code Section 927 provides that the grand jury may, and when requested by the board of supervisors shall, investigate and report upon the needs for increase or decrease in salaries of county-elected officials.
R9:
The Board of Supervisors is the sole authority to approve budget reviews and salary adjustments for the office of Auditor-Controller. Since the 1998 election of the current Auditor-Controller, the Board of Supervisors has approved eight salary increases for Shasta County’s elected officials in four separate packages, with the raises for the Auditor-Controller through January 12, 2003, reflected in the following chart: Approved by Effective Date Annual Salary Percentage Board of Supervisors Auditor-Controller Increase November 10, 1998 January 3, 1999 $75,348 3.50% November 10, 1998 July 4, 1999 77,580 2.50% November 10, 1998 September 26, 1999 79,580 2.50% January 11, 2000 January 16, 2000 81,864 3.00% December 19, 2000 January 14, 2001 84,300 3.00% December 19, 2000 January 13, 2002 88,524 5.00% January 15, 2002 January 13, 2002 91,152 3.00% December 19, 2000 January 12, 2003 94,800 4.00%
R10:
While investigating this department, it was reported to the Grand Jury during numerous interviews that the Auditor-Controller spends an insufficient amount of time in his office. This makes him unavailable to supervise his staff or respond immediately to needs of departments or districts.
R11:
The current Auditor-Controller has reported on his Statement of Economic Interests (California Form 700) that he holds outside employment.
R12:
The Office of Auditor-Controller has had a personnel turnover rate of over 60 percent during the past three years, which is twice the county average of 10% per year. In 1999, four new employees were hired and six left the office. In 2000, seven new employees were hired and six left the office. In 2001, four new employees were hired and three left the office. This does not include those who transferred to other county departments. Of the 26 staff members who were in this department in 1999, only nine remain.
R13:
The Auditor-Controller’s office has failed to process claims for payment for numerous departments and individuals in a timely manner. The Accounting Procedure Manual of the Shasta County Auditor-Controller, page CH-7, issued in 2002, states, “Orders for Payment forwarded to the Auditor-Controller will be processed for payment within three to four days of receipt”.
R14:
During the course of this investigation, the Grand Jury found that there has been a lack of communication and cooperation between the Auditor-Controller and at least six county departments and agencies. County departments/staff have indicated the Auditor-Controller does not sufficiently communicate in writing with departments regarding fiscal decisions and accounting procedures.
R15:
The Auditor-Controller has made decisions that unnecessarily conflict with departmental needs and has not resolved issues in a timely or efficient manner. These decisions have resulted in adverse financial consequences to the departments’ budgets. Some of the Auditor-Controller’s accounting policies have had an adverse effect on fiscal operations of county departments and agencies. In one example, the Auditor-Controller failed to resolve two accounting issues in the Fleet Management Division of the Department of Support Services. In 1994 and subsequent years, the California State Controller made a finding that the co- mingled funds for vehicle replacement and vehicle maintenance in Shasta County needed to be separated. As of March 30, 2002, neither the previous Auditor- Controller nor the current Auditor-Controller had separated the funds. The second issue has to do with how rates are established to charge the various departments for vehicle maintenance. Because of the lack of resolution of these issues, as of February 28, 2002, the Auditor-Controller had not processed any of the billings from the Fleet Management Division to the county departments for vehicle maintenance for the fiscal year which began July 1, 2001. The lack of resolution of these issues by the Auditor-Controller has been detrimental to the fiscal health of Shasta County because it resulted in unbilled expenses that were not being reimbursed by Federal and state agencies.
R16:
California Government Code 26883 provides that the board of supervisors “…shall have the power to require that the county auditor-controller shall audit the accounts and records of any department…” in the county. This option has not been exercised by the Shasta County Auditor’s Office during the current auditor’s term. RECOMMENDATIONS:
Findings & Recommendations
16 findings
F1:
The Shasta County Administrative Officer has the primary responsibility to distribute the contract auditor’s report to all county offices affected by
F2:
The contract auditor’s “tests” of the general-purpose Financial Statements “ for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2001…disclosed no instance of noncompliance that are (sic) required to be reported under Government Auditing Standards…”.
