Gran Jurado del Condado de Stanislaus
2011-2012
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
7 hallazgos
F1:
Monterey Park Community Service has not been audited since 1995.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1:
Continued attention by the City to the letter and spirit of the Brown Act in all matters that come before the City Council. AB1234 Ethics for Public Office Training, Government Code 53235 AB1234 (Training in Ethics) is required for all elected and appointed officials every two years, beginning January 1, 2006. Newly elected or appointed officials must receive the training within one year. The 2010-2011 SCCGJ recommended: “All Patterson City Council members shall post their AB1234 Ethics Training results on the City website to ensure compliance. The City Clerk shall monitor this requirement and place upcoming AB1234 expiration dates on the public agenda.” The City of Patterson currently posts the Mayor's and each councilmember's compliance with AB1234 on its website (http://www.ci.patterson.ca.us). The SCCGJ notes the constructive measures taken by the City to implement AB1234 training, and recommends:
F2:
The lack of money available to Monterey Park Community Service District and lack of proper record-keeping resulted in a failed attempt by the Stanislaus County Auditor- Controller to hire a firm to perform a forensic audit as recommended by the 2010-2011 SCCGJ report. An audit of Monterey Park would require the District borrow funds from Stanislaus County and be approved by the Board of Supervisors. Stanislaus County personnel would then have to complete the audit.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2:
Further monitoring and public notice toward full and continuous compliance. The 2011-2012 SCCGJ suggests that the measures implemented by the City of Patterson be followed by all public entities and officials in the county, with regard to disclosure to the public each legislative member's compliance with AB1234 (Ethics Training). This training is available online at no cost. Use of the term fiduciary by the SCCGJ The September 28, 2011 response by the City of Patterson took issue with the use of the term fiduciary by the 2010-2011 SCCGJ. "… states in pertinent part that Council Member A failed to disclose a fiduciary conflict of interest with a landlord/commercial developer. (The word 'fiduciary' is clearly misused here and throughout the document. We will respond to this finding as though you meant the word "financial.")". The City of Patterson response does not address the findings. The 2011-2012 SCCGJ finds that the term fiduciary used in the 2010-2011 SCCGJ reports is appropriate. [Fiduciary Law. A person to whom property or power is entrusted for the benefit of another.] The 2011-2012 SCCGJ reviewed the 2010-2011 SCCGJ City of Patterson Reports (11-01C, 11-02C, 11-03C, 11-04C, 11-05C, 11-06C, 11-07C, 11-08C, and 11-18C), and finds they are supported by facts and evidence. All other 2010-2011 SCCGJ findings, not specifically addressed in this response have been forwarded (by the 2011-2012 SCCGJ) to the Stanislaus County District Attorney. No response is requested. Stanislaus County Civil Grand Jury Review of the Special District Audit Requirement Case 12-28GJ Continuity Report Summary: The 2010-2011 Stanislaus County Civil Grand Jury (SCCGJ) submitted report Case #11-32GJ, a review of the Special District Audit requirements per California Government Code (CGC) Section 26909. There are thirty-six districts within Stanislaus County that the Civil Grand Jury has authority to conduct audit reviews. The Special Districts are on a two-year audit cycle. The 2010-2011 report found seven districts out of audit requirement compliance and in varying phases to meet those requirements. As of April 2012, the following two of these seven special districts have completed the audit requirements. Woodland Fire Protection District – Unqualified Opinion Sand Creek Flood Control – Unqualified Opinion Five are still pending completion. Monterey Park Tract Community Service West Port Fire Protection District Riverdale Park Community Service Knights Ferry Community Service East Stanislaus Resource Conservation Glossary: CGC Section 26909 California Special District Audit Requirements. Unqualified Opinion: Auditor's opinion of a financial statement, given without any reservations. Such an opinion basically states that the auditor feels the company followed all accounting rules appropriately and that the financial reports are an accurate representation of the company's financial condition. Qualified Opinion: Qualified Opinion report is issued when the auditor encountered one of two types of situations which do not comply with generally accepted accounting principles; however the rest of the financial statements are fairly presented. Methodology Of Investigation: The 2010-2011 Stanislaus County Civil Grand Jury requested that the Stanislaus County Auditor- Controller contact these Special Districts to develop a timeline and to ensure completion of the required audits. The Stanislaus County Auditor-Controller contacted each Special District and maintained a detailed log of all contacts with each Special District and their audit firms in an effort to ensure the completion of these audits.
F3:
Westport Fire District is out of audit compliance for the fiscal years 2008/09 and 2009/10.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3:
Riverdale Park Community Service should submit a time-line for completing its audits to the SCCGJ and the Stanislaus County Auditor-Controller with a progress update every 30 days until the audits are completed.
F4:
Riverdale Park Community Service outstanding audits include the fiscal years 2003/04, 2004/05, 2005/06, 2006/07, 2007/08, 2008/09, 2009/10. As of April 2012, the financial information to complete the 2005/06, 2006/07, 2007/08, 2008/09, 2009/10 audits has not been submitted to their auditors.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4:
Knights Ferry Community Service should submit a time-line for completing its audits to the SCCGJ and the Stanislaus County Auditor-Controller with a progress update every 30 days until the audits are completed.
F5:
Knights Ferry Community Services is in arrears for audit compliance for 2005/06, 2006/07, 2007/08, 2009/10 and the audit for 2010/11 is due June 30, 2012. Audits for 2005/06 and 2006/07 cannot be completed due to the lack of financial information. The remaining years are in various stages of completion.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R5:
The East Stanislaus Resource Conservation should submit the completed, Board-approved audits to the SCCGJ and the Stanislaus County Auditor-Controller.
