Ventura County Grand Jury
2005-2006
Findings & Recommendations
14 findings
F01:
The ISD facilities on the Lower Plaza of the Hall of Administration include offices, communications equipment, computer mainframe, network servers, and telephone switches for Ventura County operations.
F02:
The mainframe, servers, and routers are located below grade with cables below the floors.
F03:
Telephone switches are located below grade.
F04:
The ISD maintains limited backup capability for E-mail and Internet connections in a building adjacent to the Camarillo Airport.
F05:
Much of the Oxnard Plain — especially the entire area surrounding the Camarillo Airport — is designated as subject to liquefaction on California Geological Survey maps [Ref-01].
F06:
The ISD maintains backup capability for payroll and VCIJIS adjacent to the Emergency Operations Center in the basement of the Ventura County Jail.
F07:
The Emergency Operations Center and Sheriff’s Dispatch Center have been repeatedly flooded by backed-up sewer lines.
F08:
In case of a severe storm, the Lower Plaza of the Hall of Administration and the basement of the Jail might be subject to flooding.
F09:
In case of an earthquake, the Lower Plaza of the Hall of Administration and the basement of the Jail might be subject to inundation by broken water or sewer lines.
F10:
In case of an earthquake, liquefaction might render structures in the area of the Camarillo Airport unsafe and unusable. Security of Sensitive Data
F11:
Daily backups of server data are prepared by ISD. These include payroll and personnel data.
F12:
The daily data backups are not encrypted on the removable backup media.
Related Recommendations (1)
R03:
When backing-up data, all files should be encrypted before release outside of the ISD. Only designated security personnel within ISD should have access to the related decryption keys. (C-03) Responses Responses Required From: Ventura County Information Services Department (R-01, R-02, and R-03) Bibliography References Ref-01. The map is available via the Web at . Ref-02. “Data storage firm apologizes for loss of railroad data tapes”, The Boston Globe, April 28, 2006. This article describes how removable media containing sensitive archived employee data of the Long Island Railroad were lost by or stolen from the archiving firm Iron Mountain, Inc. The article also cites prior such losses by Bank of America and Fidelity Investments and indicates that 75 such losses occurred nationally in the first four months of 2006. (This page intentionally blank)
F13:
Under a contract with ISD, a commercial service picks up removable media containing backed-up data and stores these media in a remote archive.
F14:
The loss or theft of removable data media is a recognized problem affecting financial institutions, government agencies, colleges, and other organizations. Instances of this loss may lead to the compromise of sensitive data and the possibility of identity theft using those data [Ref-02]. Conclusions C-01. In the event of a flood or earthquake, the County is at risk of losing the ability to conduct business through its computer systems, not only in the main ISD facility in the Hall of Administration but also in backup facilities in the Jail and at the Camarillo Airport. (F-01, F-02, F-04, F-05, F-06, F-07, F-08, F-09,
Findings & Recommendations
35 findings
F01:
State support for the community colleges primarily depends on State funding. The major source of VCCCD revenue is from the State, based on Full Time Equivalent Student (FTES).
F02:
In terms of tax funding, the VCCCD ranks 64th out of the 72 community college districts in California, at $3,836 per FTES.
F03:
State level of revenue allocated to each community college varies. Before Proposition 13 (the 1978 property tax initiative) was passed, districts could assess a local property tax for support of community colleges. Local district revenues (now provided by the State) are based on the property tax rate before Proposition 13.
F04:
The State legislature is still in the process of discussions relating to equalization among the districts that might increase funding to VCCCD.
F05:
The tuition of $26 per unit for California residents is set by the State. This was increased from $18 per unit in September 2004.
F06:
The VCCCD 2005-2006 enrollment figures show four consecutive semesters of decline at all three colleges.
F07:
The VCCCD acknowledges a relationship between the County economy and the overall student enrollment. If there is high employment, enrollment is down, and vice versa.
F08:
The cycle of a continuing decrease in enrollment leads to less revenue. By necessity classes and programs are eliminated. This in turn reduces the selection of classes available to students, resulting in additional reduction in enrollment. Programs and Staffing
F09:
State law requires that community colleges have 75% of their classes taught by full-time instructors; VCCCD is at the 54% level.
F10:
Part-time instructors are paid at a lower pay scale than full-time instructors.
Related Recommendations (1)
R05:
The Grand Jury recommends that the VCCCD seriously consider all of the recommendations in the Assessment. These recommendations should be prioritized and implemented at the earliest possible time. (C-12) Responses Responses Required From: Ventura County Community College District Office (R-01 through R-05) Bibliography References Ref-01. The Market Assessment and Organizational Performance Review by KH Consulting Group February 7, 2006; available on the VCCCD web site at . (This page intentionally blank)
F11:
Part-time instructors receive reduced or no benefits.
Related Recommendations (1)
R05:
The Grand Jury recommends that the VCCCD seriously consider all of the recommendations in the Assessment. These recommendations should be prioritized and implemented at the earliest possible time. (C-12) Responses Responses Required From: Ventura County Community College District Office (R-01 through R-05) Bibliography References Ref-01. The Market Assessment and Organizational Performance Review by KH Consulting Group February 7, 2006; available on the VCCCD web site at . (This page intentionally blank)
F12:
The shortfall of full-time instructors reduces the ability of students to meet with faculty since part-time instructors are not funded or required to keep office hours.
Related Recommendations (1)
R05:
The Grand Jury recommends that the VCCCD seriously consider all of the recommendations in the Assessment. These recommendations should be prioritized and implemented at the earliest possible time. (C-12) Responses Responses Required From: Ventura County Community College District Office (R-01 through R-05) Bibliography References Ref-01. The Market Assessment and Organizational Performance Review by KH Consulting Group February 7, 2006; available on the VCCCD web site at . (This page intentionally blank)
F13:
Some core classes such as math, English, and social science are not offered at all three colleges because of faculty shortages and budgetary constraints.
Related Recommendations (1)
R05:
The Grand Jury recommends that the VCCCD seriously consider all of the recommendations in the Assessment. These recommendations should be prioritized and implemented at the earliest possible time. (C-12) Responses Responses Required From: Ventura County Community College District Office (R-01 through R-05) Bibliography References Ref-01. The Market Assessment and Organizational Performance Review by KH Consulting Group February 7, 2006; available on the VCCCD web site at . (This page intentionally blank)
F14:
Each college has its own Academic Master Plan, which includes programs for college transfer and vocational training. Administration and Operations
F15:
There are significantly differing opinions and complaints among college employees as to how decisions are made by VCCCD and the justifications for those decisions.
Related Recommendations (3)
R02:
The VCCCD should make its operations more transparent by improving its interface with the staff, media, and the public. (C-01, C-08)
R04:
The VCCCD should develop a more open and inclusive process in developing policies with the intended result of more consistency and stability. (C-06, C-07)
R05:
The Grand Jury recommends that the VCCCD seriously consider all of the recommendations in the Assessment. These recommendations should be prioritized and implemented at the earliest possible time. (C-12) Responses Responses Required From: Ventura County Community College District Office (R-01 through R-05) Bibliography References Ref-01. The Market Assessment and Organizational Performance Review by KH Consulting Group February 7, 2006; available on the VCCCD web site at . (This page intentionally blank)
F16:
The public, in general, is not aware of the background or reasoning behind many VCCCD decisions regarding the three colleges and District Office.
Related Recommendations (2)
R02:
The VCCCD should make its operations more transparent by improving its interface with the staff, media, and the public. (C-01, C-08)
R05:
The Grand Jury recommends that the VCCCD seriously consider all of the recommendations in the Assessment. These recommendations should be prioritized and implemented at the earliest possible time. (C-12) Responses Responses Required From: Ventura County Community College District Office (R-01 through R-05) Bibliography References Ref-01. The Market Assessment and Organizational Performance Review by KH Consulting Group February 7, 2006; available on the VCCCD web site at . (This page intentionally blank)
F17:
The VCCCD has a multi-layered hierarchical organizational structure.
Related Recommendations (2)
R03:
The VCCCD should develop more rapid and efficient request and approval processes with fewer bureaucratic layers. (C-06, C-07)
R05:
The Grand Jury recommends that the VCCCD seriously consider all of the recommendations in the Assessment. These recommendations should be prioritized and implemented at the earliest possible time. (C-12) Responses Responses Required From: Ventura County Community College District Office (R-01 through R-05) Bibliography References Ref-01. The Market Assessment and Organizational Performance Review by KH Consulting Group February 7, 2006; available on the VCCCD web site at . (This page intentionally blank)
F18:
The VCCCD administrative procedures are complicated and complex. There are multiple approvals required on many decisions, including staffing decisions.
Related Recommendations (2)
R03:
The VCCCD should develop more rapid and efficient request and approval processes with fewer bureaucratic layers. (C-06, C-07)
R05:
The Grand Jury recommends that the VCCCD seriously consider all of the recommendations in the Assessment. These recommendations should be prioritized and implemented at the earliest possible time. (C-12) Responses Responses Required From: Ventura County Community College District Office (R-01 through R-05) Bibliography References Ref-01. The Market Assessment and Organizational Performance Review by KH Consulting Group February 7, 2006; available on the VCCCD web site at . (This page intentionally blank)
F19:
The VCCCD is not consistent in its operational policies. Bond Measure S Projects
Related Recommendations (2)
R04:
The VCCCD should develop a more open and inclusive process in developing policies with the intended result of more consistency and stability. (C-06, C-07)
R05:
The Grand Jury recommends that the VCCCD seriously consider all of the recommendations in the Assessment. These recommendations should be prioritized and implemented at the earliest possible time. (C-12) Responses Responses Required From: Ventura County Community College District Office (R-01 through R-05) Bibliography References Ref-01. The Market Assessment and Organizational Performance Review by KH Consulting Group February 7, 2006; available on the VCCCD web site at . (This page intentionally blank)
F20:
Bond Measure S was approved by the Ventura County voters in March 2002, for $356.3 million to fund new or renovated classroom buildings and related facilities located at the three community colleges and the Camarillo District Office.
F21:
Information for voters regarding Measure S was distributed in the sample ballot for the March 5, 2002 election. This information indicated that capital projects to be funded with bond proceeds would include the renovation of athletic facilities at Ventura College for health and safety reasons and to upgrade facilities for physical education instruction. This information did not mention facilities for competitive athletic programs.
Related Recommendations (1)
R05:
The Grand Jury recommends that the VCCCD seriously consider all of the recommendations in the Assessment. These recommendations should be prioritized and implemented at the earliest possible time. (C-12) Responses Responses Required From: Ventura County Community College District Office (R-01 through R-05) Bibliography References Ref-01. The Market Assessment and Organizational Performance Review by KH Consulting Group February 7, 2006; available on the VCCCD web site at . (This page intentionally blank)
F22:
Measure S was placed on the ballot without a Facilities Master Plan prioritizing or directing use of the bond funds.
Related Recommendations (1)
R05:
The Grand Jury recommends that the VCCCD seriously consider all of the recommendations in the Assessment. These recommendations should be prioritized and implemented at the earliest possible time. (C-12) Responses Responses Required From: Ventura County Community College District Office (R-01 through R-05) Bibliography References Ref-01. The Market Assessment and Organizational Performance Review by KH Consulting Group February 7, 2006; available on the VCCCD web site at . (This page intentionally blank)
F23:
The voter statement for Measure S indicated that the funds might be used for creating a Santa Clara Valley Advanced Technology Education Center (in Santa Paula), but failed to provide funds for purchasing land on which to build the facility or to conduct an Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
Related Recommendations (1)
R05:
The Grand Jury recommends that the VCCCD seriously consider all of the recommendations in the Assessment. These recommendations should be prioritized and implemented at the earliest possible time. (C-12) Responses Responses Required From: Ventura County Community College District Office (R-01 through R-05) Bibliography References Ref-01. The Market Assessment and Organizational Performance Review by KH Consulting Group February 7, 2006; available on the VCCCD web site at . (This page intentionally blank)
F24:
Measure S did not intend to provide for a fourth full-service college in Santa Paula.
Related Recommendations (1)
R05:
The Grand Jury recommends that the VCCCD seriously consider all of the recommendations in the Assessment. These recommendations should be prioritized and implemented at the earliest possible time. (C-12) Responses Responses Required From: Ventura County Community College District Office (R-01 through R-05) Bibliography References Ref-01. The Market Assessment and Organizational Performance Review by KH Consulting Group February 7, 2006; available on the VCCCD web site at . (This page intentionally blank)
F25:
The Santa Paula satellite campus has decreasing student enrollment.