F3:
The contract auditor found no material weaknesses involving the internal controls regarding financial reporting
F4:
Federal funding for county programs was audited using the required federal guidelines, OMG Circular A-133, Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non- Profit Organizations. The contract auditor found Shasta County complied “…in all material respects…” with the requirements for each major federal program.
F5:
The contract auditor made five recommendations as a result of the audit. On February 6, 2002, the County Auditor/Controller told the Joint Audit Committee all recommendations had been implemented except one, (Inventory, Fleet Management), which is in the implementation process. The pending
F6:
There were four recommendations made by the contract auditor during the previous audit (fiscal year ended June 2000). The current year contract auditor’s Management Report shows all four recommendations have been implemented.
F7:
During the exit interview on February 6, 2002, the contract auditor stated the Shasta County Auditor-Controller’s Office provided all required information and has established “…excellent…” internal control systems.
F8:
There are no policies and procedures directing the activities of the Joint Audit Committee. The Shasta County Grand Jury identified the need for policies and procedures for the committee and related the need to the CAO.
F9:
The Audit and Finance Committee of the Shasta County Grand Jury drafted proposed Policies and Procedures for the Joint Audit Committee. The proposed policies and procedures have been provided to the County Administrative Officer for submission to the Joint Audit Committee for consideration and adoption.
F10:
The Joint Audit Committee has not, to date, adopted a policy regarding the longevity of a contract auditor’s contract.
F11:
Vavrink, Trine, Day and Company have been conducting contract audits of Shasta County for over five years.
F12:
The Office of Auditor-Controller has had a personnel turnover rate of over 60 percent during the past three years, which is twice the county average of 10% per year. In 1999, four new employees were hired and six left the office. In 2000, seven new employees were hired and six left the office. In 2001, four new employees were hired and three left the office. This does not include those who transferred to other county departments. Of the 26 staff members who were in this department in 1999, only nine remain.
F13:
The Auditor-Controller’s office has failed to process claims for payment for numerous departments and individuals in a timely manner. The Accounting Procedure Manual of the Shasta County Auditor-Controller, page CH-7, issued in 2002, states, “Orders for Payment forwarded to the Auditor-Controller will be processed for payment within three to four days of receipt”.
F14:
During the course of this investigation, the Grand Jury found that there has been a lack of communication and cooperation between the Auditor-Controller and at least six county departments and agencies. County departments/staff have indicated the Auditor-Controller does not sufficiently communicate in writing with departments regarding fiscal decisions and accounting procedures.
F15:
The Auditor-Controller has made decisions that unnecessarily conflict with departmental needs and has not resolved issues in a timely or efficient manner. These decisions have resulted in adverse financial consequences to the departments’ budgets. Some of the Auditor-Controller’s accounting policies have had an adverse effect on fiscal operations of county departments and agencies. In one example, the Auditor-Controller failed to resolve two accounting issues in the Fleet Management Division of the Department of Support Services. In 1994 and subsequent years, the California State Controller made a finding that the co- mingled funds for vehicle replacement and vehicle maintenance in Shasta County needed to be separated. As of March 30, 2002, neither the previous Auditor- Controller nor the current Auditor-Controller had separated the funds. The second issue has to do with how rates are established to charge the various departments for vehicle maintenance. Because of the lack of resolution of these issues, as of February 28, 2002, the Auditor-Controller had not processed any of the billings from the Fleet Management Division to the county departments for vehicle maintenance for the fiscal year which began July 1, 2001. The lack of resolution of these issues by the Auditor-Controller has been detrimental to the fiscal health of Shasta County because it resulted in unbilled expenses that were not being reimbursed by Federal and state agencies.
F16:
California Government Code 26883 provides that the board of supervisors “…shall have the power to require that the county auditor-controller shall audit the accounts and records of any department…” in the county. This option has not been exercised by the Shasta County Auditor’s Office during the current auditor’s term.
Additional Recommendations
16
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Shasta County Ordinance No. 477, enacted May 12, 1969, and still in effect, made California Government Code Section 26945 apply to Shasta County, but that ordinance has not been amended to reflect any of the subsequent changes to Government Code 26945.