F6:
The East Stanislaus Resource Conservation audits have been completed, receiving a Qualified Opinion. However, as of March 2012, the audits had not been presented to the Board and the audits, as of April 2012, have not been received by the SCCGJ or the Stanislaus Auditor-Controller.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R6:
An audited financial report is designed to provide citizens, taxpayers, customers, investors and creditors with a general overview of the District’s finances and to demonstrate the District’s accountability for the money it receives. These Special Districts are responsible to their public. CGC Section 26909: A special district may, by unanimous request of the governing board of the special district, with unanimous approval of the board of supervisors, replace the annual special audit with a biennial audit covering a two-year period or, if the district’s annual budget does not exceed an amount specified by the board of supervisors, an audit covering a five-year period. A two-year audit cycle provides ample time for the submission and completion of this responsibility. No extensions of audit time frames should be entertained.
F7:
During the course of follow up one entity requested information to extend the audit period from two years to five years.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R7:
CGC Section 26909, provides: If, after considering identified conditions and events and management’s plans, the auditor concludes that substantial doubt about an entity’s ability to continue as a going concern for a reasonable period of time remains, the audit report should include an explanatory paragraph to reflect the conclusion. A special district’s inability to produce auditable financial statements, and/or a habitual audit non-compliance status, places reasonable doubt as to the entity’s ability to continue as an independent going concern. The 2011-2012 SCCGJ recommends that the Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors review and take action to consolidate or dissolve Special Districts that do not comply with audit requirements.
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos y recomendaciones aún no extraídos.
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
7 hallazgos
F1:
Modesto City Council and City Manager Direction and Responsibility The Modesto City Council did not exercise sufficient oversight responsibility in setting goals for the NSP2 program, developing a blueprint for management of the program, setting an appropriate timeline for staff to monitor the program, and then report back to the City Council in a timely fashion. Insufficient interest was expressed by the Mayor, City Council and the City Manager in the NSP2 program. Program implementation was delegated to a subunit within the city’s PRN department. Oversight was delegated to the city’s CHCD committee, which in turn delegated complete approval authority to the CHCD-NSP subcommittee. Delegation was one-way. There was little reporting back until problems began to become public and inquiries initiated by the Modesto Bee.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1:
The City Manager and City Council have the responsibility to oversee the management (policies, procedures, and structure) of the program implementation. That oversight was deficient. Periodic, at least quarterly and possibly monthly, detailed performance and financial reports should be submitted to the full CHDC, the City Manager, and the City Council.
F2:
City Staff Administration of the NSP2 Program The city staff responsible for the NSP2 program have been very helpful in providing their time and records. They have been open and honest with information and describing the problems that they faced. The city staff in the PRN department did a good job in developing a management plan and rational guidelines and procedures for the implementation of this program. They monitored detailed rehabilitation expenditures but did not adequately foresee or address issues with respect to the purchase of properties, identification and qualification of potential buyers and tenants, and purported overall objective of the program—neighborhood improvement and property value stabilization. The city staff did not implement HUD guidelines and set up quarterly monitoring to 4 ensure that the parties involved were following practices appropriately. No quarterly meetings were held for a year. Quarterly monitoring of the developers as required by HUD may have forestalled or mitigated some of the problems early on.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2:
Elected and appointed officials should refrain from acting alone and not following appropriate councilmember protocol when a problem comes to light. They should provide the Mayor, City Council, and city staff the opportunity to address problems and be proactive in their solution.
F3:
Project Costs In severely blighted neighborhoods, some properties were overly rehabilitated in relation to the condition of the neighborhood. When a property is purchased in a run-down neighborhood and there is more rehabilitation to do because the property may have been trashed, which happens a lot, or it is just in poor condition, a cap should be placed on rehabilitation costs, so that the taxpayer gets a reasonable return on investment. If the property does sell, those costs will more than likely never be recouped because of the neighborhood and conditions of the market. If the property is rented, there is a better chance that the investment was a better use of taxpayer money. Demolishing the structure might be the best alternative. Another decision might be to not consider that property for rehabilitation and move on.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3:
With respect to rehabilitation costs, the SCCGJ recommends that a percentage of the price of the property (such as 75%) be designated as the ceiling for rehabilitation costs for a property located in a severely blighted neighborhood. In the case of the Redbud Court property, the acquisition price was $79,000 and 75% of that would be $59,000. That seems a reasonable cost for rehabilitation of that property. HUD does not give explicit direction on this but there is an implied direction to spend the money judiciously while getting the houses rehabilitated.
F4:
Tenant Eligibility at SCAP: Conflict of Interest and Pubic Perception of Favoritism The handling of tenant eligibility at the SCAP program was inappropriate, egregious, and showed favoritism to family members and staff. The city had guidelines for applicants to the housing program for rental and homeownership in the NSP2 program. The handbook entitled Homebuyer Program: Policies and Procedures specifies owner or tenant requirements. It details policies and procedures for the review and determination of the applicant’s program eligibility. City staff were not vigilant with respect to these guidelines and were lax in their monitoring of this element of the program by SCAP, the nonprofit developer.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4:
City staff should meet regularly with appropriate board members of a non-profit developer (SCAP) and other individual developers, or their financial officers to oversee their processes for screening prospective tenants or potential buyers and insure that the guidelines for tenant selection are being handled effectively.
F5:
Cost of Acquisition and Rehabilitation of Properties The Coolidge Avenue property was rehabilitated within reasonable cost parameters. Costs overall were in reasonable bounds and the craftsmanship at the properties was satisfactory.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R5:
The city should make sure that future NSP, or similar, grants provide options for structure demolition.