Related Recommendations (1)
R05:
The Grand Jury recommends that the VCCCD seriously consider all of the recommendations in the Assessment. These recommendations should be prioritized and implemented at the earliest possible time. (C-12) Responses Responses Required From: Ventura County Community College District Office (R-01 through R-05) Bibliography References Ref-01. The Market Assessment and Organizational Performance Review by KH Consulting Group February 7, 2006; available on the VCCCD web site at . (This page intentionally blank)
F26:
Measure S was passed before the present Chancellor and bond consultant were hired.
F27:
Funds authorized by Measure S failed to include any allowances for inflation.
Related Recommendations (1)
R05:
The Grand Jury recommends that the VCCCD seriously consider all of the recommendations in the Assessment. These recommendations should be prioritized and implemented at the earliest possible time. (C-12) Responses Responses Required From: Ventura County Community College District Office (R-01 through R-05) Bibliography References Ref-01. The Market Assessment and Organizational Performance Review by KH Consulting Group February 7, 2006; available on the VCCCD web site at . (This page intentionally blank)
F28:
Construction costs for the projects have more than doubled since Measure S was passed.
Related Recommendations (1)
R05:
The Grand Jury recommends that the VCCCD seriously consider all of the recommendations in the Assessment. These recommendations should be prioritized and implemented at the earliest possible time. (C-12) Responses Responses Required From: Ventura County Community College District Office (R-01 through R-05) Bibliography References Ref-01. The Market Assessment and Organizational Performance Review by KH Consulting Group February 7, 2006; available on the VCCCD web site at . (This page intentionally blank)
F29:
Inflation has required the Board of Trustees to reprioritize the projects.
Related Recommendations (1)
R05:
The Grand Jury recommends that the VCCCD seriously consider all of the recommendations in the Assessment. These recommendations should be prioritized and implemented at the earliest possible time. (C-12) Responses Responses Required From: Ventura County Community College District Office (R-01 through R-05) Bibliography References Ref-01. The Market Assessment and Organizational Performance Review by KH Consulting Group February 7, 2006; available on the VCCCD web site at . (This page intentionally blank)
F30:
Each college has its own Facilities Master Plan. Measure S funds facilities that enhance each college’s master plan.
F31:
A Citizens Oversight Committee monitors the District spending of bond funds. They report to the VCCCD Board.
F32:
Constructing athletic facility projects at Ventura College was scheduled early, partially because no Facilities Master Plan and no EIR were required for those projects. Market Assessment and Organizational Performance Review
Related Recommendations (1)
R05:
The Grand Jury recommends that the VCCCD seriously consider all of the recommendations in the Assessment. These recommendations should be prioritized and implemented at the earliest possible time. (C-12) Responses Responses Required From: Ventura County Community College District Office (R-01 through R-05) Bibliography References Ref-01. The Market Assessment and Organizational Performance Review by KH Consulting Group February 7, 2006; available on the VCCCD web site at . (This page intentionally blank)
F33:
In 2005 the VCCCD hired the KH Consulting Group at a cost of $200,000 to complete a market assessment and organizational performance review of the three colleges and the Camarillo District Office.
F34:
This Assessment evaluated marketing, community interfaces, organization, student programs and services, technology and facilities, foundations, finance, and produced a report which recommended many areas to be changed.
F35:
This Assessment is available on the VCCCD web site [Ref-01]. Conclusions C-01. The VCCCD establishes a budget for the year, but often has to readjust it each semester based on student enrollment-generated revenue. Classes may be adjusted or cancelled due to these budget changes. (F-01 thru F-08) C-02. VCCCD is not in compliance with the State requirement of 75% of classes being taught by full-time instructors. (F-09) C-03. Part-time instructors are less expensive than full-time instructors to VCCCD because they have lower salaries and have reduced or no benefits. (F-10, F-11) C-04. Part-time instructors might not provide the same student accessibility as full- time instructors due to lack of funding. (F-12) C-05. Some core classes are not offered because of faculty shortages. (F-13, F-18) C-06. There is an excess of bureaucratic control and cumbersome layering of senior management throughout the VCCCD. (F-18, F-19) C-07. College staff find it difficult to respond in a timely manner to opportunities or needs. (F-18, F-19) C-08. VCCCD is weak in efforts to keep staff, faculty, and the public informed and involved in its plans and decision making practices. (F-15, F-16) C-09. Adequate plans were not prepared for Measure S prior to placing it on the ballot, specifically, no Facilities Master Plan was in place before Measure S was put on the ballot. (F-22, F-23, F-27, F-28) C-10. Some of the projects endorsed by the voters when they approved Measure S will not be built with bond funds because inflation has eroded the money available. (F-27 thru F-29) C-11. Athletic facilities at Ventura College were constructed in the early phase of Measure S, rather than instructional facilities, because plans were completed and an EIR was not required. (F-21, F-32) C-12. The Market Assessment and Organizational Performance Review was well done, and the Grand Jury concurs with its recommendations. (F-33 thru F-35) Recommendations
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F01:
In Ventura County, this type of GIS information is most helpful, and in some instances, absolutely essential for cities, special districts, municipalities, various local, state and federal agencies, private enterprises, and the public to complete their tasks of sensible planning and development.
F02:
In Ventura County, and most other counties, GIS related data development is funded through grant funds, general funds, and special district assessments. All of these funds derive from tax-payer dollars.
F03:
The AG Opinion issued October 3, 2005, recognized this tax-payer funding as a source of funding for development of GIS data. Therefore, the opinion states that this data should be made available to everyone making a PRA request for the data for the cost of reproduction only, with no additional fees or subscriptions.
F04:
The AG Opinion noted that the Public Records Act (Government Code §§6250- 6276.48) applies to data regardless of which local agency controls the data: “Local agency” includes a county; city, whether general law or chartered; city and county; school district; municipal corporation; (special) district; political subdivision; or any board, commission or agency thereof; other local public agency; or entities that are legislative bodies of a local agency pursuant to subdivisions (c) and (d) of Section 54952. Conclusions C-01. The County Counsel opinion issued on April 28, 2006, stated that the GIS data should be made available for the cost of reproduction initially applied to one specific request. However, if others in the County or any enterprise should make a similar request for data the response to them will be the same as the response given to the entity that initiated this opinion. Therefore, other entities making similar requests should be able to obtain the requested GIS data for the cost of reproduction only. (F-01 – F-04). Recommendations
Findings & Recommendations
10 findings
F01:
Ref-01 contained 35 findings (F-11 through F-45) with respect to Cemetery Memorial Park.
F02:
In the 1960s, the City of Ventura proposed improvements at Cemetery Memorial Park (Attachment 3 to Ref-01) but never implemented those plans because of a lack of funding.
F03:
“A Brief History of Cemetery Memorial Park” (Attachment 1 to Ref-01) devoted ten paragraphs to the chain of ownership issue.
F04:
Ref-01 contained 13 conclusions (C-05 through C-17) with respect to Cemetery Memorial Park.
F05:
All four recommendations in Ref-01 (R-01 through R-04) addressed Cemetery Memorial Park.
F06:
Examination of the archives of the Ventura County Museum of History and Art uncovered no information about the title to Cemetery Memorial Park that differed significantly from what was presented in Ref-01.
F07:
Ref-02 indicates a new plan improve Cemetery Memorial Park and the allocation of $230,000 to implement that plan.
F08:
A letter from the City of Ventura’s Parks Division (Attachment 1 to this report) provided further details on the plan to improve Cemetery Memorial Park.
F09:
The City of Ventura undertook a “ground penetrating radar survey” to determine the existence of internments in the eastern portion of Cemetery Memorial Park. No internments were detected where a recreation center is proposed, but internments were detected in adjacent areas.
F10:
According to the letter from the Parks Division (Attachment 1 to this report) the total cost of proposed improvements at Cemetery Memorial Park will be $435,000. Conclusions C-01. The questionable ownership of Cemetery Memorial Park by the City of Ventura was thoroughly documented by the prior Grand Jury. (F-01, F-03, F- 06) C-02. The City of Ventura plans to improve Cemetery Memorial Park. It is not known when the new plan will be implemented. (F-01, F-02, F-07, F-08, F-09) C-03. Funds allocated by the City of Ventura to improve Cemetery Memorial Park are slightly more than half of what the project is expected to cost. (F-07, F-10) Recommendations
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R01:
The Grand Jury requests the City of Ventura to publish the schedule for implementing its plans to improve Cemetery Memorial Park. The Grand Jury 2 Cemetery Memorial Park requests notification as key milestones along that schedule are achieved. (C- 02)
R02:
The Grand Jury requests the City of Ventura to allocate sufficient funds to improve Cemetery Memorial Park. (C-03) Responses Responses Required From: City of San Buenaventura (R-01 and R-02) Bibliography References Ref-01. Ventura County 2004-2005 Grand Jury Report, "Public Right to Public Records and Cemetery Memorial Park" (on the Web at ) Ref-02. Letter from City of Ventura to Judge John R. Smiley, dated September 13, 2005, with attachments: (a) memo from City of Ventura Public Works Director to City of Ventura City Manager, dated July 20, 2005, subject: Cemetery Memorial Park and (b) minutes of City of Ventura City Council meeting of July 25, 2005 (on the Web at ) Attachment 1. Letter to County of Ventura Grand Jury from City of Ventura Parks Division, dated February 23, 2006 Cemetery Memorial Park 3 (This page intentionally blank) 4 Cemetery Memorial Park Cemetery Memorial Park 1 2 Cemetery Memorial Park Cemetery Memorial Park 3 4 Cemetery Memorial Park (This page intentionally blank) Cemetery Memorial Park 5 (This page intentionally blank) 6 Cemetery Memorial Park
Findings & Recommendations
46 findings
F01:
At the request of the Thousand Oaks City Council, the District Attorney’s office investigated possible Brown Act violations with respect to the termination of City Manager Gatch.
F02:
The District Attorney’s investigation of the Brown Act (Government Code §54950 et seq) revealed an “abundance of mutual distrust,” many “nonspecific suspicions and accusations,” however, “no evidence to support” any violations. (Attachment I. Letter dated June 30, 2005 from R. Thomas Harris, Special Assistant District Attorney.)
F03:
The District Attorney did not conduct an investigation of the alleged violations.
F04:
The Grand Jury investigated the alleged violations of TOMC §2-1.208.
F05:
Mr. Gatch was hired as City Manager of Thousand Oaks on July 13, 2004, and resigned his position effective June 30, 2005, after 38 years of service to the City of Thousand Oaks.
F06:
The City Manager is appointed by majority vote of the Council and holds office at the pleasure of the Council. The City Manager is selected solely on the basis of executive and administrative qualifications as well as actual experience in the accepted practices and duties of the office.
F07:
TOMC §2-1.24 provides for the removal of the City Manager by the City Council without cause with three affirmative votes and written notice of a termination date. The right of the City Manager to severance pay and any other arrangements incident to termination is in accordance with any contractual arrangement entered into with the City Council.
F08:
City Manager Gatch’s contract provided for a formal annual performance review at the end of each fiscal year (i.e., by June 30).
F09:
On May 25, 2005, Councilmen Masry and Dennis Gillette were requested by Mayor Bob Wilson to serve as a Personnel Committee to review Mr. Gatch’s performance, salary, and benefits and to report to the Council with recommendations. Mr. Gatch provided a summary of his recent achievements and goals to the committee for consideration.
F10:
The Council’s Personnel Committee review of City Manager Gatch’s performance on November 8, 2005, consisted only of ‘acceptable’ or ‘not acceptable’ ratings. This review focused primarily on compensation issues, not on his performance. Thousand Oaks City Council
Related Recommendations (1)
R03:
Personnel performance and reviews must be handled in strict adherence to the TOMC pursuant to individual contracts. (C-07)
F11:
Mr. Gatch’s contract (#6184-2004B) was modified on July 13, 2004, to eliminate the original contract expiration date of August 1, 2005.
F12:
On November 8, 2004, the Personnel Committee recommended that, based on his performance, the City Manager receive a merit salary increase of 3%. He would also receive a nominal increase of 2% to the total retirement salary per year, plus tax benefits of nearly one-half of his retirement account not being tax deferred. In addition, based on the City’s contractual agreement pertaining to a 10% supervisory differential, an amended contract provided a salary increase adjustment of 5%, for a total compensation increase of 8%.
F13:
The performance evaluation and compensation item for the City Manager was removed from the agenda of the November 16, 2004, City Council meeting. It was agreed by the Personnel Committee and City Manager that the continuance of the performance review for a period of 3-6 months would have no detrimental effect on the merit and differential compensation adjustments. The adjustments would be made retroactive to July 1, 2004, when the original contract review was due.
F14:
A review of City Manager Gatch’s performance was never conducted by the City Council. Compensation and benefits issues were addressed by the Personnel Committee on November 8, 2004.