R2:
The Shasta County Board of Supervisors shall ensure that the County Administrative Officer submits proposed policies and procedures to the Joint Audit Committee at its first meeting during Fiscal Year 2002/2003.
R3:
The Joint Audit Committee should initiate a Request for Proposal to establish a contract with a new auditing firm.
R4:
The Joint Audit Committee shall annually review the performance of the contract auditor to determine if the contract should be continued for another year. RESPONSE REQUIRED: Shasta County Board of Supervisors RESPONSE INVITED: Shasta County Administrative Officer Shasta County Auditor-Controller
R5:
California Government Code Section 25303 provides that the board of supervisors shall supervise the official conduct of all county officers and see that all county officers faithfully perform their duties. However, the Board of Supervisors cannot direct the specific manner in which these duties are performed.
R6:
For the past 20 years, incumbents running for re-election to the office of Auditor- Controller have run unopposed.
R7:
A board of supervisors has more control over an appointed department head than an elected one. Under state law, a board of supervisors may establish an office of Director of Finance (which would consolidate the offices of Auditor-Controller and Treasurer-Tax Collector) if approved by a majority vote of the electorate. The voters could designate that the Director of Finance would be appointed rather than elected. State law also allows the elective position of Auditor to be made appointive, without the consolidation with another office, again by majority vote.
R8:
California Penal Code Section 927 provides that the grand jury may, and when requested by the board of supervisors shall, investigate and report upon the needs for increase or decrease in salaries of county-elected officials.
R9:
The Board of Supervisors is the sole authority to approve budget reviews and salary adjustments for the office of Auditor-Controller. Since the 1998 election of the current Auditor-Controller, the Board of Supervisors has approved eight salary increases for Shasta County’s elected officials in four separate packages, with the raises for the Auditor-Controller through January 12, 2003, reflected in the following chart: Approved by Effective Date Annual Salary Percentage Board of Supervisors Auditor-Controller Increase November 10, 1998 January 3, 1999 $75,348 3.50% November 10, 1998 July 4, 1999 77,580 2.50% November 10, 1998 September 26, 1999 79,580 2.50% January 11, 2000 January 16, 2000 81,864 3.00% December 19, 2000 January 14, 2001 84,300 3.00% December 19, 2000 January 13, 2002 88,524 5.00% January 15, 2002 January 13, 2002 91,152 3.00% December 19, 2000 January 12, 2003 94,800 4.00%
R10:
While investigating this department, it was reported to the Grand Jury during numerous interviews that the Auditor-Controller spends an insufficient amount of time in his office. This makes him unavailable to supervise his staff or respond immediately to needs of departments or districts.
R11:
The current Auditor-Controller has reported on his Statement of Economic Interests (California Form 700) that he holds outside employment.
R12:
The Office of Auditor-Controller has had a personnel turnover rate of over 60 percent during the past three years, which is twice the county average of 10% per year. In 1999, four new employees were hired and six left the office. In 2000, seven new employees were hired and six left the office. In 2001, four new employees were hired and three left the office. This does not include those who transferred to other county departments. Of the 26 staff members who were in this department in 1999, only nine remain.
R13:
The Auditor-Controller’s office has failed to process claims for payment for numerous departments and individuals in a timely manner. The Accounting Procedure Manual of the Shasta County Auditor-Controller, page CH-7, issued in 2002, states, “Orders for Payment forwarded to the Auditor-Controller will be processed for payment within three to four days of receipt”.
R14:
During the course of this investigation, the Grand Jury found that there has been a lack of communication and cooperation between the Auditor-Controller and at least six county departments and agencies. County departments/staff have indicated the Auditor-Controller does not sufficiently communicate in writing with departments regarding fiscal decisions and accounting procedures.