F6:
Councilmember Acting Alone The councilmember who was first informed about potential SCAP problems did not appropriately brief, and express his findings and concerns, to the Mayor and fellow councilmembers before contacting the Modesto Bee. This action denied elected city officials the opportunity to proactively address a pending problem.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R6:
Contracts should provide that if a developer defaults or is not able to perform satisfactorily their contract could be immediately terminated and the developer quickly replaced.
F7:
Councilmember Conflict of Interest The councilmember who had a conflict of interest in the acquisition and rehabilitation of NSP2 properties, and who at first participated in the occasional City Council discussions of NSP2, and who at first accepted a substantial sales commission—only later recusing himself and returning the commission—was on some level deceitful and dissembling in not fully disclosing relevant business affiliations and associates. 5
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R7:
Elected officials should complete AB 1234 Ethics Training as soon as possible after they are seated. The status of this training should be posted on the city’s web site.
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
6 hallazgos
F1:
The WSHD provides a vital service that meets response time requirements to the people within the districts they serve in Merced and Stanislaus counties.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1:
The district is meeting service requirements and there are no recommendations in this regard.
F2:
The WSHD board has difficulty keeping the board member seats occupied. As board members resign new members appointed by a majority vote replace them. Few citizens in the district express interest in running for an elected board position. Because of this lack of interest the person with the most seniority on the board has greater control of the board and the district, thereby, creating a dysfunctional board and higher probability of poor administration.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2:
SCCGJ recommends that WSHD board explore offering a stipend of some kind to future board members to attract and encourage candidates for future board positions.
F3:
The WSHD board has close personal relationships within the existing board members, and between board members and the employees. This creates conflicts of interest in making decisions and resolving business issues.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3:
SCCGJ recommends that tighter controls be implemented to avoid personal conflicts-of- interest as recognized in the make-up of the existing WSHD board relationships.
F4:
Prior to the recent harassment allegations there has been little sexual harassment awareness and prevention training provided to employees and management as required by the CA Department of Fair Employment & Housing (DFEH) which states, “All employees must receive from their employers a copy of the DFEH pamphlet “Sexual Harassment is Forbidden by Law…” (Fair Employment and Housing - Sexual Harassment, 2010).
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4:
SCCGJ recommends that an external party such as the California’s Fair Employment and Housing Commission do further investigation into the sexual harassment and hostile work environment allegations. In addition, an anonymous survey should be administered to all employees and board members to help in determining the validity and scope of the allegations. The external investigation party should have background knowledge of human resources rules and regulations regarding sexual harassment and hostile work environment claims.
F5:
There is a conflict of interest in the proposed recommendation to implement a process where at the time of annual reviews each employee and board member will sign a document stating they have not been a victim of sexual harassment or are aware of any harassment issues going on. SCCGJ finds that this proposed recommendation is an intimidating review process for the employees or board members.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R5:
Because of the serious nature of the sexual harassment allegations the WSHD board, although it may have fewer than 50 employees, should immediately implement the provisions of Government Code 12950.1, “…an employer having 50 or more employees shall provide at least two hours of classroom or other effective interactive training and education regarding sexual harassment to all supervisory employees…” (Legislative Counsel State of California).
F6:
The principal qualifications for assuming the role and responsibilities of the Ambulance Director position were living in the district, expected long-term commitment with the organization, and did not working for multiple companies which could lead to a conflict-of- interest. Professionalism and supervisory skills were apparently not paramount in determining qualifications for the position as Director. SCCGJ also finds that the candidates interviewed for the Directors position were current district employees. 2
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R6:
SCCGJ recommends that the proposed policy requiring employees’s to sign a document stating they have not been a victim of sexual harassment or is aware of any harassment issues going on at WSHD is coercive, intimidating, and could result in false statements. The proposed policy should be rescinded immediately.
Recomendaciones adicionales
1
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R7:
SCCGJ recommends that an updated job description and job qualifications be documented for the Ambulance Director position to meet the job scope and responsibilities of the position. The Director’s position should require education and administrative skills appropriate to the responsibilities of the job. It is further recommended that vacant WSHD administration jobs be published to the public through a media of general distribution to allow a broader application and candidacy pool.
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
9 hallazgos
F1:
The Stanislaus Consolidated Fire Protection District's financial statements for the fiscal years 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 are free of material misstatements. An independent CPA firm conducted an audit by testing financial records and reviewing provisions of the law, regulations, contracts and grants relevant to the District’s financial performance. The audit reports state, “The tests did not disclose any instances of noncompliance that are required to be reported under Government Auditing Standards.”
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1:
The 2011-2012 SCCGJ recommends that the Board read and implement all provisions of California Government Codes 61040-60148 and 61060-61070. The authority granted to the Board are the responsibility of the Board and may not be delegated to a paid employee.
F2:
The Board delegates a major portion of its governance responsibilities to the Fire Chief. The Fire Chief’s list of responsibilities include the writing, review and approval of District policies and procedures, business and financial matters (budget and financial reports), personnel relations and issues with the Union. The 2011-2012 SCCGJ identified eight different job functions performed by the Fire Chief: 1) Chief Executive/Operations Officer 2) Policy Administrator 3) Clerk/Secretary of SCFPD Board 4) Chief Financial Officer and Board Treasurer 5) Chief of Oakdale and the Oakdale Rural Fire District 6) Human Resources/Personnel Administrator 7) Clinical Director 8) Office Manager 2 The scope of responsibility given to the Fire Chief is far too much for one person to handle and can lead to conflicts of interest and ineffective, biased decision making. The Board has abdicated its District governance responsibilities. This is a major impediment to the effective functioning of the District. Consequently, the Board is not in compliance with California Government Code Sections 61040 (e) and 61045 (g).