Related Recommendations (1)
R03:
Personnel performance and reviews must be handled in strict adherence to the TOMC pursuant to individual contracts. (C-07)
F15:
On Wednesday, March 23, 2005, Councilman Andy Fox requested a meeting for that afternoon with City Manager Gatch. The purpose was to advise Mr. Gatch that Councilman Fox and other Council members wanted him to retire by May 1, 2005. Councilman Fox requested Mr. Gatch’s letter of resignation by the next Council meeting scheduled for April 5, 2005. Councilman Fox indicated that the termination could be friendly with appropriate acknowledgment and ceremony due a prominent employee who had worked for the city for 38 years.
F16:
A second meeting between Councilman Fox and City Manager Gatch was scheduled for Monday, April 4, 2005, at 9:00 am.
F17:
City Manager Gatch called Mayor Claudia Bill-de la Peña to advise her of Councilman Fox’s demand for his resignation, stating that Councilman Fox implied he had enough votes to have him fired.
F18:
Since there had been no Council meeting discussion (the City Manager’s termination was not an agenda item), numerous citizens alleged that Councilman Fox had talked with other Council members, in violation of the Brown Act, in order to determine that he had enough votes to terminate the City Manager.
Related Recommendations (2)
R02:
The City Council should revise the Code of Ethics to avoid the appearance of Brown Act violations, to ensure the transparent conduct of city business, to address the public perception of favoritism, to deal with the appearance that decisions are often made in advance of City Council meetings, and to address a perceived lack of objective decision-making. (C-01 through C-06, C-08)
R04:
The City Council should conduct city business in such a way as to inspire confidence, respect, and trust from constituents. (C-01 through C-06, C-08) Responses Required From: Thousand Oaks City Council (R-01 through R-04) Attachments Attachment I. Letter dated June 30, 2005 from R. Thomas Harris, Special Assistant District Attorney.) Thousand Oaks City Council 7 (This page intentionally blank) 8 Thousand Oaks City Council Thousand Oaks City Council 1 Attachment 1 VVeennttuurraa CCoouunnttyy 22000055 –– 22000066 GGrraanndd JJuurryy FFiinnaall RReeppoorrtt 22 TThhoouussaanndd OOaakkss CCiittyy CCoouunncciill AAttttaacchhmmeenntt 11
F19:
The Brown Act (Government Code §54952.2) prohibits a majority of the members of a city council from communicating with each other – directly or through intermediaries – in a manner that creates a consensus for taking any action unless that communication occurs during an official, agendized meeting of the city council. Thousand Oaks City Council 3
Related Recommendations (1)
R02:
The City Council should revise the Code of Ethics to avoid the appearance of Brown Act violations, to ensure the transparent conduct of city business, to address the public perception of favoritism, to deal with the appearance that decisions are often made in advance of City Council meetings, and to address a perceived lack of objective decision-making. (C-01 through C-06, C-08)
F20:
It was suggested by numerous citizens and newspaper accounts that the termination of the City Manager had been “coerced” by Councilman Fox in service of a political agenda.
Related Recommendations (2)
R02:
The City Council should revise the Code of Ethics to avoid the appearance of Brown Act violations, to ensure the transparent conduct of city business, to address the public perception of favoritism, to deal with the appearance that decisions are often made in advance of City Council meetings, and to address a perceived lack of objective decision-making. (C-01 through C-06, C-08)
R04:
The City Council should conduct city business in such a way as to inspire confidence, respect, and trust from constituents. (C-01 through C-06, C-08) Responses Required From: Thousand Oaks City Council (R-01 through R-04) Attachments Attachment I. Letter dated June 30, 2005 from R. Thomas Harris, Special Assistant District Attorney.) Thousand Oaks City Council 7 (This page intentionally blank) 8 Thousand Oaks City Council Thousand Oaks City Council 1 Attachment 1 VVeennttuurraa CCoouunnttyy 22000055 –– 22000066 GGrraanndd JJuurryy FFiinnaall RReeppoorrtt 22 TThhoouussaanndd OOaakkss CCiittyy CCoouunncciill AAttttaacchhmmeenntt 11
F21:
In a letter to the Editor of the Thousand Oaks Acorn on April 7, 2005, Councilman Fox called for Mr. Gatch to resign stating that “management of the city needed to go in a different direction, possibly with someone who is younger and has more energy.”
F22:
Based on public statements of other Council members, it was likely that Councilman Fox believed that he knew their positions on the issue of the City Manager’s performance.
Related Recommendations (1)
R02:
The City Council should revise the Code of Ethics to avoid the appearance of Brown Act violations, to ensure the transparent conduct of city business, to address the public perception of favoritism, to deal with the appearance that decisions are often made in advance of City Council meetings, and to address a perceived lack of objective decision-making. (C-01 through C-06, C-08)
F23:
On the evening of Wednesday, March 30, 2005, Councilman Fox cancelled the meeting with Mr. Gatch scheduled for April 4, 2005, and requested Mr. Gatch’s letter of resignation as of April 1, 2005. Mr. Gatch believed that if he failed to comply, he would be fired after the Council meeting on Tuesday, April 5, 2005. Councilman Fox requested that Mr. Gatch deliver his resignation letter by noon the following day, Thursday, March 31, 2005.
F24:
TOMC §2-1.208 provides that the “City Manager shall take orders and instructions from the Council, as a body, only when sitting in a duly held meeting of the Council, and no individual Council member shall give any orders or instructions to the City Manager. This shall not be construed to prevent any Council member from discussing matters of the City with the City Manager and staff.”
F25:
On Thursday, March 31, 2005, Mr. Gatch drafted his letter of resignation and faxed it to Councilman Fox’s Los Angeles Fire Department office by noon. Councilman Fox called Mr. Gatch to indicate specific changes to the letter and requested it be typed on city stationery and sent to each Council member.
F26:
Because Mr. Gatch felt threatened and pressured and believed that Councilman Fox was speaking on behalf of the majority of the Council, he complied instead of insisting on adherence to the TOMC procedure.
Related Recommendations (2)
R02:
The City Council should revise the Code of Ethics to avoid the appearance of Brown Act violations, to ensure the transparent conduct of city business, to address the public perception of favoritism, to deal with the appearance that decisions are often made in advance of City Council meetings, and to address a perceived lack of objective decision-making. (C-01 through C-06, C-08)
R04:
The City Council should conduct city business in such a way as to inspire confidence, respect, and trust from constituents. (C-01 through C-06, C-08) Responses Required From: Thousand Oaks City Council (R-01 through R-04) Attachments Attachment I. Letter dated June 30, 2005 from R. Thomas Harris, Special Assistant District Attorney.) Thousand Oaks City Council 7 (This page intentionally blank) 8 Thousand Oaks City Council Thousand Oaks City Council 1 Attachment 1 VVeennttuurraa CCoouunnttyy 22000055 –– 22000066 GGrraanndd JJuurryy FFiinnaall RReeppoorrtt 22 TThhoouussaanndd OOaakkss CCiittyy CCoouunncciill AAttttaacchhmmeenntt 11
F27:
City Manager Gatch resigned effective June 30, 2005, under the threat of being fired, took a leave of absence, and vacated the City Manager’s office effective May 6, 2005. It was understood and agreed that this retirement would not nullify or void the terms of compensation and benefits of his Employment Agreement dated July 13, 2004.
F28:
Many citizens spoke in protest at the April 19, 2005, Council meeting expressing concern about the timing and the threatening and coercive manner of the City Council’s handling of the City Manager’s resignation.
Related Recommendations (2)
R02:
The City Council should revise the Code of Ethics to avoid the appearance of Brown Act violations, to ensure the transparent conduct of city business, to address the public perception of favoritism, to deal with the appearance that decisions are often made in advance of City Council meetings, and to address a perceived lack of objective decision-making. (C-01 through C-06, C-08)
R04:
The City Council should conduct city business in such a way as to inspire confidence, respect, and trust from constituents. (C-01 through C-06, C-08) Responses Required From: Thousand Oaks City Council (R-01 through R-04) Attachments Attachment I. Letter dated June 30, 2005 from R. Thomas Harris, Special Assistant District Attorney.) Thousand Oaks City Council 7 (This page intentionally blank) 8 Thousand Oaks City Council Thousand Oaks City Council 1 Attachment 1 VVeennttuurraa CCoouunnttyy 22000055 –– 22000066 GGrraanndd JJuurryy FFiinnaall RReeppoorrtt 22 TThhoouussaanndd OOaakkss CCiittyy CCoouunncciill AAttttaacchhmmeenntt 11
F29:
During the City Council meeting of April 19, 2005, Mayor Bill-de la Peña made a motion to investigate potential violations of municipal and state laws relative to the process of the resignation of the City Manager.
F30:
The City Attorney indicated that the District Attorney’s Office or the Attorney General would be the appropriate agencies to investigate possible Brown Act violations and offered to write a letter on behalf of the Council to request same. Thousand Oaks City Council
F31:
The City Attorney offered to recommend a law firm out of the county that specializes in municipal work to investigate possible municipal code violations.
F32:
The Council did not approve the expenditure of any funds for an outside law firm to conduct an investigation.
F33:
The Council voted to support an investigation by the District Attorney or Attorney General of possible Brown Act violations by members of the City Council. The investigation would include the Council and related staff and cover a period of two years from July, 2003, through July, 2005.
F34:
Scott Mitnick, Interim City Manager, was selected as the new City Manager at the Council’s November 15, 2005, meeting. Some Council members wanted to avoid a costly and time-consuming search process for a replacement. The Council was split on the issue of candidate selection. One Council member stated that a candidate search would have been a more fair process.
F35:
The City has no stated policy relative to the recruitment and hiring process for the City Manager.
F36:
Numerous citizen complaints were voiced regarding Mr. Mitnick’s compensation because it almost doubled his salary as Interim City Manager.
F37:
Councilman Masry resigned from the City Council on November 30, 2005. He had been ill and absent from most meetings since March, 2005. He was elected in November, 2000, and re-elected in 2004 to a term to expire in 2008.
F38:
When Councilman Masry resigned and subsequently died, his family and others expressed a strong preference for a special election to fill his seat, especially since three years remained of his four-year term. The Council stated their concern about the cost of a special election, based on their own estimate of $250,000, and elected to exercise their option to appoint someone to the vacant seat.
F39:
Although there is no stated policy with respect to the replacement of a Council member, the City has the authority to either appoint or hold a special election.
F40:
Many citizens expressed their concern at the lack of a democratic process (special election) to replace a City Council member. Thus, many citizens were disturbed when the City Council decided to appoint Tom Glancey to fill the seat vacated by Councilman Masry.
F41:
After Mr. Glancey was appointed to the City Council, an estimate was received from the Registrar of Voters of $50,000 to hold a special election, instead of the City Council’s estimate of $250,000.
F42:
At a Council workshop in July, 2005, the behavior and ethics of Council members, as well as the need for clear rules and enforcement, were discussed. The Council agreed to a code of conduct designed to make their behavior more civil toward one another. The norms, passed unanimously, are also intended to reduce personal attacks, eliminate public reprimands of city staff, and mitigate smears during election campaigns.
Related Recommendations (1)
R01:
At a minimum, the City Council should adhere to the existing Code of Ethics and the recently adopted Code of Professional Conduct. (C-01 through C-06, C-08)
F43:
The City Council’s agreed-upon norms of conduct are: treat one another and staff respectfully; follow the rules; speak for yourself, not others; do not Thousand Oaks City Council 5 mention other Council members to the media; do not criticize staff in public; keep comments from wandering into areas indirectly critical of other Council members; do not encourage supporters to come to City Hall to criticize other Council members; do not make assumptions; and do not question motives.
Related Recommendations (1)
R01:
At a minimum, the City Council should adhere to the existing Code of Ethics and the recently adopted Code of Professional Conduct. (C-01 through C-06, C-08)
F44:
TOMC, Chapter 10, §1-10.01 “… The Code of Ethics for Officials and Employees” (Code of Ethics) requires that “public officials and employees be independent, impartial and responsible to the people; that government decisions and policy be made in the proper channels of the governmental structure; that public office not be used for personal gain; and that the public have confidence in the integrity of its government.”
Related Recommendations (1)
R01:
At a minimum, the City Council should adhere to the existing Code of Ethics and the recently adopted Code of Professional Conduct. (C-01 through C-06, C-08)
F45:
Section 1-10.02 of the Code of Ethics provides for public officials “… to observe, in their official acts, the highest standards of performance … Recognizing that the public interests must be their primary concern, their conduct in both their official and private affairs should be above reproach.”