R15:
The Auditor-Controller has made decisions that unnecessarily conflict with departmental needs and has not resolved issues in a timely or efficient manner. These decisions have resulted in adverse financial consequences to the departments’ budgets. Some of the Auditor-Controller’s accounting policies have had an adverse effect on fiscal operations of county departments and agencies. In one example, the Auditor-Controller failed to resolve two accounting issues in the Fleet Management Division of the Department of Support Services. In 1994 and subsequent years, the California State Controller made a finding that the co- mingled funds for vehicle replacement and vehicle maintenance in Shasta County needed to be separated. As of March 30, 2002, neither the previous Auditor- Controller nor the current Auditor-Controller had separated the funds. The second issue has to do with how rates are established to charge the various departments for vehicle maintenance. Because of the lack of resolution of these issues, as of February 28, 2002, the Auditor-Controller had not processed any of the billings from the Fleet Management Division to the county departments for vehicle maintenance for the fiscal year which began July 1, 2001. The lack of resolution of these issues by the Auditor-Controller has been detrimental to the fiscal health of Shasta County because it resulted in unbilled expenses that were not being reimbursed by Federal and state agencies.
R16:
California Government Code 26883 provides that the board of supervisors “…shall have the power to require that the county auditor-controller shall audit the accounts and records of any department…” in the county. This option has not been exercised by the Shasta County Auditor’s Office during the current auditor’s term. RECOMMENDATIONS:
Findings & Recommendations
16 findings
F1:
The Shasta County Administrative Officer has the primary responsibility to distribute the contract auditor’s report to all county offices affected by
F2:
The contract auditor’s “tests” of the general-purpose Financial Statements “ for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2001…disclosed no instance of noncompliance that are (sic) required to be reported under Government Auditing Standards…”.
F3:
The contract auditor found no material weaknesses involving the internal controls regarding financial reporting
F4:
Federal funding for county programs was audited using the required federal guidelines, OMG Circular A-133, Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non- Profit Organizations. The contract auditor found Shasta County complied “…in all material respects…” with the requirements for each major federal program.
F5:
The contract auditor made five recommendations as a result of the audit. On February 6, 2002, the County Auditor/Controller told the Joint Audit Committee all recommendations had been implemented except one, (Inventory, Fleet Management), which is in the implementation process. The pending
F6:
There were four recommendations made by the contract auditor during the previous audit (fiscal year ended June 2000). The current year contract auditor’s Management Report shows all four recommendations have been implemented.
F7:
During the exit interview on February 6, 2002, the contract auditor stated the Shasta County Auditor-Controller’s Office provided all required information and has established “…excellent…” internal control systems.
F8:
There are no policies and procedures directing the activities of the Joint Audit Committee. The Shasta County Grand Jury identified the need for policies and procedures for the committee and related the need to the CAO.
F9:
The Audit and Finance Committee of the Shasta County Grand Jury drafted proposed Policies and Procedures for the Joint Audit Committee. The proposed policies and procedures have been provided to the County Administrative Officer for submission to the Joint Audit Committee for consideration and adoption.
F10:
The Joint Audit Committee has not, to date, adopted a policy regarding the longevity of a contract auditor’s contract.
F11:
Vavrink, Trine, Day and Company have been conducting contract audits of Shasta County for over five years.
F12:
The Office of Auditor-Controller has had a personnel turnover rate of over 60 percent during the past three years, which is twice the county average of 10% per year. In 1999, four new employees were hired and six left the office. In 2000, seven new employees were hired and six left the office. In 2001, four new employees were hired and three left the office. This does not include those who transferred to other county departments. Of the 26 staff members who were in this department in 1999, only nine remain.
F13:
The Auditor-Controller’s office has failed to process claims for payment for numerous departments and individuals in a timely manner. The Accounting Procedure Manual of the Shasta County Auditor-Controller, page CH-7, issued in 2002, states, “Orders for Payment forwarded to the Auditor-Controller will be processed for payment within three to four days of receipt”.
F14:
During the course of this investigation, the Grand Jury found that there has been a lack of communication and cooperation between the Auditor-Controller and at least six county departments and agencies. County departments/staff have indicated the Auditor-Controller does not sufficiently communicate in writing with departments regarding fiscal decisions and accounting procedures.