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2:
The Board should review the Directors Policy Manual to insure it is in full compliance with California Government Codes 61040-61048 and 61060-61070. The Directors Policy Manual should define the Board’s responsibilities in detail.
F3:
The Fire Chief has not received a formal written annual performance review from the Board since 2008.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3:
The Board must approve all District policies. Implementation of the approved policies is the responsibility of the Fire Chief.
F4:
The Board does not have a written evaluation policy for the Fire Chief, its senior manager of operations.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4:
Final approval or rejection of new or changed policies should be completed in a timely manner and parties involved notified of their acceptance or rejection.
F5:
The Board has been remiss in its responsibilities regarding the review and approval of all policies. Due to the numerous functions performed by the Fire Chief, he is not able to keep the Board informed about the suggested policy and procedures, submitted by employees that could help in the performance of administrative and operational tasks. This results in a disruption of an open and orderly process.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R5:
The Board should develop a written policy for the annual Board evaluation of the Fire Chief, its senior manager of operations.
F6:
The frequent turnover of Board members is affecting the Board’s ability to govern effectively and with continuity. Without consistent, informed, experienced leadership for a reasonable period of time, the job of governing and supporting the district is compromised and results in ineffective leadership. Currently only one member of the Board has more than two years of service, two are newly appointed and one position is vacant.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R6:
The Board should complete and deliver a written performance evaluation to the Fire Chief annually. A “catch up” review should be completed by September 30, 2012.
F7:
Administration staff is not part of the Union MOU yet are filing complaints through the Union.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R7:
The Administration Staff is not part of the Union MOU with the District. Since no in-house Human Resources position exists, any administrative staff personnel complaints should be referred directly to the Board and not through the Union grievance process.
F8:
The Board’s Directors Policy Manual outlines the full set of responsibilities for the position of the Clerk of the Board. The 2011-2012 SCCGJ finds this position has been delegated to the Fire Chief and the Board’s own policies are not being followed.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R8:
At least three of the members of the Board should be elected (per Government Code Section 61008). One of the elected members should be named as Clerk for the Board and another be named as Treasurer. There should be a job description outlining minimum qualifications for each position. The District’s Directors Policy Manual provides a full job description for Clerk of the Board. The Treasurer should understand accounting and auditing procedures and should be responsible for reviewing the budget and the quarterly financial position of the District. This report is issued by the 2011-2012 Stanislaus County Civil Grand Jury. No members of the grand jury volunteered to recuse themselves due to a perceived conflict of interest. The primary function of the SCCGJ is to provide unbiased oversight and to investigate complaints from citizens about the operations of county and city government, school districts and special districts, as required by law. The grand jury is one means to inform citizens that government is operating efficiently and in an ethical, honest manner. The grand jury investigates policies and procedures and makes recommendations to improve 4 local governmental operations. It has no power to enforce its recommendations. It only informs citizens about some of the legislative and administrative work of their local governments. All grand jury investigations and reports are approved by at least a 60% supermajority vote of the entire grand jury panel.
F9:
The Board’s Directors Policy Manual with regards to financial responsibility is essentially non-existent. The Policy Manual states the following “The Board of Directors recognizes excellent fiscal planning as a key factor in attaining the District’s goals and priorities. The Board seeks to engage in thorough advance planning of budgets to devise expenditures which achieve the greatest returns given the District’s available resources.” No further Board direction or definition of responsibility is provided. 3
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
8 hallazgos
F1:
The State investigation report confirms, and the school district acknowledges, the allegation that eight parents did not receive a psychoeducational evaluation report, and data provided by the District confirms one report that demonstrates the evaluation did not contain language that exhibits a determination was made concerning the effects of environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage. The state report found the district to be out of compliance. EC 56327.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3:
The SCCGJ recommends additional training for Site Administrators and Psychologists, emphasizing timelines and guidelines for providing psychoeducational evaluation reports with the required content. Training should be documented. 4
F2:
The State investigation report confirms, and the school district acknowledges, noncompliance in adhering to the 60-day timeline for the completion of the assessment, from the date the parent gave consent to the assessment plan for three of the students. It was also confirmed and acknowledged by the district that the triennial IEP team meetings conducted for those three students was not conducted by the triennial date. New IEP’s were not developed in a timely manner. The state report found the district to be out of compliance. EC 56381(a)(2). 3
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3:
The SCCGJ recommends additional training for Site Administrators and Psychologists, emphasizing timelines and guidelines for providing psychoeducational evaluation reports with the required content. Training should be documented. 4
F3:
The State investigation report confirms, and the school district acknowledges, that multiple psychological assessments are used, as well as, academic assessments for determining whether a pupil is an individual with exceptional needs. The state report found the district to be in compliance. EC 56320(e).
F4:
The State investigation report confirms, and the school district acknowledges, that the district failed to properly test a student when an IEP team recommended further evaluation for Autism Spectrum Disorder. The District did not develop a new assessment plan following the IEP meeting. The state report found the district to be out of compliance. EC 56320(f).
F5:
Complainant alleges the district failed to prevent the use of official authority by an employee to intimidate, coerce, or threaten another employee to keep them from assisting a parent of a pupil with exceptional needs to obtain services or accommodations. The State investigation report confirms, and the school district affirms, evidence is insufficient to support the allegations of this claim. The state report found the district to be in compliance. EC 56046.
F6:
Complainant alleges discrimination in the population of special education students that actually receive completed tests and testing results. This allegation was not found to be substantiated.
F7:
The SCCGJ found there are lapses of management in the SELPA program. Evaluations and associated paperwork for some students in special education program was not done in a timely manner and submitted to the student’s parents or the person holding educational rights of the student. The problems at a district high school may be systemic. The principal and the assistant principal did not adequately monitor the records of special education programs to ensure timely submissions of the reports. Personnel issues and disagreements between staff at the school may have contributed to problems with the timely submission and content of these reports.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R1:
The SCCGJ recommends the SELPA Director and staff continue to monitor student special education reports to insure they meet CDE standards in the future, even after mandates from the Department of Education expire.
R2:
The SCCGJ recommends that SELPA management randomly monitor student interviews from psychologist and Site Administrators to determine the special education program criteria are being met. The Modesto City School Board should receive results of these monitoring efforts on a scheduled regular basis to be assured these programs are being properly administrated.
F8:
Complainant alleges that MCSD is financially reimbursed for testing upon receiving signed IEP reports. This is not a valid complaint. Funding for special education programs come from a block grant and not through receipt of signed IEP reports as confirmed by the Superintendent of MCSD.
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
7 hallazgos
F1:
An Unqualified Opinion on the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) was obtained.
F2:
Unqualified Opinions were obtained for: Health Services Agency Audit Inmate Welfare Audit Regional 911 Audit Redevelopment Agency Insurance Fraud Program North County Corridor Transportation Expressway Treasury Compliance Audit Tobacco Endowment Investment Fund Animal Services Fund Capital Improvement and Financing Agency
F3:
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) circular A-133 also requires the performance of a Federal Compliance Audit of the County’s federal grants to ensure the County is materially in compliance with federal regulations for each of the County’s major federal grants including any related ARRA Grants. Unqualified Opinions for the Single Audits were obtained for: Food Stamps – Administration Women, Infants and Children (WIC) Highway Planning and Construction Foster Care – Title IV E Medical Assistance Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services (SAMHSA) Block Grants for Prevention and Treatment of Substance Abuse (SAPT) Child Care and Development (CCDF Cluster) Edward Byrnes Memorial Grants (JAG Program Cluster) WIA (Workforce Investment Act) Cluster Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF Cluster)
F4:
A review of the Stanislaus County Recorder – Modernization Trust Fund was conducted and included interviews with management and staff. All records indicate that expenditures are in accordance with Government Code 27361.
F5:
The review of the Stanislaus County’s policies and procedures related to Travel and Credit Card Purchases and Reimbursement are comprehensive. The SCCGJ did not perform any audit testing on actual data.
F6:
The County continues to upgrade and improve its accounting software, further strengthening its financial documentation, procedures and processes.
F7:
As part of the Stanislaus County’s efforts to reduce staff and expenditures, effective with the 2011-2012 budget, the county has dissolved the Internal Audit Department. The internal audit functions are no longer being performed.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2:
The Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors should carefully and critically analyze any recommendation to reduce staffing in the Stanislaus County Auditor-Controllers department. The internal audit function is an integral part of any accounting team, especially an entity with a $ 900 million public funds budget. The lack of internal review, oversight and education to and for the benefit of the county’s departments, could easily result in non- compliance and a deterioration of future financial results. This report of case 12-29GJ is issued by the 2011-2012 Stanislaus County Civil Grand Jury. No members of the grand jury volunteered to recuse themselves due to a perceived conflict of interest. Reports issued by the Civil Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code § 929 requires that reports of the Grand Jury not contain the name of any person, or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to the Civil Grand Jury. The California State Legislature has stated that it intends the provisions of Penal Code § 929 prohibiting disclosure of witness identities to encourage full candor in testimony in Civil Grand Jury investigations by protecting the privacy and confidentiality of those who participate in any Civil Grand Jury investigation. Requests For Responses: No responses required
Recomendaciones adicionales
1
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R1:
The Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors should publicly recognize the outstanding efforts of the staff within the Stanislaus County Auditor-Controllers office, the directors and staff of each Stanislaus County Department.
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Recomendaciones adicionales
3
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R1:
The SCCGJ recommends that Person C resign from the school board.
R2:
The SCCGJ recommends the school district should require Person C to reimburse the district for the insurance costs for the time C lived outside of the district (approximately $980 per month).
R3:
The School Board President should monitor the resident status of board members to assure they comply with residency requirements of California Government Code 34882.
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
4 hallazgos
F1:
B removed confidential files from City Hall after being specifically instructed not to by the CM and thereby, acted with poor judgment. This is a violation of the Oakdale Handbook of Rules and Procedures for the Oakdale City Council, Chapter 1 (B) Ethical Behavior. 1 1 “Ethical behavior is what Councilmember ought to do, not just what they have to do. The law only sets minimum standards regarding ethical conduct. It is important to recognize that just because an action is legal, it doesn’t always mean it is ethical or reflects the values of Councilmember or the public. Councilmembers must strive to always put the good of Oakdale and its citizens first with the utmost in ethical and civil behavior.”
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1:
Removal of confidential files by Councilmembers has been addressed by the City of Oakdale in their Handbook of Rules and Procedures. A new section was added in September 2011 to Chapter 1 to clarify the requirements for Councilmembers to view personnel files and other documents and reports. The SCCGJ recommends that the Councilmembers review the handbook annually and update as needed.
F2:
B and F interfered in a personnel issue by meeting with D without the prior notice or knowledge of the CM or Personnel Department. This is a violation of the Oakdale Handbook of Rules and Procedures for the Oakdale City Council, Chapter 1(I) Interference in Staff Functions.2 2 “The City Council shall deal with the administrative services of the City only through the City Manager, except for the purpose of inquiry, and neither the City Council nor any member thereof, shall give orders to subordinates of the City Manager. No member of the City Council shall publicly criticize or censure an staff member of the City, and shall instead relay any criticism of a staff member privately through the City Manager.”
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2:
Councilmembers should not become involved with personnel issues or be an advocate for or against employees. To become involved in these issues not only violates the City of Oakdale rules for Councilmembers but it could increase the liability of the City.
F3:
Normal procedures for abstaining on an issue were violated in the July 18, 2011 Council meeting when B and G both abstained but remained in the room and participated in the discussion on adopting Resolution 2011-102. This was a violation of both the City of Oakdale Handbook of Rules and Procedures for the Oakdale City Council Chapter IV (B) (6) Abstention/Recuse: Conflict of Interest3 and Section 87105 (a)(3) of the California Government Elections Code.4 3 ”Councilmembers shall disqualify themselves and abstain from voting if they have a financial conflict of interest or any other disqualification prescribed by law in a matter before the City Council. In such event, they may not participate in the discussion or the vote. Councilmembers shall state the specific reason for such disqualification. Unless the matter is on the consent calendar, the abstaining Councilmember shall leave the Council dais until the conclusion of the agenda item. The matter will then proceed as though the member is not present, and the member shall not be counted toward making up a quorum. Further requirement on abstention and absence from the Chambers may be imposed by State law.” 4 “87105 (a). A public official who holds an office specified in Section 87200 who has a financial interest in a decision within the meaning of Section 87100 shall, upon identifying a conflict of interest or a potential conflict of interest and immediately prior to the consideration of the matter, do all of the following: … (3) Leave the room until after the discussion, vote, and any other disposition of the matter is concluded, unless the matter has been placed on the portion of the agenda reserved for uncontested matters.”
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3:
The SCCGJ recommends the Council of Oakdale review procedures for Abstention/Recusal as outlined in their Council handbook and insure that the proper procedure is followed at all meetings.
F4:
B moved to Grass Valley at the start of 2012 and is no longer living in the City; however B is still participating in the City Council meetings. By State election law (California Government Codes – Residency Requirements § 36502 (a))5, no council member is allowed to serve on Councils/Boards when they do not live within the establish limits of the jurisdiction they are representing. 5 “36502 (a). A person is not eligible to hold office as council member, city clerk, or city treasurer unless he or she is at the time of assuming the office an elector of the city, and was a registered voter of the city at the time nomination papers are issued to the candidate as provided for in Section 10227 of the Elections Code. If, during his or her term of office, he or she moves his or her place of residence outside of the city limits or ceases to be an elector of the city, his or her office shall immediately become vacant.”
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4:
The SCCGJ recommends that the City of Oakdale implement California Government Code 36502 for the immediate removal of Councilmembers who no longer reside within the City limits.
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
4 hallazgos
F1:
There was one death in the prison this year. A 22-year-old prisoner hung himself with bed sheets in one of the two man cells. The other prisoner claimed to be asleep at the time. The deceased had been put on suicide watch after his arrest, but after an evaluation by the medical staff, he was released to a regular prison cell.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1:
The suicide prevention procedures should be reviewed both in psychological evaluations of the prisoners and changes that can be made to cells that are used for at risk prisoners. The SCCGJ observed that the cell used in the last prisoner suicide made it easy for a prisoner to stand on a bed and reach a horizontal cross bar that separated two cell segments. Prisoners are able to stand on a bed and wrap a bed sheet around the upper bars and have enough vertical space to hang them selves. It seems some modification can be made to these cells to make it more difficult for at- risk prisoners to hang themselves in this manner. Title 15 Section 1046- Inmate Death requires that a team with specified composition review each in-custody death and submit a report to the CSA.
F2:
The 2012 SCCGJ agrees with previous SCCGJ reports that the men’s jail is an outdated and aging facility. The PSC on Hatch Road has a direct supervision design that allows better monitoring of prisoners.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2:
As many prisoners as possible should be transferred to the Public Safety Center as new construction is completed.
F3:
An exercise period of two 3-hour periods per week for prisoners does not seem to be adequate for the restricted space some prisoners are required to live in. This is especially true of prisoners that double up in cells designed for one man.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3:
The SCCGJ recommends that exercise time be increased for prisoners. REQUEST FOR RESPONSES The Stanislaus County Sheriff The Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER – 200 East Hackett Road Modesto This facility was constructed in 1992. It is a modern prison facility and the comparison with the downtown jail is striking. The facility is composed of 6 “pods” or cell areas. Each cell pod has a large open area that prisoners can read and watch television in an open central area. Prisoners may get up to 8 hours per day in this area depending on behavioral issues. Some prisoners get much less. This area is surrounded by two stories of cell blocks. There is a floor-level observation platform where deputies can monitor activities of inmates. There are 40 deputies assigned to the PSC. At the time of the SCCGJ’s visit there were 698 inmates with a total capacity of 726. All prisoners are separated by a classification staff and wear different colored uniforms to denote the type of inmate. The visiting hours are the same as the downtown jail. Female inmates are housed in two separate pods away from male prisoners. There are 4 female prisoners to a cell. The compound has a large outdoor grass recreational area for some prisoners to exercise. There are programs available for inmates that include both GED degrees and college AA courses. Prisoners with mental health problems are housed in separate cells and monitored by deputies. When their problems can no longer be dealt with by jail personnel they are sent to a mental health facility that is contracted to Doctors Medical Center. Beds are limited at the medical center facility so inmates have to wait until space is available up before they are transferred. Depending on their classification, some severely mentally handicapped prisoners are sent to state mental health facilities. The SCCGJ was told funds have become available to add one deputy each to the PSC and downtown jail to help deal with prisoners with mental health problems. A separate building at this location houses a modern kitchen and laundry facility. There is a large storage area that contains large amounts of food, laundry and personal supplies. Snacks and condiment items are stored here that can be purchased by prisoners. This facility prepares 4,000 meals per day. The SCCGJ was told that the food meets guidelines for nutritional needs. Condiments for meals must be purchased by inmates .Coffee is no longer provided as part of the meals. There are special meals provided for those with special needs such as diabetes. There is a large laundry facility that does laundry for all prison facilities. Some prisoners work in the laundry and kitchen facility. This appears to be a well run and managed operation. The jail has a work release program that allows low risk inmates to serve out their sentence by working in public works programs. A classification unit selects inmates for participation. This program used to be comprised of 300 inmates, but has grown much larger because of lack of jail space. In the past inmates that did not meet their work commitments were returned to custody. Because of lack of jail space this is no longer possible. Inmates in this program work in public works programs such as parks clean up and graffiti removal. There are over 40 sites that are part of this program. . A major change occurred in 2011 for the Stanislaus County Jails and Probation Department. Assembly Bill 109 mandated that some low risk prisoners in state prisons be relocated to county jail facilities. This was a result of a federal court ruling that sought to correct over-crowding in the state prisons system. Stanislaus County jails received the first of these inmates in the fall of 2011. The State of California provided funds to help counties with the costs of housing these inmates, but they are of a temporary nature and further funding for staffing is in question. Two pod areas that had been closed in the Public Safety Center were reopened to house these inmates and deputies were rehired to staff these facilities. There are major expansion plans for this facility. In June of 2010 a fire destroyed two of the four buildings of the Stanislaus County Honor Farm. Money from an insurance settlement will be used to construct additional capacity at the Public Safety Center. Constructions of three new pods are scheduled to begin in July of 2012 and be completed a year later. This will allow the housing of 192 additional inmates and possible transfer of honor farm inmates. Stanislaus County received a grant from the California Corrections Standards Authority for $80 million that must be used for construction of new facilities. These funds will be used for further jail expansion that will house an additional 384 inmates. A medical and mental health wing will provide a much needed capacity of 72 beds. A day reporting center and central control station will also be constructed. Additionally, these funds will be used to pay for the relocation of the morgue to the vacant Medical Arts Building in downtown Modesto. FINDINGS
F4:
The staff at the prison in the opinion of the SCCGJ, seem competent and professional in the conduct of their duties. RECOMMENDATIONS
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
2 hallazgos
F1:
The SCCGJ finds that the sheriff did not thoroughly and completely investigate violations to a standing court restraining order. This could be indicative of a lax attitude toward enforcing a restraining order within the Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Department.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1:
The SCCGJ recommends the Sheriff’s Department institute a procedure to monitor multiple violations of a restraining order and give them a higher enforcement priority. Records of these violations should be available to a deputy in the patrol vehicle and continually updated. Multiple violations of restraining orders show disrespect for the law and could lead to consequences the restraining order was designed to prevent.
F2:
Although B’s lack of full cooperation with the Sheriff’s Department on some matters is troublesome, the SCCGJ is of the opinion that this is not a basis to deny investigation and enforcement of a restraining order. These are separate issues. In this case a lack of proper enforcement has deprived both B and D equal protection under the law.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2:
The SCCGJ recommends that the Sheriff’s Department evaluate the policy of no follow up investigation for misdemeanor offences, such as, but not limited to, “willful disobedience of any process order lawfully issued by a court”.
Recomendaciones adicionales
1
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R3:
If appropriate conditions exist, a citation per Penal Code 166. (a) (4) should be issued and the case forwarded to the District Attorney with a proper investigation.
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
10 hallazgos
F1:
City staff has responded to the public with many documents in an attempt to roll forward 25 years of activity in Acct.145-Overpass, without the benefit of a full and complete financial history. The public is left with the impression that funds have been mis-appropriated or misused. The City’s CPA could have provided a more complete and accurate roll-forward for far less money and time spent.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1:
The 2011-12 SCCGJ suggests that the City of Riverbank review its need for a City Treasurer. The 2011-12 SCCGJ finds the creation and assignments of the city’s volunteer Finance/Budget Committee is a positive action to involve more members of the public in financial decisions, especially in these tough financial times. However, there are powers, responsibilities and duties granted to a Treasurer that may provide a higher level of over-sight and compliance.
F2:
The 2011-12 SCCGJ finds that prior to 1999, the lack of proper and basic accounting policies and procedures, the lack of staff understanding of the fundamentals of accounting processes and an 4 inept accounting software conversion all contributed to the Acct.145-Overpass beginning balance cleanup of $296,497 executed in the 1996-97 financial statements.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2:
Obtain the requested written opinion from the City Attorney per the City Council request of January 9, 2012. Provide a copy of the opinion to the SCCGJ.
F3:
The City of Riverbank continues to achieve an Unqualified (highest status) audit ranking. No internal control findings or recommendations are being reported by the auditors, an indication that appropriate GASB financial policy and procedural standards are being followed.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3:
Complete the System Development Report. Insure that the report is in full compliance with AB1600 (Government Codes 66000 – 66025), including a brief description of the city’s intention of use and feasibility of each fund project. Treat the SDF Report as a living document. This document can serve as a current and historical record of the status for each fund / project, creating accountability for city staff, the foundation for the adherence to GASB 54, full disclosure to the public along with being a historical document for current and future staff and elected city officials.
F4:
The additional revenue posted to Acct.145-Overpass in the years of 1998-99, 2001-02 and 2002-03 was proper.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4:
Provide a copy of this first “catch-up” SDF Report to the SCCGJ by October 29, 2012.
F5:
The total fees collected per Res. 87-68, $397,355 and resulting interest earned over the last 25 years has never provided sufficient funds for the City to complete the Overpass Project. Past and current city officials and staff have allowed Acct. 145-Overpass to remain in existence for 25 years without constructing a capital improvement.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R5:
The current City Council is now charged with the responsibility of understanding and correcting the action or lack of performance by prior city officials. A first step is an understanding of AB1600 (Government Codes 66000 – 66025). This educational process should be completed by the Mayor, all City Council members, finance staff, City Manager, Development Services Director, Planning Commission and any other participants in city government responsible for compliance with AB1600 California Government Codes (66000-66025).
F6:
The 2011-12 SCCGJ concludes that the revenues in Acct. 145-Overpass have not been transferred or spent for general fund purposes or to fund some other undisclosed project. However, in 2008-09 the City of Riverbank began utilizing Account 145-Overpass for the Santa Fe Underpass Project. The core purpose (to mitigate the railroad and traffic issue and to connect the East and West sectors of the City) may be the same, however the actual projects are different. This multi-use of Funds is not in compliance with AB1600. AB1600 Government Codes 66000-66025 AB1600 Government Codes 66000-66025 provides clear direction for the handling and public disclosure for SDF funds, public funds collected for the public and held ‘in trust’ by a local agency. The SCCGJ reviewed the City of Riverbank’s compliance with regards to these codes. The City of Riverbank consultants and staff are currently preparing a System Development Fee Report that will define and summarize the project status of the General and Specific Plans and each SDF fund. The City Council minutes of January 9, 2012 stated, “… the annual (SDF) report will be presented to Council every December 15th and the first catch-up report will be presented as soon as possible.”
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R6:
The City of Riverbank should review, correct and amend its Code of Ordinances related to Building Regulations for System Development Fee Projects for accuracy and compliance with AB1600 Government Codes 66000-66025.
F7:
The City of Riverbank, California Code of Ordinances for Building Regulations related to System Development fees and projects, established initially in 1967, do not reference and are not in compliance with AB1600 California Code 66000-66025.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R7:
AB1600 Government Code 66001 requires that the City Council pass by resolution, the SDF Report. The resulting approval or re-approval, of each SDF fund should be included as part of the resolution. The city’s Financial Records (G/L) should reflect each action. For example, for Acct.145-Overpass, if the City Council decision is to replace the Kentucky/Talbot Overpass Project with the Santa Fe Underpass Project, the financial statements should reflect that decision/ resolution. Acct. 145-Overpass should be closed out and all funds transferred to a new G/L Fund Account (preserving the detail of the Santa Fe Underpass expenditures). This general ledger action will serve as a clear delineation between the projects and will provide compliance with AB1600.
F8:
Clearly, there is a need for the City of Riverbank to provide safe access between the East and West ends of town and to overcome the railroad dissection of the City of Riverbank.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R8:
If the City Council passes a resolution to abandon the East/West Access RR crossing project, obviously, R7 no longer applies and the process of refund should be executed per AB1600.
F9:
During the January 9, 2012 council meeting, the City Council asked for an opinion from the City Attorney regarding the proper procedures to address the use or disposition of the balance in Acct. 145-Overpass. As of June 2012, the Mayor has not received a written opinion.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R9:
Utilize the Finance/Budget Committee to review AB1600 Government Codes 66000-66025 for the benefit of understanding the fiscal and reporting responsibilities for the SDF funds. In addition, the committee can help prepare the city for compliance with GASB 54. Compliance with AB1600 (Government Codes 66000-66025) could reduce audit costs associated with GASB 54. The City’s Certified Public Accounting Firm can provide the specifics of the GASB 54 requirements as it relates to the City of Riverbank’s financial reporting responsibilities.
F10:
Though General and Specific Plans have been approved by the current City Council in open and public meetings a review of the March 20, 2012 Downtown Specific Plan does not tie the Plan together with the Funds established and collected for the city’s SDF projects. Consequently, several sections of AB1600 Government Code 66000-66025 appear to be disregarded and/or not fully utilized for; 1) full and clear disclosure to the citizens of the city 2) powers granted to the City Council, and 3) responsibilities and actions that need to be taken by the City Council. 5
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R10:
It is suggested that city staff and the City Council rely heavily on the advice of the City’s CPA and City Attorney to guide the city through the approval of each SDF Fund and the amendments to the SDF Fund City Ordinances for compliance with AB1600 and GASB 54. This report of case #12-16C is issued by the 2011-2012 Stanislaus County Civil Grand Jury and no members of the grand jury volunteered to recuse themselves due to a perceived conflict of interest. Reports issued by the Civil Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code § 929 requires that reports of the Grand Jury not contain the name of any person, or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to the Civil Grand Jury. The California State Legislature has stated that it intends the provisions of Penal Code § 929 prohibiting disclosure of witness identities to encourage full candor in testimony in Civil Grand Jury investigations by protecting the privacy and confidentiality of those who participate in any Civil Grand Jury investigation. The primary function of the SCCGJ is to provide unbiased oversight and to investigate complaints from citizens about the operations of county and city government, school districts and special districts, as required by law. The grand jury is one means to inform citizens that government is operating efficiently and in an ethical, honest manner. The grand jury investigates policies and procedures and makes recommendations to improve local governmental operations. It has no power to enforce its recommendations. It only informs citizens about some of the legislative and administrative work of their local governments. All grand jury investigations and reports are approved by at least a 60% supermajority vote of the entire grand jury panel. Response Requested: City of Riverbank City Council 7