Related Recommendations (1)
R01:
At a minimum, the City Council should adhere to the existing Code of Ethics and the recently adopted Code of Professional Conduct. (C-01 through C-06, C-08)
F46:
Section §1-10.03 of the Code of Ethics states that “All officials and employees owe a duty of loyalty to the political objectives expressed by the electorate.” Further, that “Appointive officials and employees should adhere to the rules of work and performance established as the standards for their positions by the appropriate authority.” And finally, that “Officials and employees should not exceed their authority or breach the law, or ask others to do so … ” Conclusions C-01. The circumstances leading to the resignation of City Manager Gatch included assertions by Councilmember Fox that a vote to terminate the City Manager was a certainty. Councilmember Fox made those assertions even though no review of the City Manager’s continued employment status was included on any City Council meeting agenda immediately prior to that event. This situation can lead easily to an assumption that Councilmember Fox communicated with at least two other City Council members in violation of Brown Act (Government Code §54952.2). However, the evidence of such a violation of the Brown Act is insufficiently clear to justify the initiation of a formal accusation procedure by the Grand Jury against any member of the Thousand Oaks City Council. (F-01, F-02) C-02. Violations of TOMC §2-1.208 are difficult to prove because it is usual, in the conduct of city business, for Council members to interact individually with the City Manager and city staff. (F-02, F-04) C-03. The actions of Councilman Fox giving specific directives and communications to City Manager Gatch outside of a duly-held City Council meeting, pressuring him to resign, may give the appearance of being in violation of TOMC §2-1.208. (F-01, F-02, F-04) C-04. While TOMC §2-1.208 should not be construed to prevent any Council member from discussing city business with the City Manager or staff, it does constrain individual Council members from giving direct orders or instructions to the City Manager outside of regular Council meetings. (F-15 through F-28) 6 Thousand Oaks City Council C-05. The city government of Thousand Oaks often gives the appearance that it fails to operate transparently and professionally. There is a perception that many decisions are decided in advance of City Council meetings and that the meetings are essentially a public formality. Three specific examples are: 1) the forced resignation of City Manager Gatch; 2) the recruitment process of a new City Manager; and 3) the decision not to hold an election to replace Councilman Masry, even though three years remained on his term of office. (F-01, F-02, F-04, F-10, F-13 through F-21, F-28, F-31 through F-36, F-38 through F-44) C-06. A public perception of underhandedness, poor judgment, and lack of professionalism exists with respect to the resignation of City Manager Gatch that resulted in a rush to judgment when other options were readily available. (F-14 through F-22, F-24 through F-28, F-31, F-33) C-07. The City Council could have easily reviewed the City Manager’s performance in closed session and given him the opportunity to resign or be fired. (F-08 through F-14) C-08. The City Council’s history of adversarial relationships, lack of cooperation, internal strife and acrimony, insulting citizenry, and extreme and disrespectful rhetoric has been well-documented for over a decade. (F-15, F-17 through F-22,
Related Recommendations (1)
R01:
At a minimum, the City Council should adhere to the existing Code of Ethics and the recently adopted Code of Professional Conduct. (C-01 through C-06, C-08)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
12 findings
F01:
The CalWIN Project timeline and milestones for the consortium are as follows: • The project commenced in March 2000 • The requirements for the system were validated March to July 2000 • General system design took place August to October 2000 • Detailed system design took place November 2000 to May 2001 • Coding and unit testing took place June to November 2001 • System testing took place December 2001 to May 2002 • User acceptance testing took place June 2002 to November 2004 • Pilot rollout in Placer and Sacramento counties was January and March 2005 • Ventura County implementation was April 2006
F02:
The CalWIN Project budget for all 18 counties is broken down as follows: • Total nine year State welfare automation cost is $800 million • Ventura County portion is $21,560,736 • Actual cost to Ventura County is $436,000 Much of the cost of the project was covered by federal/state government funding.
F03:
The CalWIN System is used by over 650 Ventura County employees on a daily basis.
F04:
The CalWIN System services over 52,000 cases per month.
F05:
The CalWIN System handles food stamps, foster care, the Medi-Cal health insurance program, and the CalWORKS program which provides temporary financial assistance, job counseling, and work training to families with children.
F06:
The ISD/CalWIN project team effectively used state-of-the-art project management software to track every detail of this project.
F07:
The ISD/CalWIN project team completed the project on schedule and within budget.
F08:
The ISD/CalWIN project team held regularly scheduled meetings where all tasks were discussed, progress was monitored, and solutions to potential problems were discussed and adopted.
F09:
The Grand Jury found that the CalWIN software training provided by the project team for HSA employees was adequate.
F10:
The Grand Jury found that CalWIN created a “one stop” process with the system evaluating the potential recipient’s entire needs and eligibility for services. The “one stop” process is designed to reduce the chance of fraud, however the “one stop” process means that most HSA employees needed expanded knowledge beyond their specialty.
F11:
The Grand Jury found that HSA employees who previously specialized in one of three major service areas (food stamps, Medi-Cal and Cal-Works) are now required to be knowledgeable in all three areas. Their training in the areas other than their previous specialty was not conducted early enough in the transition, nor was it sufficiently thorough.
Related Recommendations (1)
R02:
Cross training in the three service areas should be continued on a regular basis, especially for new employees, using real cases that the employees are working on, until all employees feel competent in all areas. (C-05) Responses None required Commendations The CalWIN Project Team should be commended for its professionalism and success in delivering this complex project which will provide benefits to the County over many years.
F12:
Grand Jury interviews confirmed that the CalWIN software is performing as designed and has so far delivered the expected results. Conclusions C-01. The CalWIN project is a very large project effecting hundreds of HSA employees. (F-01, F-02, F-03, F-04, F-05) C-02. The CalWIN project was well organized and well managed. The project was delivered on schedule and within budget. (F-06, F-07, F-08) C-03. Training for the CalWIN software was adequate and complete. (F-09) C-04. The chance of fraud is greatly reduced because of system integration, internal system processes, and the elimination of much of the paperwork. (F-10, F-12) C-05. HSA employee interviews pointed to a need for better cross training in all CalWIN services to meet the needs of the “one stop” process that the CalWIN software provides. (F-11) C-06. The CalWIN software performed as expected and delivered the expected benefits. (F-12) Recommendations
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R01:
Future project teams should look to this project as an example of how to run a large project. (C-01, C-02, C-03, C-04, C-06)
Findings & Recommendations
39 findings
F01:
The Authority was created under W&IC §12301.6 as a government entity distinct from Ventura County, with the Ventura County Board of Supervisors as the governing board of the Authority.
F02:
W&IC §12301.6(f) generally grants the Authority immunity from civil liability to IHSS clients resulting from actions by their providers. However, this W&IC section has not been litigated. Thus, the boundaries of that immunity are not clearly defined.
F03:
Under the W&IC, the Authority client is the actual employer of in-home service providers, having the right to hire and fire providers.
F04:
The Authority is the employer of record for purposes of labor-management relations (e.g., collective bargaining) and required reports to the state.
F05:
Under the W&IC, an IHSS client receives subsidized in-home services because of an inability to pay the entire costs of such services. Those services are provided because the clients’ disabilities or handicaps prevent them from performing normal personal-care and housekeeping tasks for themselves. By subsidizing these services, the Authority allows its clients to avoid being institutionalized.
F06:
As required by W&IC §12301.6(e), the Authority operates the Registry from which IHSS clients may employ providers.
F07:
The number of providers registered with the Authority is insufficient to meet the needs of all IHSS clients.
F08:
22% of disabled and handicapped IHSS clients use providers obtained through the Authority’s Registry.
F09:
78% of the IHSS clients choose to use providers obtained on their own (often relatives, neighbors, or friends). Eligibility of Individuals to be IHSS Providers
F10:
W&IC §12305.81 prohibits payment of a provider for in-home services under the IHSS program if the provider was convicted within the last 10 years of certain crimes. Those crimes include Medicaid fraud, MediCal fraud, fraud under Titles V, XX,or XXI of the federal Social Security Act, child neglect (California Penal Code §273a(a)), and elder abuse (Penal Code §368).
F11:
The prohibition of payments to providers under W&IC §12305.81 (see F-10 above) applies whether or not the provider was hired by the IHSS client through the Authority.
F12:
Providers are checked by the state of California for prior convictions of Medicaid fraud based on information supplied by the Authority for entering providers into the CMIPPS.
F13:
According to the Authority, background checks for providers on the Registry are done by the Ventura County Sheriff's Department. The scope of these checks only reveals crimes committed in Ventura County.
Related Recommendations (7)
R01:
The proposal by the Authority to perform complete background checks on IHSS providers added to the Registry should be implemented. The services offered by the California Department of Justice under W&IC §15660 should be utilized for this purpose. (C-01, C-02, C-04, C-05, C-06)
R02:
As a normal part of entering a provider into the CMIPPS, the Authority should request a criminal background report from the California Department of Justice under W&IC §15660 as soon as an IHSS client informs the Authority that he or she has employed a provider who is not on the Registry. In order to comply with W&IC §12305.81, this should be done for all such providers, not merely when requested by the client. This must be done before any non- registry provider can be paid. (C-01, C-02, C-03, C-04, C-05, C-06)
R03:
The Authority should develop a plan and schedule to obtain background reports from the California Department of Justice under W&IC §15660 for all current IHSS providers in order to comply with W&IC §12305.81. (C-01, C-02, C-03, C-04, C-05, C-06)
R04:
The Authority should develop procedures that promptly remove from IHSS employment any provider who is ineligible under W&IC §12305.81 according to a report from the California Department of Justice under W&IC §15660. (C- 04, C-05, C-06)
R05:
Once the Authority obtains an initial background report on an IHSS provider from the California Department of Justice, the Department will notify the Authority regarding subsequent arrests of that provider. The Authority should develop procedures to monitor the progress of criminal cases filed so that a person who becomes ineligible to be a provider under W&IC §12305.81 because of a criminal conviction is promptly removed from IHSS employment. (C-05, C-06)
R06:
A report on an IHSS provider received from the California Department of Justice under W&IC §15660 should be provided by the Authority to any client who employs that provider. This includes not only a report that shows the provider is eligible under W&IC §12305.81 but also follow-up reports of subsequent arrests of the provider. (C-05, C-06)
R07:
The Board of Supervisors (as the governing board of the Authority) should enact the enabling resolution necessary to permit background checks of IHSS providers. (C-06)
F14:
In 2005, two providers were sentenced in Ventura County courts for crimes against IHSS clients under Penal Code §368(e). In both cases, the Authority had referred the providers to the clients, although it is not known if the providers were actually listed on the Registry. Also in both cases, the providers had prior criminal records that indicated they were not suitable for employment as IHSS providers, including prior convictions that may have made them ineligible under W&IC §12305.81.
Related Recommendations (7)
R01:
The proposal by the Authority to perform complete background checks on IHSS providers added to the Registry should be implemented. The services offered by the California Department of Justice under W&IC §15660 should be utilized for this purpose. (C-01, C-02, C-04, C-05, C-06)
R02:
As a normal part of entering a provider into the CMIPPS, the Authority should request a criminal background report from the California Department of Justice under W&IC §15660 as soon as an IHSS client informs the Authority that he or she has employed a provider who is not on the Registry. In order to comply with W&IC §12305.81, this should be done for all such providers, not merely when requested by the client. This must be done before any non- registry provider can be paid. (C-01, C-02, C-03, C-04, C-05, C-06)
R03:
The Authority should develop a plan and schedule to obtain background reports from the California Department of Justice under W&IC §15660 for all current IHSS providers in order to comply with W&IC §12305.81. (C-01, C-02, C-03, C-04, C-05, C-06)
R04:
The Authority should develop procedures that promptly remove from IHSS employment any provider who is ineligible under W&IC §12305.81 according to a report from the California Department of Justice under W&IC §15660. (C- 04, C-05, C-06)
R05:
Once the Authority obtains an initial background report on an IHSS provider from the California Department of Justice, the Department will notify the Authority regarding subsequent arrests of that provider. The Authority should develop procedures to monitor the progress of criminal cases filed so that a person who becomes ineligible to be a provider under W&IC §12305.81 because of a criminal conviction is promptly removed from IHSS employment. (C-05, C-06)
R06:
A report on an IHSS provider received from the California Department of Justice under W&IC §15660 should be provided by the Authority to any client who employs that provider. This includes not only a report that shows the provider is eligible under W&IC §12305.81 but also follow-up reports of subsequent arrests of the provider. (C-05, C-06)
R07:
The Board of Supervisors (as the governing board of the Authority) should enact the enabling resolution necessary to permit background checks of IHSS providers. (C-06)
F15:
For background checks on providers not on the Registry, clients may request the Authority to perform the same checks as provided for those on the Registry, at the client’s own unreimbursed expense.
F16:
While other criminal background checks of IHSS providers may be so intrusive as to be prohibited [Ref-01], the California Department of Justice provides criminal background information on providers to local IHSS registries and to client-employers when requested in accord with W&IC §15660.