F15:
The Auditor-Controller has made decisions that unnecessarily conflict with departmental needs and has not resolved issues in a timely or efficient manner. These decisions have resulted in adverse financial consequences to the departments’ budgets. Some of the Auditor-Controller’s accounting policies have had an adverse effect on fiscal operations of county departments and agencies. In one example, the Auditor-Controller failed to resolve two accounting issues in the Fleet Management Division of the Department of Support Services. In 1994 and subsequent years, the California State Controller made a finding that the co- mingled funds for vehicle replacement and vehicle maintenance in Shasta County needed to be separated. As of March 30, 2002, neither the previous Auditor- Controller nor the current Auditor-Controller had separated the funds. The second issue has to do with how rates are established to charge the various departments for vehicle maintenance. Because of the lack of resolution of these issues, as of February 28, 2002, the Auditor-Controller had not processed any of the billings from the Fleet Management Division to the county departments for vehicle maintenance for the fiscal year which began July 1, 2001. The lack of resolution of these issues by the Auditor-Controller has been detrimental to the fiscal health of Shasta County because it resulted in unbilled expenses that were not being reimbursed by Federal and state agencies.
F16:
California Government Code 26883 provides that the board of supervisors “…shall have the power to require that the county auditor-controller shall audit the accounts and records of any department…” in the county. This option has not been exercised by the Shasta County Auditor’s Office during the current auditor’s term.
Additional Recommendations
16
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Shasta County Ordinance No. 477, enacted May 12, 1969, and still in effect, made California Government Code Section 26945 apply to Shasta County, but that ordinance has not been amended to reflect any of the subsequent changes to Government Code 26945.
R2:
The Shasta County Board of Supervisors shall ensure that the County Administrative Officer submits proposed policies and procedures to the Joint Audit Committee at its first meeting during Fiscal Year 2002/2003.
R3:
The Joint Audit Committee should initiate a Request for Proposal to establish a contract with a new auditing firm.
R4:
The Joint Audit Committee shall annually review the performance of the contract auditor to determine if the contract should be continued for another year. RESPONSE REQUIRED: Shasta County Board of Supervisors RESPONSE INVITED: Shasta County Administrative Officer Shasta County Auditor-Controller
R5:
California Government Code Section 25303 provides that the board of supervisors shall supervise the official conduct of all county officers and see that all county officers faithfully perform their duties. However, the Board of Supervisors cannot direct the specific manner in which these duties are performed.
R6:
For the past 20 years, incumbents running for re-election to the office of Auditor- Controller have run unopposed.
R7:
A board of supervisors has more control over an appointed department head than an elected one. Under state law, a board of supervisors may establish an office of Director of Finance (which would consolidate the offices of Auditor-Controller and Treasurer-Tax Collector) if approved by a majority vote of the electorate. The voters could designate that the Director of Finance would be appointed rather than elected. State law also allows the elective position of Auditor to be made appointive, without the consolidation with another office, again by majority vote.
R8:
California Penal Code Section 927 provides that the grand jury may, and when requested by the board of supervisors shall, investigate and report upon the needs for increase or decrease in salaries of county-elected officials.
R9:
The Board of Supervisors is the sole authority to approve budget reviews and salary adjustments for the office of Auditor-Controller. Since the 1998 election of the current Auditor-Controller, the Board of Supervisors has approved eight salary increases for Shasta County’s elected officials in four separate packages, with the raises for the Auditor-Controller through January 12, 2003, reflected in the following chart: Approved by Effective Date Annual Salary Percentage Board of Supervisors Auditor-Controller Increase November 10, 1998 January 3, 1999 $75,348 3.50% November 10, 1998 July 4, 1999 77,580 2.50% November 10, 1998 September 26, 1999 79,580 2.50% January 11, 2000 January 16, 2000 81,864 3.00% December 19, 2000 January 14, 2001 84,300 3.00% December 19, 2000 January 13, 2002 88,524 5.00% January 15, 2002 January 13, 2002 91,152 3.00% December 19, 2000 January 12, 2003 94,800 4.00%
R10:
While investigating this department, it was reported to the Grand Jury during numerous interviews that the Auditor-Controller spends an insufficient amount of time in his office. This makes him unavailable to supervise his staff or respond immediately to needs of departments or districts.
