Shasta County Grand Jury
2015-2016
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
Municipal Service and Sphere of Influence Reviews and financial instability, resulting in a class-action lawsuit and budgetary crisis. Shasta LAFCO violated Government Code Section 56381(a) when it made sharp decreases
F2:
to staffing in its 2015/16 budget without first finding that reduced staffing will nevertheless allow the Commission to fulfill the purposes and programs required of Shasta LAFCO. Shasta LAFCO has not updated its fee schedule since 2013, leaving the possibility that it is
F3:
not charging sufficient fees for its services. Shasta LAFCO has failed to take advantage of additional revenue sources by not charging
F4:
for Municipal Service or Sphere of Influence Review updates.
F5:
Shasta LAFCO has exposed itself to potential future risk of litigation by adopting its current five year plan to conduct Municipal Service and Sphere of Influence Review updates without consideration of recent instability of the Executive Officer position. Shasta LAFCO is not fulfilling its purposes and programs due to severe budgetary
F6:
restrictions, partially because it has failed to sufficiently explore and act on all cost saving opportunities. Shasta LAFCO's actions violate its own Policies & Procedures, because their policies and
F7:
procedures have not been updated to reflect their actual practices. 36
F8:
potential for fraud or errors to occur. There is insufficient oversight of all Sheriff's Office cash and property held as asset
F9:
forfeiture, or in assets held in evidence, leaving the potential for fraud and errors to occur. COMMENDATIONS The Grand Jury commends the Shasta County Sheriff's Office staff for initiating the debit card process, saving time and money. 43
Additional Recommendations
10
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that Shasta LAFCO take action within 30 days of becoming aware of financial or staff concerns, and complete a comprehensive review of contracted Executive Officer performance at least bi-annually, commencing no later than December 31, 2016.
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that Shasta LAFCO revise its budget to return to prior year staffing levels to allow the Shasta LAFCO office to be open Monday through Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, and to fully comply with Government Code Section 56381(a) no later than September 30, 2016.
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends that Shasta LAFCO review its current Fee Schedule and make revisions as needed no later than December 31, 2016.
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends that by no later than December 31, 2016, Shasta LAFCO establish a fee schedule to charge for Municipal Service and Sphere of Influence Review updates.
R5:
The Grand Jury recommends that by no later than December 31, 2016, Shasta LAFCO revise its five year plan for Municipal Service and Sphere of Influence Review updates to begin completing them in the 2016/17 fiscal year.
R6:
The Grand Jury recommends that Shasta LAFCO engage in cost saving efforts such as shared office space and personnel costs, shared insurance costs, reimbursement for costs from other agencies for providing them with assistance, and turning to the California Association of Local Agency Formation Commissions for hosting its website no later than December 31, 2016.
R7:
The Grand Jury recommends Shasta LAFCO updates its Policies & Procedures no later than March 31, 2017.
R8:
Sheriff's Office trust account reconciliations occur monthly, with old outstanding items cleared, by December 31, 2016.
R9:
The Grand Jury recommends the Auditor-Controller initiates a plan by December 31, 2016, to conduct more frequent surprise audits of assets held as evidence.
R10:
The Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff's Office assigns specific management personnel by September 30, 2016, to be responsible for the oversight of all aspects of assets held under asset forfeiture and in evidence.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
11 findings
F1:
dollars annually by providing firefighting and fire suppression work hours and projects. The partnership between California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Cal-
F2:
Fire, and camp inmates continues to allow efficient running of the camp. COMMENDATIONS The Shasta County Grand Jury commends the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection as well as the support of local community organizations for their dedication in making this partnership work.
F3:
not received follow-up from the VSO. The Board of Supervisors disagrees wholly with the finding. The Shasta County Response: VSO has had and continues to have follow-up procedures regarding veterans' benefits and their cases. Since January 2016, the Shasta County VSO has had no backlog. In addition, a veteran can file and view all movement of his or her claims on www.ebenefits.va.gov 24-hours a day. Veterans are not receiving all eligible benefits because there is not a
F4:
comprehensive case management process in place. The Board of Supervisors disagrees wholly with the finding. A comprehensive Response: case management process will not cause a veteran to become eligible for benefits. The VSO staff ensures eligible veterans either are receiving or are in the process of receiving eligible benefits. VSO staff performs tasks once done by Work-Study Program participants,
F5:
limiting available time to help veterans with their claims. The Board of Supervisors agrees with the finding. Prior to the Grand Jury report, Response: the Shasta County VSO re-implemented the Veterans Affairs Work-Study Program and currently has two students assigned which allows staff to assist veterans. The Honorable Gregory Gaul Shasta County Superior Court July 19, 2016
F6:
The VSO eliminated outreach to Burney, causing Northeastern Shasta County Veterans to travel to Redding for assistance. The Board of Supervisors agrees with the finding. However, prior to the Grand Response: Jury report, the Shasta County VSO re-implemented its monthly outreach to Burney to serve the veterans in the northeastern areas of Shasta County.
F7:
Veterans potentially receive reduced level of service as a result of previous Veterans Services Officer's time spent out of the office. The Board of Supervisors disagrees wholly with the finding. The veterans of Response: Shasta County continued to receive services from the VSO staff during business hours. Hiring Veterans Services Officers from outside Shasta County has created
F8:
misgivings among local veterans. The Board of Supervisors disagrees wholly with the finding. Shasta County Response: recruits and hires qualified applicants to fill vacant positions. Currently, only one employee in the VSO is accredited, limiting ability to assist
F9:
veterans with claims. The Board of Supervisors disagrees partially with the finding. Currently, two Response: employees in the VSO are fully State accredited. A new Veterans Services Representative requires 9-12 months of training by law before they are eligible to test for the California DVA (CalVet) accreditation. Failure of VSO staff to attend State of California training has resulted in
F10:
decreased reimbursement to the County's General Fund. The Board of Supervisors disagrees partially with the finding. Prior to the Grand Response: Jury report the VSO sent two Veterans Services Representatives to the California Association of County Veterans Service Officer (CACVSO) Training Conference in February 2016. In addition, staff will also attend the National Association of County Veterans Service Officers (NACVSO) Training Conference in June 2017. This enables Shasta County to receive the $12,000.00 per year training funds from CACVSO. The Honorable Gregory Gaul Shasta County Superior Court July 19, 2016 The Shasta County - County Executive Officer failed to provide adequate
F11:
oversight of the VSO during changes in leadership, potentially contributing to substandard caseload follow-up and poorly managed office. The County The Board of Supervisors disagrees wholly with the finding. Response: Executive Officer provided and continues to provide adequate oversight of the VSO. Retired Veterans Service Officers Bob Dunlap and David Lanford returned to the VSO on an interim basis to assist the veterans of Shasta County during the transition of Veterans Service Officer.
Additional Recommendations
12
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
County Executive Office to stagger current VSO staff start, end, and break times to allow hours of operation to include lunch, evening, and occasional weekend day by September 30, 2016. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted. Response: Prior to the Grand Jury report, attempts to stagger the Shasta County VSO staff proved to be unsuccessful. Shasta County VSO clients prefer to see the same Veterans Services Representative (VSR) during the process of their claim and benefit counseling. In addition, the California Department of Veterans Affairs agrees and highly recommends not having multiple VSRs working with PTSD/Military Sexual Trauma victims. Further, it is anticipated that CalVet is transitioning the claims process to a paperless operation by December 31, 2016. The Shasta County VSO business hours should correlate with the CalVet's hours of operation, Monday through Friday. The Grand Jury recommends the Board of Supervisors direct the
R2:
County Executive Officer to implement a system by September 30, 2016, that will offer veterans the option of scheduling an appointment to meet with VSO staff. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted. Response: Prior to the Grand Jury report, attempts in scheduling appointments to serve veterans proved to be inefficient. A standard appointment system would reduce staff availability to veterans and reduce funding from the California Subvention program. Walk-ins allow the VSO to handle 30 or more cases per day rather than the 24 cases per day with appointment scheduling, which does not allow for 4 The Honorable Gregory Gaul Shasta County Superior Court July 19, 2016 mandatory training, community outreach and assisting homeless veterans. By Shasta County operating on a walk-in basis, veterans are afforded the opportunity to complete each case in one visit preventing backlog. Most California County VSOs that have implemented an appointment program schedule 50 minute visits per client. Those same offices are closed to clients on Fridays to complete their administration and training requirements. The Grand Jury recommends the Board of Supervisors direct the
R3:
County Executive Officer to update the Shasta County VSO website to include links to Federal and State of California Veterans benefits pages and National Archives by December 31, 2016. This recommendation will be implemented by December 31, 2016. Response: The Grand Jury recommends the Board of Supervisors direct the
R4:
County Executive Officer to immediately implement a system to review all open, pending, and denied claims to ensure all are reviewed by September 30, 2016. The recommendation has been implemented. Prior to the Grand Jury report, the Response: VSO re-established policies to review all open, pending and denied claims. Suspense dates are established in the VetPro system for staff to follow-up on all open/pending claims at four months for pensions and one year for compensations from the date the claim was submitted. The VSO follows-up monthly thereafter. The current VA Fully Developed Claims processing time for compensations is approximately 8-14 months. Upon notification of a denied claim, the staff notifies the client to come in to start the appeals process, if the client prefers to proceed. The client has one year from the date of the denied claim letter to provide new evidence for service-connection. The appeals process may take up to ten or more years. The VSO assists the claimant throughout the entire process. The Grand Jury recommends the Board of Supervisors direct the
R5:
County Executive Officer to implement within the VSO by September 30, 2016, a comprehensive case management process that will provide consideration for all eligible benefits available to Veterans, including burial and survivor benefits. The Honorable Gregory Gaul Shasta County Superior Court July 19, 2016 The recommendation has been implemented. Prior to the Grand Jury report the Response: VSO implemented a procedure for following up with veterans on their cases. The Shasta County VSO has had no backlog in over six months. In addition, the veteran/applicant can view his/her claim anytime on www.ebenefits.va.gov. The Grand Jury recommends the Board of Supervisors direct the
R6:
County Executive Officer to reinstate the Work-Study Program and posting a link to the Program Application on its website by December 31, 2016. The recommendation to reinstate the Work-Study Program has been implemented. Response: Prior to the Grand Jury report the VSO implemented the VA work-study program and currently has two students assigned. As for posting a link to the Program Application on the VSO website, that recommendation requires further analysis as to the benefits of posting such a link and will be considered by the Veterans Officer by Executive County the Officer and Service December 31, 2016 when updating the VSO website as indicated in the response to Recommendation R3. The Grand Jury recommends the Board of Supervisors direct the R7. County Executive Officer to post notice and re-establish consistent and regular monthly outreach to Burney by December 31, 2016. The recommendation has been implemented. Prior to the Grand Jury report the Response: Burney outreach program was re-established. The VSO is available to serve the veterans of northeastern Shasta County on the third Friday of every month, from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m., at the Intermountain Community Center. According to the VA, Burney has 360 of the 19,463 Shasta County veteran residents and to date, 102 Burney residents have qualified for and utilized VA services. During many of the Burney outreach trips, the VSO had no contact or claims processed. The VSO has also implemented advertisements through multiple media outlets (radio, TV, social media, both Chamber of Commerce, medical clinics, VFW) in Burney and Fall River to attract more veterans to utilize our services. The Grand Jury recommends the Board of Supervisors direct the
R7:
The Grand Jury recommends that no later than September 30, 2016, the Board of Supervisors revises applicable County Ordinances for Castella CSA 3, Jones Valley CSA 6, and Keswick CSA 25 to remove any automatic rate increases if determined through legal review to be in violation of Government Code 53756. The recommendation includes review of all other CSA County Ordinances to ensure that the County in in compliance with the Government Code. The recommendation will not be implemented as it is not warranted, as explained Response: in the response to Grand Jury Finding F7. The rate ordinances comply with applicable law. The Grand Jury recommends that no later than December 31, 2016, the
R8:
County Executive Officer to ensure the Veterans Services Officer focuses on the functions of the office rather than attending non-vital community events. The recommendation has been implemented. Response: 6 The Honorable Gregory Gaul Shasta County Superior Court July 19, 2016 The Grand Jury recommends the Board of Supervisors direct the
R9:
County Executive Officer to establish a hiring process by December 31, 2016, that will provide for encouraging and considering the applications of local qualified veterans when hiring Veterans Service Officer. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted. Response: Shasta County has had and will continue to have an equal employment opportunity hiring process for all positions. When a position becomes available, persons may apply regardless of their residential region so that the County has the opportunity to consider hiring the most qualified individual. To establish a hiring process that would indicate preferential treatment based on local residency would unnecessarily limit the County's ability to consider qualified applicants and may expose the County to potential litigation. The Grand Jury recommends the Board of Supervisors instruct the
R10:
County Executive Officer to monitor progress of all newly-hired staff, including the Veterans Services Officer, to ensure anyone assisting veterans with claims will be accredited within one year of hire. During transition of the The recommendation has been implemented. Response: Veterans Service Officer, retired Veterans Service Officer Robert Dunlap and retired Veterans Service Officer David Lanford returned to the VSO on an interim basis to assist in the transitions, trainings and peering of new staff and to assist the veterans of Shasta County. The Grand Jury recommends the Board of Supervisors direct the
R11:
County Executive Officer to initiate a plan by September 30, 2016, for all VSO staff to attend available State of California trainings on an ongoing basis. The recommendation has been implemented. Shasta County Veterans Services Response: Representatives attended the February 2016 California Association of Counties Veterans Service Officers Training Conferences and will be attending the National Association of County Veterans Service Officers Training Conference in June 2017. The Grand Jury recommends the Board of Supervisors immediately instruct the
R12:
County Executive Officer to take a more proactive supervisory role over the new Veterans Services Officer. The Honorable Gregory Gaul Shasta County Superior Court July 19, 2016 The recommendation will not be implemented as it is not warranted. Prior to the Response: Grand Jury report the County Executive Officer has taken and will continue to take a proactive supervisory role over the Veterans Service Officer consistent with his supervisory oversight of other County Department Heads as authorized by law. This concludes the responses of the Shasta County Board of Supervisors to the FY 2015-2016 Grand Jury Report, The Shasta County Veterans Services Office, Veterans' Lives Matter. Sincerely, PAM GIACOMINI, Chairman Board of Supervisors County of Shasta . • . : 8 Shasta County BOARD OF SUPERVISORS David A. Kehoe, District 1 1450 Court Street, Suite 308B Redding, CA 96001-1673 (530) 225-5557 (800) 479-8009 (530) 225-5189-FAX February 10, 2017 The Honorable Gregory S. Gaul Presiding Judge, Shasta County Superior Court 1500 Court Street, Rm. Redding, CA 96001 Dear Judge Gaul: Subject: Further Response by the Board of Supervisors to the 2015-16 Grand Jury Report At the request of the Shasta County Grand Jury Foreperson, additional information for the 2015-16 Grand Jury Final Report in relation to the reports "Shasta County Veterans Services Office - Veterans' Lives Matter" and "Following the Call - The First 72 Hours Matter" are contained herein for your consideration. Shasta County Veterans Services Office - Veterans' Lives Matter
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
Audit Committee" and "Membership and Officers" Policies and Procedures as they relate to the role of the Grand Jury and the RFP process. The Chairperson of the Board of Supervisors, as one of the Joint Audit Committee Co-
F2:
Chairs, is not including the Grand Jury Foreperson as the other Co-Chair, as required. The Board of Supervisors failed to adhere to County Policy 6-101 when it did not ensure
F3:
competitive procurement requirements were followed for a multi-year contract for audit services. The Auditor-Controller failed to follow Joint Audit Committee Policies and Procedures and
F4:
County Policy 6-101 by not issuing a Request for Proposal for a multi-year contract for audit services, or providing justification for not doing so. The Auditor-Controller maintains a fraud hotline accessible only by the Auditor Controller
F5:
and one other staff member in his office, allowing the possibility for selective complaint (tip) investigation. The telephone number for the fraud hotline is not posted or available on the Shasta County
F6:
web page or the associated Auditor-Controller Office's page, making it difficult for employees or the public to report fraud via the hotline number. 48
Additional Recommendations
6
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends the Board of Supervisors immediately requests the Joint Audit Committee to adhere to its "Functions of the Joint Audit Committee" and "Membership and Officers" policies and procedures.
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends the Board of Supervisors instructs its Chair, as Co-Chair of the Joint Audit Committee, to actively engage the Grand Jury Foreperson as an equal Co- Chair of the Joint Audit Committee within 30 days of each new Grand Jury empanelment and on a regular basis throughout each term.
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends the Board of Supervisors adheres to County Policy 6-101. The Grand Jury recommends the Auditor-Controller follow the Joint Audit Committee
R4:
Policies and Procedures as well as County Policy 6-101 when negotiating a new contract for audit services.
R5:
The Grand Jury recommends the Auditor-Controller work with the County Executive Officer to develop a fraud hotline voicemail messaging system that ensures that all fraud hotline messages are simultaneously and independently forwarded to both the County Executive Officer and Auditor-Controller, no later than August 31, 2016.
R6:
The Grand Jury recommends the Auditor-Controller and County Executive Officer ensure that the fraud hotline telephone number is displayed in a prominent location on the Shasta County website and in all county employee facilities no later than August 31, 2016.