F17:
In accord with W&IC §15660, a criminal background report on an IHSS provider requires the fingerprints of providers be submitted to the Department of Justice. A background report specifically tailored for local IHSS programs includes whether the person must register for having committed a sex offense against a minor (Penal Code §290) or has been convicted within the last 10 years for child neglect, child abuse, elder abuse, theft, robbery, burglary, or any felony.
F18:
When a criminal background report on an IHSS provider has been issued by the Department of Justice in accord with W&IC §15660, a follow-up report is issued if that person is subsequently arrested for certain specified crimes.
F19:
The Authority proposes that, starting in the 2006-2007 fiscal year, more extensive background checks will be performed on all new IHSS providers entered into the Registry.
F20:
The Authority proposes that, starting in the 2006-2007 fiscal year, background checks requested by IHSS clients of providers not on the Registry will be performed at the same level as for providers on the Registry and at the expense of the Registry, but only when so requested.
F21:
The Authority has not yet proposed to perform the more extensive background checks on existing providers, both those on and off the Registry.
F22:
In accordance with Penal Code §1150 (and other sections), complete background checks of IHSS providers by the Authority will require an enabling resolution by the Board of Supervisors acting as the governing board of the Authority. IHSS Provider Payroll
F23:
The hourly rate of pay and fringe benefits for IHSS providers is negotiated between the Authority and the Service Employees International Union.
F24:
The state of California operates CMIPPS to provide payroll services for local IHSS programs with respect to the providers.
F25:
The Authority verifies timesheets submitted by in-home support providers through IHSS clients and arranges payment of provider wages through the CMIPPS.
F26:
Using the CMIPPS, the Authority determines the withholding of taxes from the pay of IHSS providers and remits those taxes, along with employer payroll taxes, to the appropriate state and federal taxing agencies. The clients do not pay employer payroll taxes; these taxes are paid by the Authority from IHSS funding. Requirements on IHSS Clients as Employers
F27:
Although the W&IC does not specify requirements for legal residency of IHSS providers, federal law requires all employers to verify that each employee has the legal status to work in the United States. This is done by both the employee and employer completing a Form I-9 for each employee within three days of the beginning of employment.
F28:
The Handbook for Employers [Ref-02], which explains Form I-9, contains 36 pages.
F29:
Authority literature advises IHSS clients to complete Forms I-9 for their providers.
F30:
The Authority obtains the appropriate identification of those IHSS providers placed on the Registry sufficient to complete Form I-9, but the Authority does not actually complete the form.
Related Recommendations (4)
R08:
When a person applies to be placed on the Registry as an IHSS provider, the Authority should complete a Form I-9 for that person as a normal part of processing the application in accordance with federal law. (C-08, C-09, C-10)
R09:
When an IHSS client informs the Authority that he or she has employed a provider not on the Registry, the Authority should complete a Form I-9 for that provider as a normal part of entering the provider into the CMIPPS in accord with federal law. (C-08, C-09, C-10)
R10:
The Authority should develop a plan and schedule to complete Form I-9 for all current IHSS providers. (C-08, C-09, C-10)
R11:
The Authority should develop procedures to maintain files of Form I-9 for all providers either on the Registry or entered into CMIPPS. These procedures must include retaining a Form I-9 for a provider in accord with federal law. The procedures must also provide for supplying copies of the Form I-9 to an IHSS client for each provider the client employs. (C-08, C-09, C-10) Responses Responses Required From: Ventura County In-Home Support Services Public Authority (R-01, R-02, R-03, R-04,
F31:
For IHHS providers not on the Registry, the Authority does not obtain appropriate identification sufficient to complete Form I-9. Only a provider’s Social Security number and name are collected.
Related Recommendations (4)
R08:
When a person applies to be placed on the Registry as an IHSS provider, the Authority should complete a Form I-9 for that person as a normal part of processing the application in accordance with federal law. (C-08, C-09, C-10)
R09:
When an IHSS client informs the Authority that he or she has employed a provider not on the Registry, the Authority should complete a Form I-9 for that provider as a normal part of entering the provider into the CMIPPS in accord with federal law. (C-08, C-09, C-10)
R10:
The Authority should develop a plan and schedule to complete Form I-9 for all current IHSS providers. (C-08, C-09, C-10)
R11:
The Authority should develop procedures to maintain files of Form I-9 for all providers either on the Registry or entered into CMIPPS. These procedures must include retaining a Form I-9 for a provider in accord with federal law. The procedures must also provide for supplying copies of the Form I-9 to an IHSS client for each provider the client employs. (C-08, C-09, C-10) Responses Responses Required From: Ventura County In-Home Support Services Public Authority (R-01, R-02, R-03, R-04,
F32:
The federal penalty on an employer for failing to complete a Form I-9 varies from $100 to $1,000 for each employee.
F33:
A Form I-9 must be retained for three years after employment begins or one year after employment ends, whichever is later.
F34:
The Authority is authorized by the federal government to process and retain Form I-9 for provider-employees as an agent of IHSS client-employers.
F35:
An undocumented worker residing in the United States may be arrested and deported by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.
F36:
Every employer in the United States is required by the Internal Revenue Code to prepare a Form W-2 for each employee, itemizing wages and taxes withheld. An employer must file one copy of Form W-2 for each employee with the Social Security Administration along with one signed Form W-3 from that employer.
F37:
Instructions for Forms W-2 and W-3 [Ref-03] contains 15 pages.
F38:
As the payroll agent for the IHSS clients, the Authority is permitted by the Internal Revenue Service to issue and sign the Forms W-3 on behalf of those client-employers.
F39:
The Authority currently prepares Forms W-2 and W-3 and distributes the employee copies of Form W-2 to the IHSS providers and both forms to the Social Security Administration. Conclusions C-01. While backgrounds of providers are checked by the state to protect the IHSS program from fraud, background checks requested by the Authority may be too narrow and limited to protect IHSS clients from physical and financial injury. (F-12, F-13, F-14, F-15) C-02. Although W&IC §12305.81 prohibits service providers from being employed and paid through IHSS programs if those individuals have criminal records involving specified crimes, the current screening of providers by the Authority is insufficient to enforce that law. This must be done before any non-registry provider can be paid. (F-10, F-11, F-13, F-14, F-15) C-03. IHSS clients are both indigent and unable to perform daily living tasks. The large majority of clients who obtain providers without resorting to the Registry must choose to request background checks and then pay for them. This discourages them from obtaining any protection against hiring providers who might have a criminal history. (F-05, F-09, F-15) C-04. An IHSS client suffering physical or financial injury from the criminal action of a provider whose prior criminal history was not sufficiently examined by the Authority might constitute actionable negligence. The scope and limits of the immunity from liability granted to the Authority and to the Ventura County Board of Supervisors (acting as the Authority’s governing board) is untested. Thus, risk of damages payable by the Authority or the Board of Supervisors to an injured client remains unknown. (F-01, F-02, F-13, F-15) C-05. If the Authority enters a provider into the CMIPPS who is ineligible to be an IHSS provider under W&IC §12305.81 and that provider is actually paid by the Authority for services to a client, the Authority or the Board of Supervisors might be required to refund subsidies funded by the state and federal governments. (F-01, F-10, F-11, F-24) C-06. A report is available from the Department of Justice on any criminal offenses that would make a person ineligible under W&IC §12305.81 to be employed as an IHSS provider. That report is available not only to the Authority but also to its clients. Once such a report has been requested, follow-up reports are automatically distributed if the provider is then arrested for certain specified crimes. For the Authority to obtain these reports and provide them to IHSS clients, Penal Code §1150 requires an enabling resolution from the Board of Supervisors. (F-16, F-17, F-18, F-22) C-07. The Authority plans to perform complete background checks on all new providers entered into the Registry. The Authority also plans to perform complete background checks on all new providers not on the Registry when requested by IHSS clients. However, the Authority does not plan to perform these background checks on existing providers or where clients fail to request such checks on new non-Registry providers. Thus, compliance with W&IC §12305.81 cannot be assured for a large number of IHSS providers, even with the planned improvement in background checks. (F-09, F-10, F-11, F-20, F-21) C-08. Requiring IHSS clients to act as employers for completing Forms I-9 for their providers places a burden on handicapped and disabled individuals, a burden which is often handled by trained staff within the human resources departments or outside agents for many other employers. (F-27, F-28, F-29) C-09. By not acting as the agent for its clients in completing Forms I-9, the Authority places those clients at the risk of financial loss they cannot afford. It also places those clients at the risk of abrupt loss of necessary services rendered by IHSS providers who are deported because they are not legal residents of the United States. (F-05, F-30, F-34, F-35) C-10. It may be more cost-effective for the Authority to handle all Forms I-9 as a matter of course instead of individually assisting each IHSS client when requested. Such action would also ensure that the Authority is in compliance with federal laws when issuing payroll checks to IHSS providers. (F-27, F-30,
Findings & Recommendations
22 findings
F01:
The VCTC was created as a distinct and independent government entity by the California Legislature by enacting Public Utilities Code §130050.1.
F02:
Under Public Utilities Code §130054.1, the VCTC Board consists of 17 voting members: the five Ventura County Supervisors, the mayor or a city council member from each of the ten cities, a citizen chosen by the Board of Supervisors, and a citizen chosen jointly by the ten cities.
F03:
As an independent government entity, the VCTC employs staff who are employees only of the VCTC and are not employees of either Ventura County or the cities represented on the VCTC Board. Procurement of Public Art for the Camarillo Metrolink Station
F04:
In general, contracting by a county transportation commission is governed by the Public Utilities Code and not by the Government Code.
F05:
The VCTC issued a sole-source contract (i.e., a contract without competitive bidding) for the creation of the artwork.
F06:
The VCTC awarded a separate contract to a licensed contractor for installing the public art. The legal counsel for the VCTC determined that, since this contract is for public art, the “prevailing wages” requirement for public construction projects does not apply.
F07:
The total cost of the artwork for the Station project is $1,544,250, of which 50% is from the federal government, 46% is from state funds, and 4% is from the multi-county Metrolink program (Southern California Regional Rail Authority).
F08:
None of the funds for the public art at the Station can be conclusively attributed to Ventura County or the VCTC.
F09:
The overall Station project has a total cost of $12,515,000.
F10:
The Station project cannot be separated from the overall set of projects at that location. Instead, the Station depends upon the new freeway overpass in lieu of a shelter, the realignments of Lewis Road and freeway on-ramps and off- ramps for access, and on a pedestrian overpass to allow train commuters to cross the tracks safely.
F11:
The combined projects at that location have a total cost of $44,075,000.
F12:
The City of Camarillo issued a “request for proposals” (RFP) for the public art at the Station. Three proposals were selected from those submitted for further review by the City Council’s Transportation Committee. The Transportation Committee selected one proposal, which the full City Council approved and confirmed that approval in a letter to the VCTC.
F13:
The VCTC repeatedly cited Government Code §4525 et seq as justifying the awarding of a contract for public art without competitive bids based on price.
Related Recommendations (1)
R01:
The VCTC needs to develop clear policies and procedures for the procurement of public art. These should distinguish procurements from (a) entirely internal VCTC funds, (b) entirely external funds, and (c) from combined internal and external funds. The policies should also address the procurement by the VCTC of public art selected by other government agencies. The policies should be formally adopted by the VCTC Board after that Board reviews the proposed procedures. (C-03, C-04, C-06, C-07, C-08)
F14:
Government Code §4525 et seq clearly addresses only the procurement of engineering, architectural, and certain other technological services. These code sections do not address the procurement of artistic services.
Related Recommendations (1)
R01:
The VCTC needs to develop clear policies and procedures for the procurement of public art. These should distinguish procurements from (a) entirely internal VCTC funds, (b) entirely external funds, and (c) from combined internal and external funds. The policies should also address the procurement by the VCTC of public art selected by other government agencies. The policies should be formally adopted by the VCTC Board after that Board reviews the proposed procedures. (C-03, C-04, C-06, C-07, C-08)
F15:
The legal counsel for the VCTC performed no prior review of the VCTC action to let this no-bid contract. However, counsel was present when the VCTC Board approved the action.
Related Recommendations (1)
R02:
The VCTC Board should obtain prior or concurrent advice of legal counsel when taking action other than under the California Public Utilities Code, especially when entering into contracts for procurements. The advice need not be in writing. However, if the advice is given orally, this should be noted in the minutes of the meeting. (C-08, C-09) Responses Responses Required From: Ventura County Transportation Commission (R-01, R-02)
F16:
Government Code §15813 et seq — the “Art in Public Buildings Program” — addresses the procurement of public art by California state agencies.