R11:
The current Auditor-Controller has reported on his Statement of Economic Interests (California Form 700) that he holds outside employment.
R12:
The Office of Auditor-Controller has had a personnel turnover rate of over 60 percent during the past three years, which is twice the county average of 10% per year. In 1999, four new employees were hired and six left the office. In 2000, seven new employees were hired and six left the office. In 2001, four new employees were hired and three left the office. This does not include those who transferred to other county departments. Of the 26 staff members who were in this department in 1999, only nine remain.
R13:
The Auditor-Controller’s office has failed to process claims for payment for numerous departments and individuals in a timely manner. The Accounting Procedure Manual of the Shasta County Auditor-Controller, page CH-7, issued in 2002, states, “Orders for Payment forwarded to the Auditor-Controller will be processed for payment within three to four days of receipt”.
R14:
During the course of this investigation, the Grand Jury found that there has been a lack of communication and cooperation between the Auditor-Controller and at least six county departments and agencies. County departments/staff have indicated the Auditor-Controller does not sufficiently communicate in writing with departments regarding fiscal decisions and accounting procedures.
R15:
The Auditor-Controller has made decisions that unnecessarily conflict with departmental needs and has not resolved issues in a timely or efficient manner. These decisions have resulted in adverse financial consequences to the departments’ budgets. Some of the Auditor-Controller’s accounting policies have had an adverse effect on fiscal operations of county departments and agencies. In one example, the Auditor-Controller failed to resolve two accounting issues in the Fleet Management Division of the Department of Support Services. In 1994 and subsequent years, the California State Controller made a finding that the co- mingled funds for vehicle replacement and vehicle maintenance in Shasta County needed to be separated. As of March 30, 2002, neither the previous Auditor- Controller nor the current Auditor-Controller had separated the funds. The second issue has to do with how rates are established to charge the various departments for vehicle maintenance. Because of the lack of resolution of these issues, as of February 28, 2002, the Auditor-Controller had not processed any of the billings from the Fleet Management Division to the county departments for vehicle maintenance for the fiscal year which began July 1, 2001. The lack of resolution of these issues by the Auditor-Controller has been detrimental to the fiscal health of Shasta County because it resulted in unbilled expenses that were not being reimbursed by Federal and state agencies.
R16:
California Government Code 26883 provides that the board of supervisors “…shall have the power to require that the county auditor-controller shall audit the accounts and records of any department…” in the county. This option has not been exercised by the Shasta County Auditor’s Office during the current auditor’s term. RECOMMENDATIONS:
Findings & Recommendations
16 findings
F1:
The Shasta County Administrative Officer has the primary responsibility to distribute the contract auditor’s report to all county offices affected by
F2:
The contract auditor’s “tests” of the general-purpose Financial Statements “ for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2001…disclosed no instance of noncompliance that are (sic) required to be reported under Government Auditing Standards…”.
F3:
The contract auditor found no material weaknesses involving the internal controls regarding financial reporting
F4:
Federal funding for county programs was audited using the required federal guidelines, OMG Circular A-133, Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non- Profit Organizations. The contract auditor found Shasta County complied “…in all material respects…” with the requirements for each major federal program.
F5:
The contract auditor made five recommendations as a result of the audit. On February 6, 2002, the County Auditor/Controller told the Joint Audit Committee all recommendations had been implemented except one, (Inventory, Fleet Management), which is in the implementation process. The pending
F6:
There were four recommendations made by the contract auditor during the previous audit (fiscal year ended June 2000). The current year contract auditor’s Management Report shows all four recommendations have been implemented.
F7:
During the exit interview on February 6, 2002, the contract auditor stated the Shasta County Auditor-Controller’s Office provided all required information and has established “…excellent…” internal control systems.
F8:
There are no policies and procedures directing the activities of the Joint Audit Committee. The Shasta County Grand Jury identified the need for policies and procedures for the committee and related the need to the CAO.
F9:
The Audit and Finance Committee of the Shasta County Grand Jury drafted proposed Policies and Procedures for the Joint Audit Committee. The proposed policies and procedures have been provided to the County Administrative Officer for submission to the Joint Audit Committee for consideration and adoption.
F10:
The Joint Audit Committee has not, to date, adopted a policy regarding the longevity of a contract auditor’s contract.
F11:
Vavrink, Trine, Day and Company have been conducting contract audits of Shasta County for over five years.
F12:
The Office of Auditor-Controller has had a personnel turnover rate of over 60 percent during the past three years, which is twice the county average of 10% per year. In 1999, four new employees were hired and six left the office. In 2000, seven new employees were hired and six left the office. In 2001, four new employees were hired and three left the office. This does not include those who transferred to other county departments. Of the 26 staff members who were in this department in 1999, only nine remain.
F13:
The Auditor-Controller’s office has failed to process claims for payment for numerous departments and individuals in a timely manner. The Accounting Procedure Manual of the Shasta County Auditor-Controller, page CH-7, issued in 2002, states, “Orders for Payment forwarded to the Auditor-Controller will be processed for payment within three to four days of receipt”.
F14:
During the course of this investigation, the Grand Jury found that there has been a lack of communication and cooperation between the Auditor-Controller and at least six county departments and agencies. County departments/staff have indicated the Auditor-Controller does not sufficiently communicate in writing with departments regarding fiscal decisions and accounting procedures.
F15:
The Auditor-Controller has made decisions that unnecessarily conflict with departmental needs and has not resolved issues in a timely or efficient manner. These decisions have resulted in adverse financial consequences to the departments’ budgets. Some of the Auditor-Controller’s accounting policies have had an adverse effect on fiscal operations of county departments and agencies. In one example, the Auditor-Controller failed to resolve two accounting issues in the Fleet Management Division of the Department of Support Services. In 1994 and subsequent years, the California State Controller made a finding that the co- mingled funds for vehicle replacement and vehicle maintenance in Shasta County needed to be separated. As of March 30, 2002, neither the previous Auditor- Controller nor the current Auditor-Controller had separated the funds. The second issue has to do with how rates are established to charge the various departments for vehicle maintenance. Because of the lack of resolution of these issues, as of February 28, 2002, the Auditor-Controller had not processed any of the billings from the Fleet Management Division to the county departments for vehicle maintenance for the fiscal year which began July 1, 2001. The lack of resolution of these issues by the Auditor-Controller has been detrimental to the fiscal health of Shasta County because it resulted in unbilled expenses that were not being reimbursed by Federal and state agencies.
F16:
California Government Code 26883 provides that the board of supervisors “…shall have the power to require that the county auditor-controller shall audit the accounts and records of any department…” in the county. This option has not been exercised by the Shasta County Auditor’s Office during the current auditor’s term.
Additional Recommendations
16
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Shasta County Ordinance No. 477, enacted May 12, 1969, and still in effect, made California Government Code Section 26945 apply to Shasta County, but that ordinance has not been amended to reflect any of the subsequent changes to Government Code 26945.
R2:
The Shasta County Board of Supervisors shall ensure that the County Administrative Officer submits proposed policies and procedures to the Joint Audit Committee at its first meeting during Fiscal Year 2002/2003.
R3:
The Joint Audit Committee should initiate a Request for Proposal to establish a contract with a new auditing firm.
R4:
The Joint Audit Committee shall annually review the performance of the contract auditor to determine if the contract should be continued for another year. RESPONSE REQUIRED: Shasta County Board of Supervisors RESPONSE INVITED: Shasta County Administrative Officer Shasta County Auditor-Controller
R5:
California Government Code Section 25303 provides that the board of supervisors shall supervise the official conduct of all county officers and see that all county officers faithfully perform their duties. However, the Board of Supervisors cannot direct the specific manner in which these duties are performed.
R6:
For the past 20 years, incumbents running for re-election to the office of Auditor- Controller have run unopposed.