Related Recommendations (1)
R01:
The VCTC needs to develop clear policies and procedures for the procurement of public art. These should distinguish procurements from (a) entirely internal VCTC funds, (b) entirely external funds, and (c) from combined internal and external funds. The policies should also address the procurement by the VCTC of public art selected by other government agencies. The policies should be formally adopted by the VCTC Board after that Board reviews the proposed procedures. (C-03, C-04, C-06, C-07, C-08)
F17:
Government Code §15813.4 explicitly provides for the procurement of public art via no-bid contracts.
Related Recommendations (1)
R01:
The VCTC needs to develop clear policies and procedures for the procurement of public art. These should distinguish procurements from (a) entirely internal VCTC funds, (b) entirely external funds, and (c) from combined internal and external funds. The policies should also address the procurement by the VCTC of public art selected by other government agencies. The policies should be formally adopted by the VCTC Board after that Board reviews the proposed procedures. (C-03, C-04, C-06, C-07, C-08)
F18:
Government Code §15813 suggests an allowance of 1% of the total cost of a project for public art.
Related Recommendations (1)
R01:
The VCTC needs to develop clear policies and procedures for the procurement of public art. These should distinguish procurements from (a) entirely internal VCTC funds, (b) entirely external funds, and (c) from combined internal and external funds. The policies should also address the procurement by the VCTC of public art selected by other government agencies. The policies should be formally adopted by the VCTC Board after that Board reviews the proposed procedures. (C-03, C-04, C-06, C-07, C-08)
F19:
Federal law (49 USCS §5302(a)(15)(D)) authorizes the procurement of public art on federally-funded projects. This law also suggests an allowance of 1% of the total cost of a project for public art.
Related Recommendations (1)
R01:
The VCTC needs to develop clear policies and procedures for the procurement of public art. These should distinguish procurements from (a) entirely internal VCTC funds, (b) entirely external funds, and (c) from combined internal and external funds. The policies should also address the procurement by the VCTC of public art selected by other government agencies. The policies should be formally adopted by the VCTC Board after that Board reviews the proposed procedures. (C-03, C-04, C-06, C-07, C-08)
F20:
Federal law authorizes the use of state laws to guide the procedures for the procurement of public art.
Related Recommendations (1)
R01:
The VCTC needs to develop clear policies and procedures for the procurement of public art. These should distinguish procurements from (a) entirely internal VCTC funds, (b) entirely external funds, and (c) from combined internal and external funds. The policies should also address the procurement by the VCTC of public art selected by other government agencies. The policies should be formally adopted by the VCTC Board after that Board reviews the proposed procedures. (C-03, C-04, C-06, C-07, C-08)
F21:
Appropriate approvals were indeed received from both Caltrans and the U.S. Department of Transportation for the procurement of public art for the Station.
F22:
The pedestrian overpass over the Station was funded, designed, and constructed by Caltrans, not by VCTC. Conclusions C-01. Employees of the VCTC are not employees of Ventura County. The VCTC Executive Director reports only to the VCTC Board. The Ventura County Executive Officer has no jurisdiction over the VCTC Executive Director or other VCTC employees. (F-01, F-03) C-02. The size of the VCTC Board is fixed by state law. This is an issue outside the jurisdiction of the Grand Jury. (F-02) C-03. The procurement of public art for the Station was a valid use of public funds. (F-16, F-19) C-04. The process used by the City of Camarillo for selecting the artist and approving the public art for the Station was equivalent to the process specified in Government Code §15813.3(a)(2). (F-12, F-16) C-05. The total cost of the public art for the Station is 3.5% of the total cost of the multiple transportation projects at that location, more than three times the guidelines in state and federal laws. Since the funds were provided by the state of California and the federal government — both of which approved the use of the funds for public art — this expenditure for public art does not represent an improper action by the VCTC. (F-07, F-10, F-18, F-19, F-21) C-06. Since none of the funds for the public art at the Station came from VCTC revenue sources, the VCTC acted as an agent for Caltrans in procuring the art, thus justifying reliance on the Government Code instead of the Public Utilities Code. (F-04, F-07). C-07. The use of no-bid contracts to procure and install public art is supported by state and federal laws. VCTC acted within these laws in procuring public art for the Station. (F-17, F-20; see C-06). C-08. Repeated mistaken code citations by VCTC to justify the process of procuring public art for the Station may have promoted a public perception that this procurement was improper and inappropriate. (F-12, F-14) C-09. There is an appearance that the administration and Board of the VCTC is not sufficiently familiar with California codes beyond the Public Utilities Code, which contains the basic laws under which county transportation commissions operate. (F-13, F-14) C-10. Assertions that the VCTC wasted funds in the design and construction of the pedestrian overpass at the Station were misdirected. This aspect of the multiple projects at that location was entirely under the control, funding, and direction of Caltrans, which is a state agency. (F-22) Recommendations
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F01:
Affordable housing is acknowledged as a serious challenge in the County and in all ten cities.
F02:
Each of the cities is currently addressing the challenge of Affordable Housing within the constraints of state law, local land use regulations, and their unique city needs.
F03:
Very Low Income limits for families of four average $40,300, and Low Income limits average $64,500. Many professional entry-level salaries, including those of teachers and nurses, fall into the Very Low Income range.
F04:
To date, efforts have fallen short of the need to provide housing for Very Low Income and Low Income level residents, with the greatest need in the Very Low Income level.
F05:
Some cities are constrained in their efforts to provide Affordable Housing because of local public opposition.
F06:
The City of Port Hueneme has a unique problem. The City has limited open space for new housing and currently focuses only on programs that provide financial assistance using existing housing units.
F07:
Lack of Affordable Housing inhibits the region’s ability to attract new business and industry as well as qualified employees to the area. Affordable Housing
F08:
Specialized programs and organizations within the County, including the Housing Authorities (both Area and in cities); the Ag Futures Alliance Farm Worker Housing Task Force; Habitat for Humanity; Senior Concerns; and private groups with other specialized interests, assist low income families. These organizations were not addressed in this study. Conclusions C-01. The lack of Affordable Housing is acknowledged by county and city leaders as a serious challenge facing all segments of the County. (F-01, F-02, F-06) C-02. Most cities in the County are making efforts to address Affordable Housing, despite financial and political obstacles. (F-02, F-04, F-05) C-03. Continued lack of Affordable Housing and failure by cities to solve the needs of Very Low Income and Low Income residents will cause increasing adverse economic challenges. (F-06) C-04. Local opposition to Affordable Housing impacts the ability of government and business to employ those who provide services desired by local residents. (F-05, F-07) C-05. There is considerable disparity among cities in terms of goals, achievements, and planned Affordable Housing units (see Attachment). (F-02) Recommendations
Findings & Recommendations
39 findings
F01:
Probation was designated Lead Agency for Prop 36 on March 7, 2006.
F02:
Each year, counties are required to submit a plan to the State Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs by May 1 that describes the planning, delivery, and funding of services under Prop 36. The plan, proposed by Probation, was submitted to the State on May 1, 2006.
F03:
The FY 2006-07 State funding for Prop 36, allocated at $2,855,244 with a projected rollover of $200,000, totaling $3,055,244 will be available on July 1, 2006.
F04:
Probation has contracted through an annual Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with BHD/ADP for certain treatment, drug testing, and aftercare services. BHD/ADP, in conjunction and with input from Probation, is responsible for the selection of community-based treatment service providers.
F05:
Probation and BHD/ADP staff will also seek input from the Prop 36 Oversight and Operations Committees and the County Alcohol and Drug Advisory Board regarding selection of service providers.
F06:
All outpatient treatment providers will be required to seek approval for Drug Medi-Cal certification as a part of their contractual responsibilities in FY 2006-07.
F07:
The BHD/ADP Central Assessment Center will be closed July, 2006; when a client is sentenced to Prop 36, they will report directly to the newly formed Quick Start Assessment Center (Quick Start) located in the Government Center’s Hall of Justice.
F08:
The FY 2006-07 Plan provides for processing of treatment violations on clients under summary probation to be transferred from the Office of the District Attorney (DA) to Probation.
F09:
A new protocol for processing treatment violations has been implemented for all cases, with the goal of moving information to the Court more quickly.
F10:
A new computer system, intended to increase the efficiency of data sharing between Probation, the Court, and Providers, is being installed.
F11:
Approximately 45% to 50% of the clients assigned to Providers have some degree of psychological or psychiatric problem.
F12:
Of those drug offenders with psychological or psychiatric problems, only 25% receive appropriate treatment for those problems, none of which are funded through the Prop 36 program.
Related Recommendations (1)
R02:
Probation and BHD/ADP should jointly ensure that appropriate psychological and psychiatric treatments are available to Prop 36 clients. (C-06) Responses Required From: Board of Supervisors (R-01, R-02) County Executive Officer (R-01, R-02) Health Care Agency (R-01, R-02) Probation Agency (R-01, R-02) (This page intentionally blank)
F13:
Criminal justice officials often assert that the psychological or psychiatric conditions suffered by drug offenders are a consequence of drug abuse.
F14:
Drug treatment professionals assert that drug abuse is often a consequence of psychological or psychiatric conditions (contrary to the assertions indicated in
F15:
The Prop 36 program has hired a Licensed Clinical Social Worker to assist in determining required care for clients. Implementation of the 2003-2004 Grand Jury Recommendations After quoting a recommendation from the report of the 2003 Grand Jury, the current status of that recommendation — as determined by the current Grand Jury — is presented.
F16:
(R-01) The Board of Supervisors undertakes the reorganization of Prop 36 implementation within Ventura County in order to better accomplish the statutory mandates and scheme intended under Prop 36. --- Implementation of this recommendation is currently underway under the leadership of Probation.
F17:
(R-02) The Board of Supervisors withdraws the Lead Agency designation from BHD/ADP and designates the County Executive Officer (CEO) as the Lead Agency for Prop 36 management and oversight functions. This recommendation was superceded by the 2004 Grand Jury recommendation that Probation be the lead.
F18:
(R-03) Having assumed responsibility for leading Prop 36 treatment programs in the past, BHD/ADP may function as the County’s expert in recommending treatment methods and the standards of successful treatment program completion. This is now being done.
F19:
(R-04) The County should address the issue of “unamenability,” as described in the statute and case law, with a view toward bringing the concept to bear in County Practice. This is a stated goal of Probation that is not yet attained.
F20:
(R-05) In order to organize and provide actionable information to the probationary supervision, top priority should be given to implementing an integrated information system designed for that purpose. This is in progress. Complete implementation is expected early in FY 2006-07.
F21:
(R-06) Probation develops a basic risk management system or protocol to look at key indicators of a client’s profile to determine the risk to society. The status of this recommendation is unknown.
F22:
(R07) The immediate establishment of a meaningful treatment completion standard in accordance with the spirit and intent of Prop 36. The status of this recommendation is unknown.
F23:
(R-08) The Operations and Oversight Committee be re-constituted as the representative body for all stakeholders. Little progress toward this recommendation has been observed.
F24:
(R-09) The drug testing protocol should be tightened immediately. Drug testing has increased from one to three times per week.
F25:
(R-10) Though, by policy, drug testing is to be used for treatment purposes, public safety concerns require that Probation continue to conduct drug testing. The need for this has been overcome by a new protocol.
F26:
(R-11) A goal of early and positive supervision experience should be pursued to initially set the tone for Prop 36 treatment. The Quick-Start office has been established within the courthouse.
F27:
(R-12) The Operations and Oversight Committee should institute thoughtful and allowable sanctions for offenders who fail in treatment, submit positive drug tests, or who miss treatment classes. This remains a goal. Implementation of the 2004-2005 Grand Jury Recommendations After quoting a recommendation from the report of the 2004 Grand Jury, the current status of that recommendation — as determined by the current Grand Jury — is presented.
F28:
(R-01) Immediately remove BHD/ADP as Lead Agency of Prop 36. Contact the State Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs to coordinate and emergency halt to the submitted County Plan. The County Plan has been changed to designate Probation as the Lead Agency and was submitted to the State on May 1, 2006.
F29:
(R-02) Immediately designate Probation as the Lead Agency for Prop 36. Probation is now the Lead Agency.
F30:
(R-03) Immediately disband the Prop 36 Oversight Committee and establish guidelines for the Operations Committee to operate in an organizational fashion and make decisions, with provisions to obtain approvals from department heads when necessary. The Oversight Committee still exists with a better defined purpose and function. Guidelines for the Operations Committee have yet to be developed.
F31:
(R-04) Immediately initiate action to close the BHD/ADP Prop 36 CAC and free the funding and other resources for more direct treatment use. The CAC is being closed and replaced by the Quick Start office within the courthouse.
F32:
(R-05) Formally request through the courts that all Prop 36 offenders be placed on formal probation. Because of a lack of sufficient resources to handle the case load that this recommendation would create, this is opposed by Probation. Reorganization of the Prop 36 program under Probation may make this unnecessary.
F33:
(R-06) Allow Probation, as Lead Agency, to make arrangement for assessment and treatment referral at a location of their choosing, immediately after Court sentencing. This is now being done at the Quick Start office within the courthouse.
F34:
(R-07) As the lead agency, allow Probation and treatment providers to determine, with input from the Operations Committee, the best delivery model for treatment services and required communications. BHD/ADP remains the treatment expert.
F35:
(R-08) Move the addiction specialists from the CAC to the county-operated treatment centers and establish additional DMC reimbursed treatment capacity. The status of this recommendation is unknown.
F36:
(R-09) Under Probation leadership, provide financial accountability and oversight of all Prop 36 funds. Bring funding allocation decisions back to the Operations Committee. This recommendation has been implemented.
F37:
(R-10) Encourage the Operations Committee to abandon the pursuit of the perfect protocol and leave treatment decisions to treatment providers with Lead Agency oversight. Instead, focus Operations Committee efforts on obtaining actionable metrics so that recommendations can be made based on reality instead of perception and spin. The status of this recommendation is unknown.
F38:
(R-11) Evaluate the contracts of the treatment providers to ensure that the county is not taking advantage of treatment partners. Consider using hoarded BHD/ADP Prop 36 funds to reimburse the accounts receivable that these providers have accrued by being ordered to treat Prop 36 clients on a pro-bono basis. This problem became severe at the beginning of FY 2005-06, placing the providers at risk of fiscal crises and prompting the current Grand Jury investigation. However, it now appears that this problem is being resolved.
F39:
(R-12) In the interest of cost, efficiency, and treatment delivery; BHD/ADP should not be encouraged or even allowed to participate in leadership of any future court-ordered treatment programs. BHD/ADP remains the treatment expert. Conclusions C-01. Many of the recommendations of the 2003 and 2004 Grand Juries have been adopted and implemented. (F-01, F-07, F-09, F-10, F-16, F-18, F-20, F-24,
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R01:
The Grand Jury requests feedback on progress towards completing those recommendations from prior reports that are still underway. (C-02)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
58 findings
F01:
In June 1986, the PWP was approved by the BOS and the CCC. This PWP supersedes all earlier local coastal plans, coastal zone ordinances, and County Planning Department permit requirements.
F02:
Since 1986, a few BOS-approved projects in the harbor required PWP amendments. These amendments, although subsequently approved by the CCC, were submitted on a piecemeal basis, thus causing delays in the approval process.
F03:
On June 16, 2002, the BOS, on a motion by Supervisor Flynn, unanimously approved the separation of landside and waterside leases.
F04:
On December 16, 2003, upon recommendation of the Harbor Director, the BOS voted to approve the Channel Islands Harbor Marina long-term lease to Vintage Marina Partners LP. The BOS subsequently approved (accepted) by vote the new lease terms.
F05:
In 1998 the BOS unanimously approved the Boating and Safety Instruction Center (BISC) project and its location on the west side of the harbor near the Port Royal Restaurant.
F06:
In 2005 the BISC project and location were finally approved by the CCC after numerous changes in the original plan.
F07:
In December 2003, and again in March 2006, the location for the BISC was approved by the State Boating and Waterways Commission and they committed to financing over fifty percent of the cost to build the facility at this location.
F08:
In May 2006, the CCC approved the improvements plan for the Channel Islands Harbor Marina submitted by Vintage Marina Partners, Ltd. Assignment of Harbor Department Leases
F09:
Some of the current and nearly all of the former harbor leases, both landside and waterside, were created in the mid 1960’s. The leases had time periods lasting over forty years with no provisions for improvements, maintenance or redevelopment. Original leases allowed lessees to operate their leased facilities with very little input from the county.
F10:
The Harbor Department, when issuing any lease extension, or when issuing new leases, now requires new conditions and agreements such as building and dock improvements, upgraded maintenance, increased percentages in rents and concessions. Channel Islands Harbor
F11:
Lease extensions result in increases in lessee expenses as well as increased income. The County, will, therefore, receive more revenue over the course of the lease extension.
F12:
The Harbor Department, in April 2003, sent notices to many potentially interested parties informing them that a Request for Proposal (RFP) concerning a new lease for Channel Islands Harbor Marina would be forthcoming. Additional information was sent soon afterward to those who responded. The prior (then existing) lease was set to expire on August 31, 2003.
F13:
In July 2003, a suit was filed in Ventura County Superior Court by the then current lessee, and in 2005 a ruling was made in lessee’s favor. The issue concerned the removal of the docks and other facilities at the marina that the County refused to purchase at the price offered by the lessee.. The original lease provided that the lessee must remove these facilities at the expiration of the lease if not compensated for by the County. As of May 2006, the final amount to be paid to the prior lessee has yet to be determined by the Courts because the judgment has been appealed by the County.
F14:
After the expiration of the Channel Islands Marina lease on August 31, 2003, the Harbor Department managed the marina for the next four months.
F15:
On December 9, 2003, Vintage Marina Partners, Ltd. was awarded the lease for Channel Islands Harbor Marina, winning over three other active bidders. There were seven parties that requested the RFP. Two parties declined to bid and a third party was not considered qualified due to lack of capital and marina management experience.
F16:
The new lease, prepared by the Harbor Department, agreed to by the new lessee Vintage Marinas Partners, Ltd., and approved by the BOS, included in it a provision for an advance in rents in the form of a credit and not a loan which the County could use to defray the cost of the lawsuit lost by the County.
F17:
The County, in January 2004, assumed the Fisherman’s Wharf properties from CIHIC in a process that culminated in the transfer of the Casa Sirena Hotel and various apartment properties in the harbor to Greystar Corporation. The amended lease required a payment of $150,000 to the County by CIHIC.
F18:
The County will continue to manage and operate the Fisherman’s Wharf properties until a new lessee can be selected through the current RFP process. The County, after taking over Fisherman’s Wharf from the former lessee, repaved the parking lot, upgraded the landscaping, and repainted parts of the buildings. Current occupancy of the retail stores is approximately 70% and office space is 90%.
F19:
The new Fisherman’s Wharf lease will have more requirements than other harbor leases, including additional maintenance and improvements to be paid for and implemented by the new lessee upon approval by the BOS and the CCC.
F20:
The CCC, in May 2004, determined that the lease of the dry storage yard on the east side of the harbor, which obstructs the view access of the harbor and Channel Islands Harbor 5 the nearby small park area, is in violation of the PWP as amended, and is not approved by the CCC. The area is designated as a public park, launch ramp (closed), and view access corridor only. The dry storage yard is currently being rented from the County on a month-to-month basis until the issue is resolved. Maintenance of the restrooms located in the small park is the responsibility of the City of Oxnard.
F21:
The CIHIC, after numerous discussions with many parties, decided in September, 2005, to sell the leases for the five small marinas surrounding the Casa Sirena Hotel and the Bahia Marina, located on the west side of the harbor, to Oxnard Marina Partners Ltd. (Almar Ltd.. and Pacific Marina Ltd.). The County did not have the authority to deny any lease transfer unless the new lessee lacks the necessary financial base or marina management experience. The County, therefore, could not, and did not, help CIHIC choose a lessee.
F22:
The new leases and changes to existing leases were, on several occasions, first considered and then negotiated during closed sessions attended by all members of the BOS, County Counsel, County Executive Officer, Harbor Director, and other County staff.
F23:
Once a new lessee is selected by the current lessee, or a lease extension proposed and the terms agreed upon by those attending the closed sessions, the Harbor Director submits the item to the CEO to be put on the agenda for a future BOS open session where it is either approved (accepted), or referred to the parties for adjustments or changes.
F24:
The CCC was created by the California Legislature as a “coastal development watchdog agency” under California Public Resources Code §3000-30900. The California Coastal Act of 1976 provides that, “Any person wishing to perform or undertake any development in the coastal zone shall obtain a coastal development permit,” from the CCC. Even though it is a legislatively-created agency, the CCC performs executive and legislative planning functions, then performs a quasi-judicial function in reviewing applications for permits for private and public property development, and finally serves as an executive enforcement agency.
F25:
According to State law, all potential new leases or extensions of existing leases that include improvements or redevelopment provisions which have been, or will be approved by the BOS, must also be consistent with the original PWP, or the subsequently amended PWP. Furthermore, such improvements are subject to approval by the CCC.
F26:
Vintage Marinas Partners, Ltd. obtained, in May 2006, an approval from the CCC for improvements and redevelopment of the Channel Islands Harbor Marina, for which they have a long-term lease.
F27:
The new lessee for Fisherman’s Wharf, when selected, must also obtain CCC approval for any improvements or redevelopment. If the improvements are not consistent with the current PWP, the lessee must obtain an amendment to the PWP from the CCC. Channel Islands Harbor
F28:
Any changes, improvements or redevelopment plans affecting the marinas now leased and operated by Oxnard Marina Partners, Ltd. will follow the same procedure.
F29:
Greystar Corporation, the current lessee of the hotel and various apartment properties in the harbor, must also obtain approval from the CCC following the same process identified in F-25 above.
F30:
The Harbor Department, with the approval of the BOS, must follow the same guidelines which guarantee that any improvements they make must comply with the PWP as determined by the CCC for all property and facilities in the harbor for which they are responsible.
F31:
In December 2005, the BOS approved a contract that was proposed, amended, and expanded by the Harbor Department with Culbertson, Adams & Associates (Culbertson) for environmental consulting services to expedite the update of the Channel Islands Harbor PWP. The contract requires that project proposed materials prepared by Culbertson shall be accurate so as to avoid unnecessary delays in approval by the CCC. It is estimated this process will take two to three years.
F32:
At this time, Culbertson has been under contract with the County for more than a year. During the search and selection process for a qualified consultant, two potential consultants sent letters to the Harbor Director expressing their inability to do the required work due to workload conflicts or lack of technical expertise.
F33:
A re-drafting of the final amended PWP by Harbor Department staff and the Culbertson consulting firm is in progress. As of this writing, the only final draft materials available to the public are those found in the study session presented by the Harbor Director to the BOS and the public on March 14, 2006. Harbor Department staff anticipates that a final draft of the amended PWP will need to be submitted to at least six BOS open sessions for comments and approval before it can be submitted to the CCC for final approval. The time frame for this process is estimated to cover an additional thirteen months, or by the end of the County’s next fiscal year (2006-2007). Channel Islands Harbor Management
F34:
The responsibility for management of the entire Channel Islands Harbor area, including the residential sections and the beaches, is divided among a number of entities, each having separate duties that provide for the fiscal integrity, maintenance, and upkeep of the area.
F35:
The direct role the County Chief Executive Officer (CEO) evaluates and directly supervises the Harbor Director. The CEO approves all fiscal and management decisions and reviews and approves all agenda items submitted to the BOS by the Harbor Director. Because the Harbor Director is an at-will County employee, the CEO has the authority to hire and fire the Harbor Director.
F36:
The CEO played a direct role in many of the recent decisions affecting the future of the harbor, including the proposal to split the landside from the Channel Islands Harbor 7 waterside CIHIC leases, not renewing the lease for the Channel Islands Harbor Marina, approval (acceptance) of the selection of Vintage Marina Partners, Ltd. as new lessee of the Channel Islands Harbor Marina, and the approval of Oxnard Marinas Ltd. as the new lessee of the six small marinas formerly held by CIHIC. The CEO will have an active role in the future selection of a lessee for Fisherman’s Wharf and will oversee any future development of Cisco’s Landing and the future use of the Golden Dolphin Restaurant building next to the fire station on Peninsula Road at the harbor.
F37:
According to the employment agreement and job description, Class Code 01670 on file with the Ventura County Human Resources agency, along with Ventura County Ordinance 2829, the Harbor Director’s duties include several distinct tasks that may be performed daily. The Harbor Director will interface with County lessees, CCC, City of Oxnard, Channel Islands Beach Community Services District (CIBCSD), among others, as well as the general public as county point of contact for purposes of property management, lease negotiation, plan/activities approval, and lease provision enforcement.
F38:
The Harbor Director works with the U.S. Navy, Army Corps of Engineers, California Department of Fish and Game, California Department of Boating and Waterways, California Department of Motor Vehicles, and the Oxnard Port District for purposes of coordination of contractual or mandated services and continuity of delivery of public services to County harbor, beaches, and adjacent areas.
F39:
The Harbor Director manages the Harbor Patrol, maintenance, lifeguard and office personnel in the delivery of emergency response, safety, security, law enforcement, property operation, and maintenance fee collection and interpretation.
F40:
The Harbor Director develops and administers enterprise and state loan budgets. The Harbor Director also overseas the harbor leasing program which involves the conducting of lease negotiations and insuring compliance with lease terms and conditions. The Harbor Director is responsible for pursuing and administering grants for loans for construction, repairs, rehabilitation, and maintenance of facilities on public owned land and water areas, such as the launch ramp(s), small boat marina, commercial fishing marinas, commercial wharf, cranes, patrol boats, jetties, and general infrastructure.
F41:
The Harbor Director is responsible for supervising the Harbor Commission, including designating the recording secretary of the Harbor Commission. The CEO, in March 2006, directed that all future Harbor Commission meetings will be videotaped.
F42:
The Harbor Commission, pursuant to the Board Resolution dated September 23, 2004, “functions and duties…shall be to advise the Board of Supervisors on public session matters involving: budgetary issues, development proposals…”
F43:
The Harbor Commission cannot participate in any BOS or other closed sessions, including those involving lease negotiations and harbor development proposals regarding the Channel Islands Harbor. Channel Islands Harbor
Related Recommendations (4)
R02:
All future Harbor Commission meetings should be video recorded as well as minutes taken and published. (C-12)
R03:
The Harbor Commission should have minutes taken for all future meetings by a secretary who is not a member of the commission, as required by Robert’s Rules of Order, which the Harbor Commission has adopted as the format for conducting the Harbor Commission’s meetings. (C-12)
R04:
The Harbor Commission should use a broader forum in notifying the public of future meetings and cancellations of meetings to increase attendance and interest by the public. (C-12)
R05:
The Harbor Department website should include a section devoted to the Harbor Commission agendas, minutes, meeting dates, and locations. (C-12) Allegations of Mismanagement by the Harbor Department
F44:
The Harbor Department performs daily maintenance of approximately 320 acres of County-owned land and all buildings and property the department operates by itself. These include the Hobie Beach, Kiddee Beach, restrooms, and the jetty walkway. The one exception is La Janelle Park, located at the end of Silverstrand Beach next to the entrance of the Port of Hueneme. This State-owned parcel is maintained by the County Public Works Department.
F45:
The City of Oxnard, through a long standing continuous contractual relationship, provides Fire Department responses to emergencies on the land areas in the harbor while the Harbor Patrol provides the same services to all waterway area. The City is responsible for landscaping, maintenance and some water services to areas and buildings facing, or close to, Channel Islands Boulevard, Harbor Boulevard, Peninsula Road, and Victoria Avenue which are identified as streets and thoroughfares surrounding the harbor.
F46:
The CIBCSD performs the task of trash collection and contracts with the City of Port Hueneme for sewer service for the neighborhoods identified as Hollywood Beach, Hollywood by the Sea, and Silverstrand that surround the harbor. The CIBCSD also provides water service to the neighborhoods and to some commercial businesses inside the harbor.
F47:
Formerly the Ventura County General Service Administration Maintenance Department was responsible for areas needing landscaping, normal maintenance, and repairs for County owned areas facing, or closest to the water. This includes a small park adjacent to the entrance of the harbor at the end of Ocean Avenue and Harbor Boulevard in Hollywood Beach. The Harbor Department now has these responsibilities.
F48:
The Army Corps of Engineers, and to some extent the U.S. Navy, contracts and mostly pays for dredging of the harbor entrance and outside the breakwater north and south of the entrance approximately every three years. In the case of an emergency situation where an unusual shoaling occurs due to storms, as in the case of late 2005 and early 2006, the dredging operation is paid for with Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) funds.
F49:
The County, prior to hiring the current Harbor Director, diverted revenues from the Harbor’s operation to provide funding for the County Parks and Recreation Department. This depleted significant upkeep and maintenance funds from the Harbor. Allegations of Mismanagement by the Harbor Department
F50:
Beginning on October 25, 2005, and up to the submission of this report, the Grand Jury conducted an extensive investigation including review of hundreds of documents collected by the Grand Jury and submitted by accusers and others. Written statements were gathered from parties directly involved in negotiations involving harbor leases and permits over the last several years. Sworn testimony before the Grand Jury was taken from individuals with first- hand knowledge about all the events surrounding the awarding and extending of leases and the granting of permits over the last forty years. Channel Islands Harbor 9
F51:
This testimony identified in F-50 provided an opportunity for individuals to state their first hand knowledge of corrupt practices or acts of favoritism and none did. They all stated that the information they were providing was their opinion only.
Related Recommendations (1)
R07:
Any public official, agency, or department head, county employee or a member of the public who chooses to make any allegations regarding mismanagement or malfeasance of county management should either state that their allegation is based on their opinion, or the individual should provide specific factual documentation at the time the allegations are made. (C-17, C-18) Responses Required From: Ventura County Board of Supervisors (R-01, R-06) Ventura County Harbor Department (R-02, R-03, R-04, R-05) Ventura County Chief Executive Officer (R-01, R-02, R-03, R-04, R-05, R-06, R-07) Channel Islands Harbor 13 (This page intentionally blank) 14 Channel Islands Harbor
F52:
From early January to late April, 2006, the District Attorney’s Office Bureau of Investigation interviewed public officials, business people, and individuals closely connected with the earlier and ongoing lease negotiations and permit process. They also interviewed members of the public critical of the Harbor Department staff actions and policies. These interviews produced no statements, supporting documents, or any other evidence of any form of corruption, favoritism, or malfeasance. Those interviewed indicated that their information was based on their opinion and provided no supporting documentation or evidence.
Related Recommendations (1)
R07:
Any public official, agency, or department head, county employee or a member of the public who chooses to make any allegations regarding mismanagement or malfeasance of county management should either state that their allegation is based on their opinion, or the individual should provide specific factual documentation at the time the allegations are made. (C-17, C-18) Responses Required From: Ventura County Board of Supervisors (R-01, R-06) Ventura County Harbor Department (R-02, R-03, R-04, R-05) Ventura County Chief Executive Officer (R-01, R-02, R-03, R-04, R-05, R-06, R-07) Channel Islands Harbor 13 (This page intentionally blank) 14 Channel Islands Harbor
F53:
Ventura County Supervisorial Districts One, Three, and Five geographically converge in or very near the Channel Islands Harbor.
F54:
Although the Channel Islands Harbor itself is within the Fifth District, responsibility for Harbor management and development is the responsibility of the entire Board of Supervisors.
F55:
The portion of the Fifth District that includes the Channel Islands Harbor is connected to the rest of the Fifth District by a strip of land the width of Victoria Avenue that is approximately 2,250 feet long. The First District is contiguous with the west side of the Victoria Avenue strip and the Third District is contiguous with the east side of the Victoria Avenue strip.
Related Recommendations (1)
R06:
When Ventura County Supervisor districts are next redrawn (which should be completed by 2010 after the next census), they should be made compact, eliminating narrow road width wide strips, to connect one area of a supervisor’s district to another area for the same district. (C-19)
F56:
Several private citizens, during their interview with the District Attorney’s Office Bureau of Investigation, stated that statements attributed to them by others were not factual.
F57:
The Harbor Department briefing on March 14, 2006, to the BOS contained information that clarified past and pending Harbor Department and BOS decisions.
F58:
The Harbor Department March 15, 2006, presentation to the Harbor Commission clarified Harbor Department and BOS decisions and the rationale for the Channel Islands Harbor Marina project; the Harbor Commission then Recommended the project to the BOS. Conclusions General C-01. Since 1998 the Harbor Department, it’s Director, most members of the BOS and County staff have worked to represent the County’s best interests under less than favorable conditions. During this period there has been acrimony, controversy, and strong disagreement, causing numerous delays for the much needed redevelopment and renovation of the Channel Islands Harbor area. (F-01, F-02 – F-08) 10 Channel Islands Harbor Assignment of Harbor Department Leases C-02. For leases with many years remaining, the only means available to the County to change or to add conditions to the original conditions of a lease is to give the lessee an incentive, i.e., extend the lease with revisions and include new terms that better protect the County’s interest. The County cannot just refuse the sale of an existing lease to a new lessee. The County can only approve (accept) the new lessee selected by the then current lessee; this acceptance can only be based upon a determination that the new lessee has the capitalization and experience to handle the lease terms imposed by the County. (F-09, F-10) C-03. While the original lease agreements are for a specific stated period, there is no real assurance that the performance demanded from the lessee will prevail throughout the period. Any original or new lease (agreement) can be cancelled by either party, whether or not penalty clauses for cancellation by either party are included in the lease. (F-09) C-04. The Harbor Department’s purpose of extending a lease is to add “new agreements and conditions” with the existing leaseholder. The new conditions and agreements added to extended lease assignments include language that assures the County’s potential for loss of revenue is minimized and the lessee will not be entitled to payment for any improvements made by the lessee at the expiration or cancellation of the lease. (F-10, F-11) C-05. When awarding new leases, or extending existing leases, one of the purposes of holding closed sessions is to ensure that members of the BOS, the CEO, and the Harbor Director can discuss any list of ideas, that do not have to be disclosed to the public, for consideration in determining an outcome of negotiations. The outcome of these discussions is then discussed and finalized during public deliberations. (F-12, F-13, F-21, F-22, F-23, F,25, F-30) Channel Islands Harbor Management C-06. Any questions concerning the consistency of a project with the PWP or any modification of the PWP will ultimately be decided by the CCC. (F-24, F-25) C-07. The landside leases (hotel, apartment complexes, yacht club buildings, etc.) are considered “Dirt” leases that provide modest rental income and revenue for the County, but the County has little, or no, management participation or authority. (F-09, F-10) C-08. Final approval of the development of the waterways, including improvements and redevelopment proposals, is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the CCC, not the BOS. (F-24, F-25, F34-F38) C-09. The current strategy by the BOS and the Harbor Department is to follow an agreed upon business plan in managing the County’s Channel Islands Harbor’s assets. (F-34-F-38) C-10. The Harbor Department has recently submitted management plans to the BOS and to the public to improve the asset value of the harbor through capital investment requirements in new leases, as well as amended leases being renewed and extended. (F-40) Channel Islands Harbor 11 C-11. The Harbor Commission cannot participate in any BOS or other closed sessions involving Channel Islands Harbor matters. (F-42, F-43) C-12. Harbor Commission meetings and the minutes for each meeting should be more widely publicized. Every effort should be made to ensure a quorum is available for every meeting. The Harbor Department website should include updated information regarding Harbor Commission agendas, meetings, and minutes for each meeting should be placed on the website within two weeks of each Harbor Commission meeting. (F-41, F-42, F-43, F-58) C-13. The State of California Office of Boating and Waterways has made the final determination as to the BISC site. The Office of Boating and Waterways has agreed to fund over 50% of the building costs of the BISC, only if the BISC site remains on the west side of the Harbor. (F-01) Allegations of Mismanagement by the Harbor Department C-14. The 1986 PWP and subsequent amendments, that include the BISC, were approved by the BOS and are operational at this time. The City of Oxnard LCP which was not subject to BOS approval or acceptance. The 1998 Harbor Master Plan was accepted by the BOS in concept only. (F-50, F-51 F-52) C-15. The entire harbor area appears to have languished for more than ten years due to political bickering, lack of vision by the County, and lax oversight by absentee owners. This is especially evident at the Fisherman’s Wharf, Harbor Landing, and Cisco’s Sports fishing retail centers. (F-20, F-25, F-33, F-50) C-16. The Harbor Department management continues to submit amended PWP plans that fail to receive approval from the CCC. The Harbor Department’s failure to immediately incorporate CCC recommendations and requirements resulted in numerous applications to the CCC causing extensive time delays in the CCC approval process. (F-20, F-25, F-33, F-50) C-17. There is no basis for allegations of corruption, favoritism, fraud, or impropriety involving the awarding of contracts or long term leases. No documentation exists and no statements taken from several individuals who were directly involved in the process support statements and/or allegations by political officials, special interests, and members of the public that dealings between Harbor Department employees and potential contractors and lessees were in anyway underhanded. (F-50, F-52, F-56) C-18. All evidence collected and sworn testimony given to the Grand Jury by several individuals with intimate knowledge of business being conducted in the harbor by department staff and other county employees reflect that all the allegations are based on hearsay and opinion only. No document, statement, or sworn testimony by those who have made these allegations is supported by any evidence that could have been provided by the accusers during the course of this Grand Jury investigation. (F-52, F-53, F-54) C-19. The convoluted boundaries of the Fifth Supervisorial District could result in the perception that the Channel Islands Harbor is a Fiefdom of the Fifth District and not the responsibility of the entire Board of Supervisors. That perception could contribute to political pressure focused through the office of 12 Channel Islands Harbor the Fifth District Supervisor regarding issues affecting the Channel Islands Harbor. (F-53, F-54, F-55) Recommendations Assignment of Harbor Department Leases