R7:
A board of supervisors has more control over an appointed department head than an elected one. Under state law, a board of supervisors may establish an office of Director of Finance (which would consolidate the offices of Auditor-Controller and Treasurer-Tax Collector) if approved by a majority vote of the electorate. The voters could designate that the Director of Finance would be appointed rather than elected. State law also allows the elective position of Auditor to be made appointive, without the consolidation with another office, again by majority vote.
R8:
California Penal Code Section 927 provides that the grand jury may, and when requested by the board of supervisors shall, investigate and report upon the needs for increase or decrease in salaries of county-elected officials.
R9:
The Board of Supervisors is the sole authority to approve budget reviews and salary adjustments for the office of Auditor-Controller. Since the 1998 election of the current Auditor-Controller, the Board of Supervisors has approved eight salary increases for Shasta County’s elected officials in four separate packages, with the raises for the Auditor-Controller through January 12, 2003, reflected in the following chart: Approved by Effective Date Annual Salary Percentage Board of Supervisors Auditor-Controller Increase November 10, 1998 January 3, 1999 $75,348 3.50% November 10, 1998 July 4, 1999 77,580 2.50% November 10, 1998 September 26, 1999 79,580 2.50% January 11, 2000 January 16, 2000 81,864 3.00% December 19, 2000 January 14, 2001 84,300 3.00% December 19, 2000 January 13, 2002 88,524 5.00% January 15, 2002 January 13, 2002 91,152 3.00% December 19, 2000 January 12, 2003 94,800 4.00%
R10:
While investigating this department, it was reported to the Grand Jury during numerous interviews that the Auditor-Controller spends an insufficient amount of time in his office. This makes him unavailable to supervise his staff or respond immediately to needs of departments or districts.
R11:
The current Auditor-Controller has reported on his Statement of Economic Interests (California Form 700) that he holds outside employment.
R12:
The Office of Auditor-Controller has had a personnel turnover rate of over 60 percent during the past three years, which is twice the county average of 10% per year. In 1999, four new employees were hired and six left the office. In 2000, seven new employees were hired and six left the office. In 2001, four new employees were hired and three left the office. This does not include those who transferred to other county departments. Of the 26 staff members who were in this department in 1999, only nine remain.
R13:
The Auditor-Controller’s office has failed to process claims for payment for numerous departments and individuals in a timely manner. The Accounting Procedure Manual of the Shasta County Auditor-Controller, page CH-7, issued in 2002, states, “Orders for Payment forwarded to the Auditor-Controller will be processed for payment within three to four days of receipt”.
R14:
During the course of this investigation, the Grand Jury found that there has been a lack of communication and cooperation between the Auditor-Controller and at least six county departments and agencies. County departments/staff have indicated the Auditor-Controller does not sufficiently communicate in writing with departments regarding fiscal decisions and accounting procedures.
R15:
The Auditor-Controller has made decisions that unnecessarily conflict with departmental needs and has not resolved issues in a timely or efficient manner. These decisions have resulted in adverse financial consequences to the departments’ budgets. Some of the Auditor-Controller’s accounting policies have had an adverse effect on fiscal operations of county departments and agencies. In one example, the Auditor-Controller failed to resolve two accounting issues in the Fleet Management Division of the Department of Support Services. In 1994 and subsequent years, the California State Controller made a finding that the co- mingled funds for vehicle replacement and vehicle maintenance in Shasta County needed to be separated. As of March 30, 2002, neither the previous Auditor- Controller nor the current Auditor-Controller had separated the funds. The second issue has to do with how rates are established to charge the various departments for vehicle maintenance. Because of the lack of resolution of these issues, as of February 28, 2002, the Auditor-Controller had not processed any of the billings from the Fleet Management Division to the county departments for vehicle maintenance for the fiscal year which began July 1, 2001. The lack of resolution of these issues by the Auditor-Controller has been detrimental to the fiscal health of Shasta County because it resulted in unbilled expenses that were not being reimbursed by Federal and state agencies.
R16:
California Government Code 26883 provides that the board of supervisors “…shall have the power to require that the county auditor-controller shall audit the accounts and records of any department…” in the county. This option has not been exercised by the Shasta County Auditor’s Office during the current auditor’s term. RECOMMENDATIONS: