Ventura County Grand Jury
2006-2007
Findings & Recommendations
19 findings
F01:
Ventura County uses three methods of employee recruitment: Open Recruitment – open to any applicant · Countywide Recruitment - open to any applicant already employed by Ventura County Agency/Departmental Recruitment – open only to those who are employed in the applicable agency/department. (Personnel Rules Article 3, § 306) Response: Concur
F02:
In response to complaints that HR was not sufficiently responsive to countywide recruitment and hiring needs, HR has granted decentralized recruitment and hiring authority to certain county agencies and departments. Response: Partially Concur Due to staff and resource shortages, HR was unable to satisfactorily meet the demands for recruiting and hiring. As a result, some of the larger departments were granted the authority to initiate and perform much of the recruiting and application screening process. However, approval of the recruitment plan and examination process remains with HR.
F03:
Personnel Rules §304 states, "Each county agency/department and each major division thereof, as well as each recognized employee organization, shall receive a minimum of one (1) copy of each announcement for distribution and posting." Response: Concur All job announcements are posted on the County website and accessible to both public and county employees. Printed "hard copies" are posted at the Human Resources public counter at the Hall of Administration. Postings are made available at the County's Job and Career Centers as well as within each department by their respective Human Resources representatives. 2006-2007 Grand Jury Response
F04:
It was alleged by the complainant that thorough distribution and posting of announcements in accordance with §304 requirements do not occur consistently in decentralized agency/department recruitments. Response: Do not concur The details of the alleged complainant was not filed or shared with the Human Resources department. Therefore, the nature of the complaint is unknown. However, posting and distribution of job announcements are performed in accordance with § 304 of the Personnel Rules and Regulations. F0-5 There is no written guideline "...to insure that a sufficient number of qualified persons apply to meet the employment needs of the County" as specified in §304 of the Personnel Rules. Response: Concur The Personnel Rules and Regulations are sufficient in identifying the approved practices and procedures for posting and recruiting efforts. No further written guidelines are necessary.
F06:
Personnel Rules §307 states, "...the Director - Human Resources shall determine whether an agency/department promotional, countywide promotional or open recruitment shall be conducted." Instead, this determination has been delegated to staff Personnel Analysts within HR and also to those in the hiring agencies/departments. Response: Do not concur The Personnel Rules §307 does authorize the Director – Human Resources to determine the type of recruitment to be used. However, as a practical matter, the Director-Human Resources delegates this authority to staff to perform these functions. The authority for the Director – Human Resources to delegate specific authority is found in the Personnel Rules, Article 2 Definitions, Section 242, Director-Human Resources which states: "Director-Human Resources: The title of the Director-Human Resources refers to the person occupying that classification or his designee." {emphasis added}
F07:
Personnel Rules §307 further states, "Where a sufficient number of employees holding status in lower positions have the requisite skills, knowledge and abilities for the vacancies, a strong consideration shall be given to conducting a 2006-2007 Grand Jury Response Countywide promotional or agency/departmental promotional recruitment." Personnel Analysts have been determining the type of recruitment to be used. Response: Concur with explanation. The Personnel Analysts appropriately determine the type and scope of any recruitment as delegated by the Director - Human Resources. Please refer to the response for F-06.
F08:
In County-only or department-only recruitments, the hiring entity established the number of applicants from which a candidate may be selected. HR prefers at least five candidates. However, no minimum number is required and it could be as few as one. Response: Do not concur All promotional recruitments are to be open for a minimum of ten (10) days, and all eligible applicants who meet the specific job and recruitment criteria will be evaluated and ranked appropriately. The "hiring" entity does not directly set the number of applicants to be solicited, the overall applicant pool is directly related to the number of application submitted. As a result of the posting policies, every potential candidate has an equal opportunity to apply for the opening. It is correct, there is no minimum number of applicants required for internal promotions in order to be a valid promotional opportunity. Each promotional opportunity is unique and has to be individually evaluated as to the appropriateness of the recruitment. Approval to open and proceed with a promotional recruitment has been delegated to the HR Personnel Analyst.
F09:
HR recognized there may be a problem in an open recruitment if there is only one applicant and it has been determined that there are multiple qualified and capable employees. The concern is that an adequate number of people did not have the opportunity to apply. However, HR has not acted on such concerns. Response: Do not concur All recruitments are posted and opened in accordance with the Personnel Rules and Regulations that provide for equal access to all potential applicants, see response to F-03. The goal of HR is to reach the most qualified applicants to secure the best candidate for employment. If a recruitment yields a small number of 2006-2007 Grand Jury Response applicants (e.g., one applicant), it would be prudent to assess the recruiting methods, the advertising approach, the job screening questions, etc. to determine if the best effort was made given the final outcome. However, the mere fact that only one applicant applied does not by itself invalidate the recruitment. There are many reasons why qualified applicants may not apply, such as compensation, work location, work environment, hours to be worked, assignments and duties, etc... Therefore, it is at the discretion of the HR Personnel Analyst, or by request of the hiring department to extend a recruitment if it is perceived that a greater number of applicants would be generated.
F10:
HR does not consider it to be a problem if the recruitment is department-only and for a special period, and only one or two candidates apply. Response: Do not concur Department-only promotions may only have one or two eligible candidates and considered an appropriate recruitment. However, it is unclear the reference to a "special period". All County and departmental promotional recruitments are opened for a ten (10) workday in accordance with §304 of the Personnel Rules.
Related Recommendations (1)
R02:
HR should consider revising the County of Ventura Personnel Rules and Regulations (Personnel Rules) to eliminate inconsistencies and ambiguities and to formalize practices based on unwritten policies. (C-01 though C-07, C-09) Response: 2006-2007 Grand Jury Response We will continue to review the applicability and the need to modify the Personnel Rules and Regulations and policies of the County. We do recognize that the County's HR system and recruitment process is complex and requires adjustments and needed improvements from time to time. However, it is our overall opinion that the current recruitment practices do adhere to and are compliant with the Personnel Rules and Regulations and meet the intent of the Civil Service system.
F11:
The complainant testified that a new position was created and an individual was pre-selected prior to any official posting of the opening. HR agrees that there have been allegations of "wired" (pre-determined) appointments but states that they have never been proven. Response: Do not concur HR was not involved in reviewing the allegations made by the complainant and cannot fully respond to the issues being identified by the Grand Jury report. However, from time to time we do receive various types of complaints and/or grievances regarding a recruitment and promotional opportunity. As a matter of practice, we review any complaint or filed grievance, and depending on the nature of the protest there may be subsequent steps or processes required as outlined in the Personnel Rules. However, HR does not support or condone any practice of recruiting, promoting or hiring of employees that is contrary to the established Personnel Rules and Regulations. 2006-2007 Grand Jury Response
Related Recommendations (1)
R02:
HR should consider revising the County of Ventura Personnel Rules and Regulations (Personnel Rules) to eliminate inconsistencies and ambiguities and to formalize practices based on unwritten policies. (C-01 though C-07, C-09) Response: 2006-2007 Grand Jury Response We will continue to review the applicability and the need to modify the Personnel Rules and Regulations and policies of the County. We do recognize that the County's HR system and recruitment process is complex and requires adjustments and needed improvements from time to time. However, it is our overall opinion that the current recruitment practices do adhere to and are compliant with the Personnel Rules and Regulations and meet the intent of the Civil Service system.
F12:
The hiring entity and the assigned Personnel Analyst determined the appropriate amount of work experience or education required for a position; however, the Personnel Analyst is responsible for developing minimum qualifications. Normally one year of experience equals one year of education. Response: Do not concur All job positions must be approved and authorized by the Board of Supervisors before they can be used for employment opportunities. Job specifications are developed by the HR Personnel Analyst with departmental input. The job specifications detail the job description, the job duties, the overall responsibilities, and the minimum qualifications for that job title. Each job announcement will list the minimum qualifications required to be considered eligible for that position as provided on the approved Job Specification. However, on occasion, the hiring entity may require more stringent qualifying standards than those listed in as the minimum qualifications. Nevertheless, in no case should the qualifying standards be less than the minimum qualifications listed on the job specification. Any change to the minimum qualifications requires approval from Human Resources. In general, one year of experience equates to one year of education.
Related Recommendations (1)
R02:
HR should consider revising the County of Ventura Personnel Rules and Regulations (Personnel Rules) to eliminate inconsistencies and ambiguities and to formalize practices based on unwritten policies. (C-01 though C-07, C-09) Response: 2006-2007 Grand Jury Response We will continue to review the applicability and the need to modify the Personnel Rules and Regulations and policies of the County. We do recognize that the County's HR system and recruitment process is complex and requires adjustments and needed improvements from time to time. However, it is our overall opinion that the current recruitment practices do adhere to and are compliant with the Personnel Rules and Regulations and meet the intent of the Civil Service system.
F13:
The Personnel Analyst screens applications to determine which applicants meet minimum position requirements. Response: Partially concur The Personnel Analysts are responsible for those departments where the authority to perform recruitment activities have not been delegated or decentralized. Decentralized departments have their own staff performing the minimum qualification screening of applicants. The typical recruitment is open for a minimum ten-day period. Some particularly
Related Recommendations (2)
R01:
appropriate action to reestablish oversight and control of the County's HR function. (C-01 through C-04) Response: A policy has been developed and implemented to provide oversight, approval and control for all recruitment activities. See response to F-20 for details.
R04:
HR should reestablish and maintain control of recruitments and promotions to ensure that decentralized hiring authorities are following Personnel Rules. (C-01 through C-07, C-09) Response: A policy has been established and implemented to improve the overall control and oversight of the recruitment process for decentralized departments. See responses to R-01 and F-20.
F14:
difficult recruitments (i.e., law enforcement officers, nurses, or those positions with high turnover, such as entry-level clerical staff) are open for continuous recruitment in order to establish lists of prospective candidates. Response: Concur
F15:
Personnel Rules §510 states, "Whenever an employee is filling a position in a classification lower that that of the authorized allocation, an underfill situation 2006-2007 Grand Jury Response exists." To be eligible for promotion to a higher classification a candidate must participate in a formal recruitment. Response: Do not concur Personnel Rule §510 states in its entirety: "Promotion in an Underfill Situation: Whenever an employee is filling a position in a classification lower than that of the authorized allocation, an underfill situation exits. To be eligible for promotion to a higher allocation level, the employee must have either originally competed for appointment to the underfill position or must successfully compete with other candidates for the promotion to the higher allocation classification. In no chase shall an employee in an underfill situation be promoted without a competition as described above. If a position which is being underfilled is allocated at a higher level and if the employee in the underfill situation is satisfactorily and substantially performing the duties of the higher classification, and if the employee in the underfill situation meets the established minimum employment standards for the higher classification, then such employee shall be promoted, provided that the other provisions of this section are met" Consistent with section §510, there are two ways an employee can promote from an underfill position. First, if the employee already competed for the position (as an underfill) and is performing and meets the requirements of the higher position, then they may be promoted without a "formal" recruitment process. Secondly, the underfill promotion may be filled through a regular examination process. The later methodology is most commonly followed within the County. The determination and appropriateness to allow for an underfill to occur resides with the HR Personnel Analyst.
Related Recommendations (1)
R02:
HR should consider revising the County of Ventura Personnel Rules and Regulations (Personnel Rules) to eliminate inconsistencies and ambiguities and to formalize practices based on unwritten policies. (C-01 though C-07, C-09) Response: 2006-2007 Grand Jury Response We will continue to review the applicability and the need to modify the Personnel Rules and Regulations and policies of the County. We do recognize that the County's HR system and recruitment process is complex and requires adjustments and needed improvements from time to time. However, it is our overall opinion that the current recruitment practices do adhere to and are compliant with the Personnel Rules and Regulations and meet the intent of the Civil Service system.
F16:
Personnel Rules §511 provides for a selection interview rather than the normal examination process when, upon written justification by the hiring agency/department and approval by the Director - Human Resources, there are three or fewer applicants for a position. Response: Concur
F17:
It is an unwritten County policy to promote from within and then conduct an open recruitment if the internal recruitment is unsuccessful. Response: Partially concur 2006-2007 Grand Jury Response It is a common practice, but not necessarily an "unwritten" policy to promote from within before seeking an open recruitment. The Personnel Rules and Regulations support the concept of promoting from "within" before opening up the recruitments to outside candidates. Personnel Rule §307 states in part: "...the Director-Human Resources shall determine whether an agency/department promotional, Countywide promotional or open recruitment shall be conducted. Such determination shall be in accord with the best interests of the County. Where a sufficient number of employees hold status in lower positions have the requisite skills, knowledge and abilities for the vacancies, a strong consideration shall be given to conducting a Countywide promotional or agency/departmental promotional recruitment." {emphasis added}
Related Recommendations (1)
R02:
HR should consider revising the County of Ventura Personnel Rules and Regulations (Personnel Rules) to eliminate inconsistencies and ambiguities and to formalize practices based on unwritten policies. (C-01 though C-07, C-09) Response: 2006-2007 Grand Jury Response We will continue to review the applicability and the need to modify the Personnel Rules and Regulations and policies of the County. We do recognize that the County's HR system and recruitment process is complex and requires adjustments and needed improvements from time to time. However, it is our overall opinion that the current recruitment practices do adhere to and are compliant with the Personnel Rules and Regulations and meet the intent of the Civil Service system.
F18:
An employee who perceives that there has been an unfair recruitment may file a complaint either with his or her supervisor, HR, the Civil Service Commission, his or her union representative, or with the Auditor-Controller's Waste and Abuse Hotline. Response: Partially concur There is nothing to prevent someone who feels there has been unfair recruitment from complaining to the persons indicated in F-18, however, the appeal process and authority for remedy resides with the Human Resources Department. In some circumstances as outlined in the Personnel Rules and Regulations, the appeal will involve the Civil Service Commission.
F19:
Exit interviews, held upon the separation of an employee regarding their reason for leaving, have not been consistently conducted. Response: Concur The development of a new policy and procedure is being reviewed To ensure countywide consistency and uniformity, new policy is being developed
Related Recommendations (1)
R06:
Exit interviews should be consistently conducted for all terminating employees. The interview should be conducted by a supervisor or manager from a department or agency other than where the terminating employee worked. The results of these interviews should be forwarded to the exiting employee's department and the HR for analysis in order to improve personnel practices countywide. (C-10). Response: We will take this recommendation under advisement. F:\cao\HR\AGENCY\Barry\Response to Grand Jury Findings.doc 2006-2007 Grand Jury Response
F20:
by HR for decentralized departments to outline completely their written recruitment process and obtain HR's approval in advance before opening the recruitment. Response: Concur 2006-2007 Grand Jury Response On February 22, 2007 a policy regarding documentation and approval process for recruitments was developed and subsequently introduced to all the decentralized departments. The recruitment policy provides the decentralized departments with a written format to complete a recruitment plan that is fully compliant with County policy and the Personnel Rules and Regulations. The recruitment plan as outlined in the policy provide the HR Personnel Analyst with all the necessary documentation to adequately review and approve the opening of the recruitment. The recruitment plan includes documentation regarding, the job announcements, screening and selection criteria, types of recruitment, etc. All requisitions to open a recruitment are to be submitted to HR with a completed "recruitment plan" in accordance with the policy and must be approved by the HR Personnel Analyst prior to the opening of the recruitment. This policy applies to all departments/agencies conducting recruitments. With the advent of this recruitment policy, all recruitment efforts should be consistently developed, reviewed and performed. Report Conclusions C-01 Adherence to the Personnel Rules has become inconsistent and inequitable as a consequence of decentralizing HR functions (F-02, F-04 through F-07) C-02 As an additional result of decentralization, HR's control and oversight have been compromised. (F-04 through F-07) C-03 Recruitment announcements are not always posted in accordance with Personnel Rules, which has resulted in allegations that not all potential applicants are aware of recruitments. (F-03, F-04, F-09, F-11) C-04 Delegation of authority by the HR Director to Personnel Analyst for determining which type of recruitment is appropriate (open, county, or agency/departmental) appears to be contrary to §306 of the Personnel Rules. (F-06, F-07) C-05 In Countywide or agency/departmental recruitments where there is only one applicant, there is a perception of favoritism. (F-04, F-05, F-09, F-11) 2006-2007 Grand Jury Response C-06 Policies regarding internal promotion and recruitment should be made part of the written Personnel Rules in order to prevent misinterpretation or misuse. (F-17) C-07 Using the ambiguous term "sufficient" instead of a specific number in §304 of the Personnel Rules creates the opportunity for "pre-selected" appointments. (F-05,
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R05:
Personnel Rules §511 should be revised to require final approval by the Director - Human Resources of a promotion by nomination. The Director must not delegate the authority to approve such promotions. (C-08, C-09) Response: The Grand Jury's recommendation to revise §511 is somewhat unclear and vague. The findings and conclusions contained in the report do not address any deficiency or incident of non-compliance with the provisions of rule §511 or inappropriate exercise of authority by the HR Personnel Analyst. Therefore, it remains unclear to the motive and reasoning behind this recommendation. 2006-2007 Grand Jury Response Nevertheless, the Personnel Rules clearly allows the Director-Human Resources to delegate his authority to his "designated representatives". The need and ability to delegate approval authority to HR Personnel staff is vital in order to manage the volume and pace of activity that is required for an organization of this size.
Findings & Recommendations
31 findings
F03:
Concur It would be more accurate to state that this is the current, but not the required, composition of VCERA's board. Government Code Section 31520.1 allows four public members, one of whom may be a member of the Board of Supervisors. Traditionally, the Board of Supervisors has chosen to include one of their own members when making the four allowed appointments.
F04:
Concur in Part Candidates for election to the Board of Retirement are allowed to include with the ballot materials sent to all members a statement of their qualifications. That may explain why most, if not all, who have been so elected have brought a good financial perspective to their board service. VCERA's current elected employee trustees have extensive professional and educational experience in accounting, finance and pension benefit issues. Elected employee members include the County of Ventura's Chief Investment Officer, human resource professionals with extensive backgrounds overseeing a variety of benefit programs including the County of Ventura's deferred compensation plans, and the retired Director of Public Works. Collectively, the group holds graduate and college degrees in business administration, engineering, finance and public administration. Additionally, VCERA's elected employee trustees actively participate in the many educational forums that are available in the pension industry. For example, the elected employee trustees participate in educational programs offered by the State Association of County Retirement Systems (SACRS), California Association of Public Retirement Systems (CALAPRS), Institutional Investor and the National Council of Public Employee Retirement Systems (NCPERS). This combination of extensive professional experience and continuing education allow the elected employee trustees to make informed decisions in their service as fiduciaries to VCERA.
F05:
Concur Experienced trustees are an invaluable resource to their fellow trustees and staff.
F06:
Concur <b>Grand Jury Responses</b>
Related Recommendations (1)
R06:
Based upon a thorough investigation, as detailed in the response to F-42, the Board of Retirement does not believe that it is in VCERA's best interest to return to a 10-year rolling amortization schedule. Such a move would reintroduce greater volatility into the employer contribution rate setting process and potentially lead to an intergenerational transfer among taxpayers of the current Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability (UAAL). The Board of Retirement and its consulting actuary contend that fixed 15-year amortization periods are the most appropriate for VCERA and the County of Ventura. Implementation Date: Will not be Implemented.
F07:
Concur in Part Board of Retirement has plenary authority over VCERA's operation as detailed in Proposition 162. It is not accurate to state that the Board makes decisions about interest rates. It would be more accurate to use the term "assumed investment earnings" rather than "interest rates" in describing decisions or assumptions made by VCERA's Board of Retirement. Assumptions regarding interest rates are left to central bankers and fixed income managers.
Related Recommendations (1)
R07:
VCERA will continue to follow the law and the existing process, as described in our response to F-28, in recommending new employer contribution rates on a timely basis to the Board of Supervisors. Implementation Date: Will not be Implemented.
F10:
Concur The finding would be more accurate if it were noted that reciprocity is not a factor in terms of years of employment, but rather carries a potential impact on cost in terms of final compensation. Also, it is important to note that in accordance with Government Code Section 31830, the financial obligations between public retirement systems sharing reciprocal arrangements is delineated in such a manner that no system shall be liable for more than its just financial obligation.
F13:
Disagree The Board of Retirement conducts an actuarial valuation annually and provides the valuation results to the Board of Supervisors. Although the Retirement Law of 1937 requires such valuations every three years, VCERA has elected to provide updates to the Board of Supervisors on the Plan's financial condition more frequently.
F14:
Concur in Part The Board of Supervisors is responsible for making the annual required contributions and determining the level of employee covered payroll to which the contribution rate applies. VCERA's Board of Retirement is responsible for recommending the contribution rates that are the basis for the annual required contributions (Government Code Section 31453).
F15:
Disagree The elected County Auditor-Controller performed the audit until 1998 at which time Government Code Section 31593 was amended to require the Board of Retirement to <b>Grand Jury Responses</b> conduct an audit of the retirement system. The amendment provided the Board of Retirement the option of utilizing a certified public account or the county auditor. One should note that Government Code Section 31593 does provide that the county auditor may audit the accounts of the retirement system at the request of the board of supervisors.
F16:
Concur in Part The point at which one can be reasonably expected to become concerned about the funding status of the plan is highly subjective. It would most likely differ between the plan sponsor and the plan administrator. While both have significant interest in the financial health of the retirement system, one could be expected to have greater concerns about present cost, while the other could be expected to have a greater focus on ensuring that promised benefits are paid. Moreover, the funding status of a plan is not the sole measure of a retirement system's financial health. Other measures of "actuarial soundness" would include the financial stability of the plan sponsor and whether a retirement plan has a reliable source of contributions.
F18:
Concur One could simply say that a plan's funding status declines when growth in plan liabilities outpaces the growth in plan assets. All scenarios detailed in the Grand Jury's report fit this description. One could also include benefit enhancements in these scenarios.
F19:
Concur in Part A six year period is a very short time frame for analyzing a pension plan's funded ratio and is of limited value in ascertaining a fund's long-term financial health. By extending this analysis over a 12-year period (1995-2006), VCERA's funding status would average 103.5%. In making investment and economic assumptions, time horizons varying from 15 to 30 years are commonly used by public pension fund investment consultants and actuaries.
F20:
Concur in Part As stated in F-19, it is more meaningful to view a longer period of time in analyzing the impacts of actuarial gains and losses. For example, if one reviewed the six-year period from June 30, 1995 through June 30, 2000, there would be actuarial gains of $63.1 million due to actual salary increases that were smaller than expected and $464 million due to actual investment earnings that were greater than expected. <b>Grand Jury Responses</b>
F21:
Concur in Part The benefits described were the result of Board of Retirement actions pursuant to Government Code Sections 31592 and 31592.2. Supplemental benefits may be granted pursuant to these code sections when the fund has sufficient excess earnings in any given year(s), regardless of the funded status of the Plan.
F22:
Concur Scenario describes the typical attributes of a maturing defined benefit plan
F23:
Concur The Board of Retirement believes it important to note that over the same three year time period the total fund return of 11.6% was significantly higher than the assumed return of 8%. In addition, the fixed income portion VCERA's portfolio outperformed its respective benchmark during this period.
F25:
Disagree Investment management fees increased primarily due to the increase in the size of VCERA's investment portfolio. The addition of new two real estate managers increased the fees marginally. Investment management fees are charged as a percentage of total assets under management. Over the last three years, VCERA's assets under management have increased from $2.2 billion in 2004 to $2.6 billion in 2006. This $400 million increase in assets accounts for approximately $1 million of the cited increase. The remainder of the increase is attributable to the addition of a new fixed income manager, new global equity managers and real estate managers. The Board of Retirement believes the Grand Jury would benefit greatly by comparing VCERA's investment fees to comparable pension plans rather than evaluating fees solely by noting an increase over a three year period. VCERA participates in many peer comparisons and the results illustrate how investment costs are contained by VCERA. For example, in the most recently published Cost Effective Management (CEM) Study, VCERA's investment costs were approximately 75% of those of comparable plans. The study showed that VCERA's costs were 30/100 of 1% of assets under management, while the cost of operating comparable plans was 42/100 of 1% of assets under management. The bottom line is that VCERA operates with a cost savings of approximately $3 million in comparison with similar plans. Grand Jury Responses
F27:
Disagree While it is theoretically possible that political considerations might at times influence a particular board member's vote, in practice that does not appear to have happened. The board members have extensive training in the fiduciary duties that are required of them when making all decisions affecting the plan. In particular, the board has been educated on the importance of making decisions that are in the best interests of VCERA and its members, rather than the interests of a specific constituency. A review of the minutes of the board meetings will show that the members take their fiduciary duties seriously when considering all items, including decisions that concern actuarial assumptions.
F28:
Disagree The implementation of VCERA's contribution rates is accomplished timely and in accordance with Government Code Sections 31453 and 31454. According to these sections of the law, the Board of Retirement shall, at least 45 days prior to the beginning of the succeeding fiscal year, recommend changes to the Board of Supervisors in the contribution rates. The Board of Supervisors shall, no later than 90 days after the beginning of the fiscal year, adjust the contribution rates in accordance with the recommendation from the Board of Retirement. The following events that have occurred in fiscal year 2006/07 are illustrative of this process: The Board of Retirement adopted, on January 22, 2007, new contribution rates • recommended by its actuary and based upon the June 30, 2006 valuation. Board of Supervisors adopted, on March 27, 2007, recommended contribution • rates after public presentation by VCERA. New employer and employee rates to be implemented on September 24, 2007 as detailed in the County of Ventura's budget process.
F29:
Concur in Part The employee contribution rate illustrated for non-safety employees is for Tier II General Members. The employee contribution rate for Tier 1 General Members is currently 8.89%, including COLA. Certain non-safety Tier II General Members pay an additional 2.63% in COLA contributions.
F32:
Concur <b>Grand Jury Responses</b>
F34:
Concur The Board of Retirement believes it important to note that the contribution rates in effect during this period were recommended by VCERA's actuary and were based upon the annual actuarial valuations performed for those impacted years. VCERA's funding methodology for this period of time was the subject of legal challenge which resulted in judgment in VCERA's favor. The Court ruled, among other things, that VCERA's funding methodology was lawful.
F36:
It is not appropriate for VCERA's Board of Retirement to comment on the finding.
F37:
Concur The process described is in accordance with Government Code Section 31453.
F38:
Disagree The Board of Retirement's role is to administer the County of Ventura' defined benefit plan in accordance with the Retirement Law of 1937 and its administrative function does not include passing judgment of Board of Supervisor decisions regarding compensation and other decisions impacting the County of Ventura's workforce.
F39:
Concur The Board of Retirement's decision was done in accordance with a recommendation from its actuary and had the effect of making VCERA's future benefit payments and funding status less reliant on future investment income.
F42:
Concur in Part The Board of Retirement's decision to change the basis for the amortization of a plan surplus or deficit in August 2004 involved several factors. First, the Board of Retirement needed to decide whether a "rolling" amortization period or a "fixed" amortization period was best for VCERA. Second, the Board of Retirement needed to weigh the benefits of the shorter ten-year amortization period in terms of lower overall costs against the increase in the volatility of employer contributions inherent in ten-year amortization periods. Finally, the Board of Retirement needed to establish an appropriate <b>Grand Jury Responses</b> amortization period if it was decided that the existing ten-year "rolling" period was not the best choice for VCERA. By definition, a "rolling" amortization period is one that remains the same each year, or does not decline. The effect of utilizing a "rolling" amortization period is that the amortization payment made in a given year is primarily an interest payment and has little impact on a plan's Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability (UAAL). For example, at June 30, 2003, VCERA's UAAL was $144 million. If the 10-year rolling amortization had remained in place for 15 years, through June 30, 2018, there would be a projected UAAL remaining of some $71 million of the original $144 million. The Board of Retirement believed that VCERA's UAAL needed to be fully amortized within a reasonable period and used the above analysis as a basis to change VCERA's amortization period from a "rolling" amortization period to "fixed" amortization periods. Another drawback of a "rolling" ten-year amortization period is the volatility that such a relatively short period may cause in terms of employer contribution rates. This phenomenon is best illustrated by VCERA's amortization of the large actuarial gains, earned primarily due to plan investment performance, in the late 1990's. The amortization of these large gains, over "rolling" 10-year periods, generated large actuarial "credits" to VCERA's normal plan costs resulting in the County of Ventura not being required to make an employer contribution for four years. Employer contribution rates would not have been impacted as materially if a longer amortization period were in place during this period of greater than anticipated investment gains. The same analysis would apply to large actuarial losses except that the shorter amortization period would cause a larger increase in employer contribution rates when compared to utilizing a longer amortization period. After considering all of the above factors, and with recommendations from its actuary and input from the County of Ventura, the Board of Retirement decided it would be in VCERA's and the County of Ventura's best interest to have separate 15-year fixed amortization periods effective with the results of each actuarial valuation. VCERA believes that in the long run, plan costs may actually be lower utilizing longer fixed periods rather than the previous 10-year "rolling" periods because the UAAL from a given plan year will be paid earlier under a 15-year fixed schedule than under a 10-year "rolling" amortization schedule. Additionally, one can expect less volatility in employer contribution rates under the 15-year fixed amortization periods.
F43:
Concur in Part The written analysis considered by the VCERA's Board of Retirement recommended an 8% earnings assumption rate and only during discussions on the subject did the actuary recommend the range of 7.75% to 8.00%. The financial impact of adopting a 7.75% earnings assumption rate would have been approximately 2% of covered employer payroll. This translated into an approximate $100 million increase in liabilities at the time <b>Grand Jury Responses</b> the Board of Retirement considered the matter. This is $78 million less than the amount illustrated in F-41.
F45:
Concur VCERA's Board of Retirement believes it important to note that such recognition of the gains will, all things being equal, result in lower future employer contribution rates.
F48:
Concur in Part VCERA believes that this transaction is not a pure exchange, but rather is the refinancing of one debt for another with a resulting lower interest payment.
F51:
It is not appropriate for VCERA's Board of Retirement to comment on the County of Ventura's financing options. Conclusions: C-01: Disagree The Board of Retirement has provided details on VCERA's plan annually as part of the contribution rate setting process detailed in Government Code Sections 31453 and 31454. Please see response to F-28. C-02: Concur in Part VCERA's funding status has fallen as illustrated by the conclusion; however, the Board of Retirement believes it important to analyze the actuarial process over longer periods of time in order to gain a full perspective. For example, if one reviewed these same factors over the last 12 years one would note many of the investment and salary losses cited in the conclusion would be offset by gains in the prior six-year period from 1995- 2000. Grand Jury Responses C-03: It is not appropriate for VCERA's Board of Retirement to comment on County of Ventura policy. C-04: Disagree The Board of Retirement has been both proactive and timely in making changes to VCERA's actuarial assumptions. For example, over the last several years changes in VCERA's investment earnings assumption, mortality assumption and disability assumptions have been accomplished. All changes were the result of careful study by the Board of Retirement following the completion of VCERA's triennial actuarial investigations. These investigations analyze the differences between VCERA's actuarial experiences and actuarial assumptions over three year periods. The "normal" process is for VCERA's actuary to identify, during the actuarial investigation, the material differences between plan assumptions and actuarial experiences. The Board of Retirement and its actuary then track these "experience" differences through a second 3-year investigation cycle in order to determine whether the differences noted are temporary or exhibit consistency. If it is believed that the differences identified will remain consistent, then the Board of Retirement's actuary will recommend a change in assumptions for adoption by the Board of Retirement. Plan contribution rates would be negatively impacted if the Board of Retirement changed its assumptions each and every year that there were noted differences between actuarial experiences and assumptions, The Board of Retirement believes it important for the Grand Jury to know that VCERA's processes regarding actuarial decisions impacting plan contribution rates have been challenged in the Courts. In a recent case, Mathews v. Ventura County Employee Retirement Association and County of Ventura, Superior Court Judge Frederick H. Bysshe found that "VCERA's decisions in allowing the County to make reduced or no contributions during the relevant time period was not the result of arbitrary and capricious decisions which lacked evidentiary support." The Court affirmed that VCERA's Board of Retirement will make changes to actuarial assumptions only after determining that the evidence supports the basis for a change in actuarial assumptions. VCERA's Board of Retirement will continue to follow the processes currently in place in order to make timely and appropriate decisions regarding VCERA's actuarial assumptions. C-05: Concur in Part VCERA's Board of Retirement concur that investment fees have increased over the last three years and as explained in F-25, most of the increase is attributable to the appreciation in VCERA's plan assets since June 30, 2004. The Board of Retirement believes it important for the Grand Jury to note that VCERA's annualized investment <b>Grand Jury Responses</b> return for the 3-year period ending June 30, 2006 was 11.6%. The annualized return for the period was greater than the actuarial expected return of 8%. C-06: It is not appropriate for VCERA's Board of Retirement to comment on the County of Ventura's future budgets. C-07: Disagree The implementation of VCERA's contribution rates are accomplished timely and in accordance with the law as discussed under F-28. C-08: Concur in Part VCERA's Board of Retirement believes that the positive factors of defined benefit plans outweigh the negative factors. Defined benefit plans provide an income replacement feature that is not present in defined contribution plans and offer this feature with better investment returns and with lower investment costs than defined contribution plans. If actual experience differs from expectations in a defined contribution plan, the risks of individual employees not saving enough may ultimately fall back on local governments in terms of additional social programs. C-09: Concur in Part As stated in F-20, VCERA's Board of Retirement believes it important to review actuarial assumptions over longer periods. One would note actuarial gains due to salary increases being less than expected of $63.1 million if the Grand Jury extended its analysis to include the period June 30, 1995 through June 30, 2000. C-10: Concur in Part The issuance of POBs may result in lower overall costs to taxpayers assuming the POBs are issued at a lower interest rate than the Board of Retirement's actuarial assumed earnings rate. <b>Required Responses:</b>
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F05:
Harbormaster) and one part-time position... Concur, but updated: This finding was accurate at the time of the report. However, with the new fiscal year, the Board approved funding to replace the part-time position with a full-time position. Staffing will increase to nine full-time officers (including the Harbormaster). Additional staff will continue to be utilized on a per diem basis as needed. Harbor Patrol Officers frequently respond to and handle potential high-risk
F08:
situations where a detention may result, including alarm calls, suspicious persons, person under the influence of drugs or alcohol and suspicious vehicles or vessels. Concur in part: The word "frequently" overstates the number of times the Harbor Patrol responds to potential high-risk situations. District policies also are aimed at limiting the number of times the Harbor Patrol encounters high-risk situations. Officers encountering illegal activities outside of the scope of their authority or training are required to contact the appropriate law enforcement agency under the District's "observe and report" policy. The Officers are Port District Response to Grand Jury Report specifically directed to contact the Ventura Police Department when they observe criminal or dangerous situations.
F10:
The District does not publish an annual or monthly report of all crimes and incidents occurring on properties owned by the District that the public can readily access and review. Concur in part: The Harbormaster completes a staff report each month which includes a summary of significant activity in the Harbor and statistics gathered from Incident Reports. This report is included monthly in the Board Meeting packet and is available on the District's Web site. It does not include a complete summary of crimes. VCSD is the primary law enforcement agency responsible for police services on
F17:
the ten acres of unincorporated territory that the District owns. Disagree: All District-owned land is within the City limits. Response to Recommendations The District should consider the feasibility of reinstating 24-hour patrol coverage
Additional Recommendations
7
Not linked to specific findings.
R01:
of its property and facilities... Already Implemented The District has considered and will periodically consider the feasibility of reinstating 24-hour patrol coverage of its property and facilities. The following programs have been considered in the past two years: Changing the Harbor Patrol from a 4/10 schedule to a 5/8 schedule and increasing staffing Hiring a private security company to provide patrolling responsibilities Changing the Harbor Patrol to a 24-hour shift, which, because of "sleep • hours", would reduce the number of patrolling hours? Thus far, the Board is pleased with current coverage. Although 24-hour staffing was originally discontinued for budgetary constraints, the current system offers the following benefits to the public and the District's employees. 1. The District provides a minimum of two Harbor Patrol Officers on duty for the hours that the Operations Center is staffed and up to four officers on weekends; 2. Turn over in the Harbor Patrol is low. This is in no small part attributable to the 4/10 schedule and the fact that the officers do not have to work graveyard shifts 3. Staff is better utilized during busier hours instead of being underutilized during the early morning hours. Calls for service have been analyzed several times in the past. Each analysis indicated that 0.5% of calls for service occurred from 2:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m. The District is currently negotiating with the S.E.I.U. to provide a means of designating a second On Call Officer as an enhancement to our 20-hour/7-day program. Specifically, the second on call officer would respond in the rare Port District Response to Grand Jury Report occasions when a second officer would be needed to handle an after-hours emergency.
R1:
The District provides a minimum of two Harbor Patrol Officers on duty for the hours that the Operations Center is staffed and up to four officers on weekends;
R02:
The District should execute formal agreements with VPD and VCSD defining operational and jurisdictional interface between the Harbor Patrol and those agencies. Ventura Police Department: Will Be Implemented—Estimated Completion: October 30, 2007 District and Police Staff have already met to discuss implementing these policies. The foundation for these policies is available in each Department's past procedure manuals. This information will be reviewed and updated as necessary with the intent of implementing it into usable policies and procedures. Ventura Sheriff's Department: Will Not Be Implemented Section 510 of the Harbors and Navigation Code provides the framework for the necessary working relationship between the Harbor Patrol and the Sheriff's Department. An independent policy is unnecessary. The District should revise its official Web site to describe fully the mission,
R2:
Turn over in the Harbor Patrol is low. This is in no small part attributable to the 4/10 schedule and the fact that the officers do not have to work graveyard shifts
R03:
responsibilities, and enforcement duties of the Harbor Patrol. Implemented on: To be announced. Need to work with Web designer, but this should be in place before we send this report. The District should consider authorizing Harbor Patrol Officers to carry firearms
R3:
Staff is better utilized during busier hours instead of being underutilized during the early morning hours. Calls for service have been analyzed several times in the past. Each analysis indicated that 0.5% of calls for service occurred from 2:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m. The District is currently negotiating with the S.E.I.U. to provide a means of designating a second On Call Officer as an enhancement to our 20-hour/7-day program. Specifically, the second on call officer would respond in the rare Port District Response to Grand Jury Report occasions when a second officer would be needed to handle an after-hours emergency. R-02 The District should execute formal agreements with VPD and VCSD defining operational and jurisdictional interface between the Harbor Patrol and those agencies. Ventura Police Department: Will Be Implemented—Estimated Completion: October 30, 2007 District and Police Staff have already met to discuss implementing these policies. The foundation for these policies is available in each Department's past procedure manuals. This information will be reviewed and updated as necessary with the intent of implementing it into usable policies and procedures. Ventura Sheriff's Department: Will Not Be Implemented Section 510 of the Harbors and Navigation Code provides the framework for the necessary working relationship between the Harbor Patrol and the Sheriff's Department. An independent policy is unnecessary. The District should revise its official Web site to describe fully the mission, R-03 responsibilities, and enforcement duties of the Harbor Patrol. Implemented on: To be announced. Need to work with Web designer, but this should be in place before we send this report. The District should consider authorizing Harbor Patrol Officers to carry firearms R-04 while on duty. Less lethal devices, such as personal impact weapons or tasers, should be available to officers... Consideration of Carrying Firearms: Already Implemented In 1999 to 2000, the District considered providing firearms to its officers or looking for alternatives to providing an armed presence within the Harbor. The primary deterrents to arming the Harbor Patrol is the nature of the job, the size of the Department, the availability and ability to provide initial and continuing training or drills. The Harbor Patrol is not a police force. It is primarily a rescue agency that has limited law enforcement authority, primarily focused on enforcement of the Ventura Harbor Ordinance and boating laws. The District does not feel it is necessary or prudent to provide the officers with deadly force capability in order to provide those primary services. The officers were issued batons at one time. That practice was discontinued about a year ago, specifically because of our inability to provide continuing training or drills. Over the years, the District has considered several options to providing an armed force within the Harbor. The District fully funded a Storefront and a 40-hour Storefront Officer at Ventura Harbor Village. That program did have some positive effects in the Harbor and provided an excellent liaison between the Port District and the Police Department. However, in 1996, in order to meet budgetary constraints, the District dismissed one full-time administrative employee, and the Storefront funding was also stopped in lieu of terminating any additional District employees. Port District Response to Grand Jury Report
R04:
while on duty. Less lethal devices, such as personal impact weapons or tasers, should be available to officers... Consideration of Carrying Firearms: Already Implemented In 1999 to 2000, the District considered providing firearms to its officers or looking for alternatives to providing an armed presence within the Harbor. The primary deterrents to arming the Harbor Patrol is the nature of the job, the size of the Department, the availability and ability to provide initial and continuing training or drills. The Harbor Patrol is not a police force. It is primarily a rescue agency that has limited law enforcement authority, primarily focused on enforcement of the Ventura Harbor Ordinance and boating laws. The District does not feel it is necessary or prudent to provide the officers with deadly force capability in order to provide those primary services. The officers were issued batons at one time. That practice was discontinued about a year ago, specifically because of our inability to provide continuing training or drills. Over the years, the District has considered several options to providing an armed force within the Harbor. The District fully funded a Storefront and a 40-hour Storefront Officer at Ventura Harbor Village. That program did have some positive effects in the Harbor and provided an excellent liaison between the Port District and the Police Department. However, in 1996, in order to meet budgetary constraints, the District dismissed one full-time administrative employee, and the Storefront funding was also stopped in lieu of terminating any additional District employees. Port District Response to Grand Jury Report
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
17 findings
F01:
District Ordinance No. 2 [Ref-01] is an ordinance passed by the District Board of Directors. It establishes rules and conditions governing the use of District parks and facilities and participation in District programs. The Park District concurs.
Related Recommendations (1)
R01:
The District should consider providing 24-hour, seven-day-a-week patrol coverage of its properties and facilities so that it can better address security needs. This could be accomplished by increasing the number of rangers or contracting with the SVPD and VCSD to provide additional patrol of District properties. (C-03) The Park District will not implement this recommendation. The primary mission of Rancho Simi Recreation and Park District is to provide recreation activities and park facilities. The primary law enforcement authorities are the SVPD and VCSD. The Park Rangers supplement coverage and focus on compliance with adopted park rules and regulations. Contracting with the SVPD or the VCSD would require additional payment from the Park District to either or both of those agencies. Each agency already has primary law enforcement authority within their areas of responsibility, and each agency already patrols Park District facilities as a part of that responsibility. The costs associated with either increasing ranger patrols, or contracting for more coverage would require a shifting of resources away from the provision of well maintained parks and recreational activities. The District believes that the cost of providing additional protection would far outweigh the cost of repairing the occasional damage done to the parks, after hours. Residents of the District take great pride in their parks and do their best to make sure they are protected. The District frequently receives calls from park patrons and nearby residents alerting the District to problems to which the Rangers can then respond. The District welcomes these reports from individuals and normally responds in a timely and professional manner while protecting the identity of the informant. The fact that District residents care about their parks and want to protect them provides a level of supervision of the parks far greater than the results which would be obtained by hiring more Rangers.
F02:
Enforcement of Ordinance No. 2 is the responsibility of the Ranger Program. The Park District concurs.
Related Recommendations (1)
R02:
The District should execute formal Memoranda of Understanding/Agreement with SVPD and VCSD defining the operational and jurisdictional interface between the Ranger Program and the two agencies. (C-04) The Park District will not implement this recommendation. The District believes that there is ample authority governing agency interactions and responsibilities. For example, the Park District has a Board approved policy governing Park Ranger Operational Procedures (copy attached). These procedures clearly convey the primary role of a Park Ranger: enforce Park District Rules and Regulations. Paragraph J of Section 2203 expressly states that a Park Ranger "Works with other law enforcement agencies where a situation is beyond a Park Ranger's control and expertise (i.e., drug violations), and works with police agencies in other areas of law enforcement that occur in the parks where assistance is required". This policy is supported by Simi Valley Police Department General Order 0831 (attached to the attached Grand Jury Report). The procedures set forth in this authority have been respected by each agency for more than two decades. Although there is apparently no 6 comparable VCSD policy, the tradition of past practice has successfully worked to protect residents. In short, Park Rangers call for back-up when necessary.
F03:
The District Ranger Program currently has three full-time, five part-time, and three special-event rangers to patrol the properties within the District. The Park District concurs.
Related Recommendations (1)
R03:
The District should establish a mechanism by which SVPD and VCSD report to the Ranger Program all crimes and incidents occurring on District property. (C-05) The Park District has implemented this recommendation.
F04:
Rangers are on patrol seven days a week from 10:00 a.m. to midnight. The Park District disagrees. Ranger schedules are determined on a monthly basis. The schedule is then distributed to appropriate staff members. Hours of coverage is a result of ranger availability, ranger cost, the need for greater coverage at particular locations, the ability to reduce coverage at particular locations, special events, facility rentals, and other things. Ranger patrols change frequently to make the best use of limited resources. See for example the attached Ranger Schedule for period June 1, 2007 - June 28, 2007.
Related Recommendations (1)
R04:
The District should update its official Web site to provide details about the mission and enforcement responsibilities of its Ranger Program. The site should also provide a statistical breakdown of crimes and incidents occurring on District property. (C-01, C-05) The Park District has implemented this recommendation in part. Information about the mission and powers of Park Rangers has been posted onto the District's web site. The District will not provide a breakdown of crimes and incidents, except upon request. Significant violations of the law are reported in the records of the police and sheriff departments. Since most of the work of the Rangers consists of encouraging park patrons to follow the rules through the use of discussion and citations, providing "statistics" would not give a meaningful picture of the Rangers' work and contribution to the community. Further, publication of information on Ranger interactions with residents could be detrimental to the reputations of those residents and the organizations to which they belong. Park Rangers are directed to solve problems in a public relations oriented manner. When serious problems arise, they can call in the Police or Sheriff. This gives a progressive response to discipline.
F05:
The Ranger Program compiles monthly statistics of their calls for service and ranger- initiated activities and incidents. The Park District concurs in part. Rangers prepare a daily log describing their activities. These logs indicate the park location, time of visit, noteworthy activity, and warnings or citations issued. These logs are turned in daily and reviewed by the District's Senior Park Ranger, the Senior Buildings Maintenance Supervisor, General Manager, and Business Supervisor. The ranger logs can identify graffiti, maintenance or other repair work needed, and help staff members respond quickly to issues. Citation issues are also attached to these ranger logs, which are reviewed and discussed when appropriate. Ranger logs are maintained and, on occasion, used to generate statistics that may form the basis for scheduling adjustments, presentations, etc.
Related Recommendations (1)
R05:
An annual report about the Ranger Program should be prepared for the District Board of Directors. This report, as well as a brochure, should also be available to the public both on the Web site and in print. (C-01, C-05) The Park District concurs in part. The District placed its Rules and Regulations together with a description of Park Ranger authority onto its web site. The District will also place an informative article on the Ranger Program within an upcoming edition of its Reporter (a class and information listing that is sent to every residence within the communities of Oak Park and Simi Valley). This will be performed during the 2007 calendar year, and will: provide a description of Park Ranger qualifications including their extensive experience in law enforcement; emphasize the fact that the District has carefully selected the Rangers to ensure that they have skills in dealing with the public in a non-confrontational way; emphasize that the Ranger program is designed to establish relationships between the District and persons using park facilities which will encourage protection of park patrons and park property; state that the primary purpose of the Ranger program is to protect park patrons. Park Ranger reports are given to the Board of Directors on an as-needed basis, and this has been adequate.
F06:
The Ranger Program does not provide periodic safety reports of any kind to the District Board of Directors. The Park District concurs. The District's Park Ranger program is supervised by the District's Senior Park Ranger who in turn is supervised by the District's General Manager. The District's Business Supervisor provides secondary supervision of the Ranger Program, and processes citations, acts as a liaison to the Simi Valley Police Department and Ventura County Sheriff, and coordinates and communicates ranger scheduling.
Related Recommendations (1)
R06:
The District should meet regularly with the VCDA to exchange information and better educate VCDA personnel about activities of the Ranger Program. (C-02). 7
F07:
The District and the Ranger Program do not provide information regarding District safety statistics to the public. The Park District concurs in part. Most Park Ranger interactions with the public fall into the 2 following categories: skateboarding in the park, riding a bicycle without a helmet, visiting a park after hours, trespassing, dog off leash, lewd conduct in a parked car, alcohol possession and public intoxication. Warnings are provided and field interview cards are completed in most circumstances, citations are issued on occasion, and police or sheriff are called for back-up when appropriate. As indicated above, warning and citation information appear on Ranger logs. This information is not provided to the public at large, but is provided upon request, in conformance with the Freedom of Information Act. Statistics created by instances requiring police or sheriff involvement are reported by the respective agency in accordance with their policies.
F08:
The District Board of Directors does not require that an annual report from the Ranger Program be compiled, presented and made available to the general public. The Park District concurs.
F09:
The current Web site of the District has limited information about the Ranger Program. The Park District concurs, however, approximately one-year ago the District placed its Rules and Regulations onto its web site and several months ago it placed a description of the Park Ranger authority onto its web site. The District will also place an informative article on the Ranger Program within an upcoming edition of its Reporter (a class and information listing that is sent to every residence within the communities of Oak Park and Simi Valley).
F10:
Loitering by homeless persons and gang activity on District property is increasing and frequently requires assistance from either SVPD or VCSD. The Park District concurs in part. The frequency of homeless and gang activity has ebbed and flowed for a long time, and it has existed primarily at two of the Park District's facilities. Park Rangers and Simi Valley Police officers work together frequently at these two locations to handle problems and reduce the frequency of issues. Unfortunately, eliminating gangs and homeless problems is not possible within the confines of the law. It is not a crime to loiter in a public park, and civil and personal property rights extend to everyone, regardless of their status or affiliation. The Park District increases its ranger coverage at these problem areas when appropriate.
F11:
The SVPD is the primary law enforcement agency providing police services to District properties within city boundaries. (See Attachment 1.) The District concurs. The Simi Valley Police Department acts as the primary law enforcement agency within Simi Valley, and the Ventura County Sheriff acts as the primary law enforcement agency for the community of Oak Park. The Park District provides parks and recreation activities to both communities.
F12:
The VCSD is the primary law enforcement agency providing police services to District properties within unincorporated areas of the County. The District concurs. The Simi Valley Police Department acts as the primary law enforcement agency within Simi Valley, and the Ventura County Sheriff acts as the primary law enforcement agency for the community of Oak Park. The Park District provides parks and recreation activities to both communities.
F13:
No formalized agreements exist requiring the SVPD or VCSD to provide additional patrol and enforcement on properties owned by the District. The Park District concurs. Park District facilities are within the jurisdiction of either the SVPD or VCSD. Both of these agencies regularly patrol Park District facilities, and information is frequently exchanged between Park Rangers and other officers. There is no agreement in place to provide patrols above and beyond this existing level of coverage.
F14:
No formalized agreements exist with the SVPD or VCSD setting forth operational procedures and liability issues within the Ranger Program. The Park District concurs in part. It is true that there is no formalized agreement between the Park District and the SVPD or the VCSD. However, there is ample authority governing agency interactions and responsibilities. For example, the Park District has a Board approved policy governing Park Ranger Operational Procedures (copy attached). These procedures clearly convey the primary role of a Park Ranger: enforce Park District Rules and Regulations. Paragraph J of Section 2203 expressly states that a Park Ranger "Works with other law enforcement agencies where a situation is beyond a Park Ranger's control and expertise (i.e., drug violations), and works with police agencies in other areas of law enforcement that occur in the parks where assistance is required". This policy is supported by Simi Valley Police Department General Order 0831 (attached to the attached Grand Jury Report). The procedures set forth in this authority have been respected by each agency for more than two decades. Although there is apparently no comparable VCSD policy, the tradition of past practice has successfully worked to protect residents.
F15:
The District has no formalized tracking system for noting responses by the SVPD or VCSD to incidents occurring on District property. The Park District disagrees. The Park District obtains a copy of incident reports from the respective agencies, and regularly exchanges information with officers and administrative staff members on items of significance.
F16:
The District has had difficulty convincing the Ventura County District Attorney's Office (VCDA) to prosecute citations written by the Rangers. The District disagrees. Very few of the District's citations are categorized as misdemeanors subject to prosecution by the VCDA. Misdemeanor citations, together with supporting documentation are filed in accordance with established procedures. The VCDA requests and the Park District Ranger Program provides additional information when needed. The Park District does not attempt to 4 convince the VCDA to prosecute. The Park District understands that not every crime can or should be prosecuted, and it relies upon the judgment of the VCDA to make those determinations.
F17:
The District has plans in place to expand its property holdings and facilities. The District concurs. Community growth requires more facilities. In addition to attempting to meet this expanding demand through the provision of additional developed park sites, the District also purchases and preserves open space to help protect habitats and view sheds and to provide less formal additional recreational opportunities (hiking, birdwatching, horseback riding, etc.). CONCLUSIONS C-O1. The District does not adequately inform the general public of the mission, duties, and responsibilities of the Ranger Program. (F-06 through F-09) The Report has not requested a District response to the conclusions of the Grand Jury. C-02. A lack of awareness of the mission, duties, enforcement authority, and responsibilities of the Ranger Program has resulted in the District having difficulty obtaining criminal prosecution through the VCDA. (F-02, F-16) The Report has not requested a District response to the conclusions of the Grand Jury. C-03. The District Ranger Program is not staffed to carry out patrol duties on a 24-hour, seven- day-a-week basis, thus leaving the property and facilities vulnerable to criminal acts during the ten hours a day that rangers are not on patrol. Since the District has plans for expansion, additional Ranger staff may be required. (F-01 through F-04, F-13, F-17) The Report has not requested a District response to the conclusions of the Grand Jury. C-04. Without formalized agreements with city and county law enforcement, there is a likelihood that confusion and misunderstandings could result regarding jurisdictional responsibilities and expectations in the event of a significant incident occurring on District property. (F-02, F-11 through
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings & Recommendations
1 findings
F17:
The District has plans in place to expand its property holdings and facilities. Conclusions C-01. The District does not adequately inform the general public of the mission, duties, and responsibilities of the Ranger Program. (F-06 through F-09) C-02. A lack of awareness of the mission, duties, enforcement authority, and responsibilities of the Ranger Program has resulted in the District having difficulty obtaining criminal prosecution through the VCDA. (F-02, F-16) C-03. The District Ranger Program is not staffed to carry out patrol duties on a 24-hour, seven-day-a-week basis, thus leaving the property and facilities vulnerable to criminal acts during the ten hours a day that rangers are not on patrol. Since the District has plans for expansion, additional Ranger staff may be required. (F-01 through F0-04, F-13, F-17) Without formalized agreements with city and county law enforcement, C-04. there is a likelihood that confusion and misunderstandings could result regarding jurisdictional responsibilities and expectations in the event of a significant incident occurring on District property. (F-02, F-11 through
Additional Recommendations
7
Not linked to specific findings.
R01:
coverage of its properties and facilities so that it can better address security needs. This could be accomplished by increasing the number of rangers or contracting with the SVPD and VCSD to provide additional patrol of District properties. (C-03)
R1:
Park Rangers of the Rancho Simi Recreation and Park District will normally conduct and handle to conclusion all infractions they become aware of that occur on Park District property while in the scope and course of their employment.
R02:
The District should execute formal Memoranda of Understanding/Agreement with SVPD and VCSD defining the operational and jurisdictional interface between the Ranger Program and the two agencies. (C-04) The District should establish a mechanism by which SVPD and VCSD
R2:
The investigation and documentation of all misdemeanor and felony crimes are and will remain the responsibility of this Department, with the following exceptions: a. Misdemeanor violations (not requiring a crime report) of state law, and city or county ordinances. Ъ. ARREST AND BOOKING Except in those cases noted in Section A (2) above, Officers of this Department shall assume responsibility for the arrest and booking of suspects in all crimes requiring follow-up investigation.
R03:
report to the Ranger Program all crimes and incidents occurring on District property. (C-05)
R04:
The District should update its official Web site to provide details about the mission and enforcement responsibilities of its Ranger Program. The site should also provide a statistical breakdown of crimes and incidents occurring on District property. (C-01, C-05)
R05:
An annual report about the Ranger Program should be prepared for the District Board of Directors. This report, as well as a brochure, should also be available to the public both on the Web site and in print. (C-01, C-05) Public Safety-RSRPD Final Report Ventura County 2006 - 2007 Grand Jury RECEIVED PARK DISTRICT RANGERS 4.28 DEC 1 8 2006 GENERAL ORDER 0831 VENTURA COUNTYGRAND JURY Date of Last Revision: January 2005 4.28.01 POLICY A. It is the policy of the Department to establish operational policies and procedures with regard to members of this Department who come in contact with Park Rangers of the Rancho Simi Recreation and Park District. Department personnel are expected to provide appropriate law enforcement assistance to Park Rangers. В. Park Rangers of the Rancho Simi Recreation and Park District are peace Officers while on duty and may make arrests, conduct investigations, and complete reports involving criminal matters as necessary to protect Park District property. The Department shall retain final responsibility for all law enforcement matters occurring on Park District property within the City of Simi Valley. C. The primary duty of a Park Ranger is the protection of the parks and other property belonging to the Rancho Simi Recreation and Park District and the preservation of the peace therein. D. Nothing in this policy shall be construed to relieve an Officer of this Department of his or her responsibility to take appropriate enforcement action for any violation committed in his or her presence in any park or any other location. 4.28.02 PROCEDURE A. INVESTIGATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES 1. Park Rangers of the Rancho Simi Recreation and Park District will normally conduct and handle to conclusion all infractions they become aware of that occur on Park District property while in the scope and course of their employment. 2. The investigation and documentation of all misdemeanor and felony crimes are and will remain the responsibility of this Department, with the following exceptions: a. Misdemeanor violations (not requiring a crime report) of state law, and city or county ordinances. Ъ. ARREST AND BOOKING Except in those cases noted in Section A (2) above, Officers of this Department shall assume responsibility for the arrest and booking of suspects in all crimes requiring follow-up investigation. 2. Warrant arrests made by Park Rangers of the Rancho Simi Recreation and Park District will be handled to conclusion by the arresting Ranger. This will include the transportation and booking at a County facility. Ventura County 2006 - 2007 Grand Jury Final Report 4.28 PARK DISTRICT RANGERS GENERAL ORDER 0831
Findings & Recommendations
20 findings
F01:
Ventura County uses three methods of employee recruitment: • Open Recruitment – open to any applicant • Countywide Recruitment – open to any applicant already employed by Ventura County • Agency/Departmental Recruitment – open only to those who are employed in the applicable agency/department. (Personnel Rules Article 3, §306)
F02:
In response to complaints that HR was not sufficiently responsive to countywide recruitment and hiring needs, HR has granted decentralized recruitment and hiring authority to certain county agencies and departments.
F03:
Personnel Rules §304 states, “Each county agency/Department and each major division thereof, as well as each recognized employee organization, shall receive a minimum of one (1) copy of each announcement for distribution and posting.”
F04:
It was alleged by the complainant that thorough distribution and posting of announcements in accordance with §304 requirements do not occur consistently in decentralized agency/department recruitments.
F05:
There is no written guideline “… to insure that a sufficient number of qualified persons apply to meet the employment needs of the County” as specified in §304 of the Personnel Rules.
F06:
Personnel Rules §307 states, “… the Director-HR shall determine whether an agency/Departmental promotional, Countywide promotional or open recruitment shall be conducted.” Instead, this determination has been delegated to staff Personnel Analysts within HR and also to those in the hiring agencies/departments.
F07:
Personnel Rules §307 further states, “Where a sufficient number of employees holding status in lower positions have the requisite skills, knowledge and abilities for the vacancies, a strong consideration shall be given to conducting a Countywide promotional or agency/ Departmental promotional recruitment.” Personnel Analysts have been determining the type of recruitment to be used.
F08:
In County-only or department-only recruitments, the hiring entity establishes the number of applicants from which a candidate may be selected. HR prefers at least five candidates. However, no minimum number is required and it could be as few as one.
F09:
HR recognizes there may be a problem in an open recruitment if there is only one applicant and it has been determined that there are multiple qualified and capable employees. The concern is that an adequate number of people did not have the opportunity to apply. However, HR has not acted on such concerns.
F10:
HR does not consider it to be a problem if the recruitment is department- only and for a special period, and only one or two candidates apply.
Related Recommendations (3)
R01:
The Ventura County Human Resources Department (HR) should take appropriate action to reestablish oversight and control of the County’s HR function. (C-01 through C-04)
R02:
HR should consider revising the County of Ventura Personnel Rules and Regulations (Personnel Rules) to eliminate inconsistencies and ambiguities and to formalize practices based on unwritten policies. (C-01 through C-07, C-09)
R04:
HR should re-establish and maintain control of recruitments and promotions to ensure that decentralized hiring authorities are following Personnel Rules. (C-01 through C-07, C-09)
F11:
The complainant testified that a new position was created and an individual was pre-selected prior to any official posting of the opening. HR agrees that there have been allegations of “wired” (pre-determined) appointments but states that they have never been proven.
Related Recommendations (3)
R01:
The Ventura County Human Resources Department (HR) should take appropriate action to reestablish oversight and control of the County’s HR function. (C-01 through C-04)
R02:
HR should consider revising the County of Ventura Personnel Rules and Regulations (Personnel Rules) to eliminate inconsistencies and ambiguities and to formalize practices based on unwritten policies. (C-01 through C-07, C-09)
R04:
HR should re-establish and maintain control of recruitments and promotions to ensure that decentralized hiring authorities are following Personnel Rules. (C-01 through C-07, C-09)
F12:
The hiring entity and the assigned Personnel Analyst determine the appropriate amount of work experience or education required for a position; however, the Personnel Analyst is responsible for developing minimum qualifications. Normally one year of experience equals one year of education.
Related Recommendations (3)
R01:
The Ventura County Human Resources Department (HR) should take appropriate action to reestablish oversight and control of the County’s HR function. (C-01 through C-04)
R02:
HR should consider revising the County of Ventura Personnel Rules and Regulations (Personnel Rules) to eliminate inconsistencies and ambiguities and to formalize practices based on unwritten policies. (C-01 through C-07, C-09)
R04:
HR should re-establish and maintain control of recruitments and promotions to ensure that decentralized hiring authorities are following Personnel Rules. (C-01 through C-07, C-09)
F13:
The Personnel Analyst screens applications to determine which applicants meet minimum position requirements.
Related Recommendations (3)
R01:
The Ventura County Human Resources Department (HR) should take appropriate action to reestablish oversight and control of the County’s HR function. (C-01 through C-04)
R02:
HR should consider revising the County of Ventura Personnel Rules and Regulations (Personnel Rules) to eliminate inconsistencies and ambiguities and to formalize practices based on unwritten policies. (C-01 through C-07, C-09)
R04:
HR should re-establish and maintain control of recruitments and promotions to ensure that decentralized hiring authorities are following Personnel Rules. (C-01 through C-07, C-09)
F14:
The typical recruitment is open for a minimum ten-day period. Some particularly difficult recruitments (i.e., law enforcement officers, nurses, or those positions with high turnover, such as entry-level clerical staff) are open for continuous recruitment in order to establish lists of prospective candidates.
Related Recommendations (3)
R01:
The Ventura County Human Resources Department (HR) should take appropriate action to reestablish oversight and control of the County’s HR function. (C-01 through C-04)
R02:
HR should consider revising the County of Ventura Personnel Rules and Regulations (Personnel Rules) to eliminate inconsistencies and ambiguities and to formalize practices based on unwritten policies. (C-01 through C-07, C-09)
R04:
HR should re-establish and maintain control of recruitments and promotions to ensure that decentralized hiring authorities are following Personnel Rules. (C-01 through C-07, C-09)
F15:
Personnel Rules §510 states, “Whenever an employee is filling a position in a classification lower than that of the authorized allocation, an underfill situation exists.” To be eligible for promotion to a higher classification a candidate must participate in a formal recruitment.
Related Recommendations (3)
R01:
The Ventura County Human Resources Department (HR) should take appropriate action to reestablish oversight and control of the County’s HR function. (C-01 through C-04)
R02:
HR should consider revising the County of Ventura Personnel Rules and Regulations (Personnel Rules) to eliminate inconsistencies and ambiguities and to formalize practices based on unwritten policies. (C-01 through C-07, C-09)
R04:
HR should re-establish and maintain control of recruitments and promotions to ensure that decentralized hiring authorities are following Personnel Rules. (C-01 through C-07, C-09)
F16:
Personnel Rules §511 provides for a selection interview rather than the normal examination process when, upon written justification by the hiring agency/department and approval by the Director of HR, there are three or fewer applicants for a position.
Related Recommendations (4)
R01:
The Ventura County Human Resources Department (HR) should take appropriate action to reestablish oversight and control of the County’s HR function. (C-01 through C-04)
R02:
HR should consider revising the County of Ventura Personnel Rules and Regulations (Personnel Rules) to eliminate inconsistencies and ambiguities and to formalize practices based on unwritten policies. (C-01 through C-07, C-09)
R04:
HR should re-establish and maintain control of recruitments and promotions to ensure that decentralized hiring authorities are following Personnel Rules. (C-01 through C-07, C-09)
R05:
Personnel Rules §511 should be revised to require final approval by the Director of Human Resources of a promotion by nomination. The Director must not delegate the authority to approve such promotions. (C-08, C-09)
F17:
It is an unwritten County policy to promote from within and then conduct an open recruitment if the internal recruitment is unsuccessful.
Related Recommendations (3)
R01:
The Ventura County Human Resources Department (HR) should take appropriate action to reestablish oversight and control of the County’s HR function. (C-01 through C-04)
R02:
HR should consider revising the County of Ventura Personnel Rules and Regulations (Personnel Rules) to eliminate inconsistencies and ambiguities and to formalize practices based on unwritten policies. (C-01 through C-07, C-09)
R04:
HR should re-establish and maintain control of recruitments and promotions to ensure that decentralized hiring authorities are following Personnel Rules. (C-01 through C-07, C-09)
F18:
An employee who perceives that there has been an unfair recruitment may file a complaint either with his or her supervisor, HR, the Civil Service Commission, his or her union representative, or with the Auditor- Controller’s Waste and Abuse Hotline.
F19:
Exit interviews, held upon the separation of an employee regarding their reason for leaving, have not been consistently conducted.
Related Recommendations (4)
R01:
The Ventura County Human Resources Department (HR) should take appropriate action to reestablish oversight and control of the County’s HR function. (C-01 through C-04)
R02:
HR should consider revising the County of Ventura Personnel Rules and Regulations (Personnel Rules) to eliminate inconsistencies and ambiguities and to formalize practices based on unwritten policies. (C-01 through C-07, C-09)
R04:
HR should re-establish and maintain control of recruitments and promotions to ensure that decentralized hiring authorities are following Personnel Rules. (C-01 through C-07, C-09)
R06:
Exit interviews should be consistently conducted for all terminating employees. The interview should be conducted by a supervisor or manager from a department or agency other than where the terminating employee worked. The results of these interviews should be forwarded to the exiting employee’s department and to HR for analysis in order to improve personnel practices countywide. (C-10) Responses Responses Required From: Ventura County Board of Supervisors (R-01 through R-06) Responses Requested From: Ventura County Human Resources Department (R-01 through R-06) (This page intentionally blank)
F20:
To ensure countywide consistency and uniformity, new policy is being developed by HR for decentralized departments to outline completely their written recruitment process and obtain HR’s approval in advance before opening the recruitment. Conclusions C-01. Adherence to the Personnel Rules has become inconsistent and inequitable as a consequence of decentralizing HR functions. (F-02, F-04 through
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
21 findings
F01:
Ventura Port District Ordinance No. 44 [Ref-01] regulates the use of the Ventura Harbor and properties owned by the District.
F02:
Primary responsibility for enforcement of Ordinance No. 44, as defined in Article 1, §105 of the ordinance, is the Harbor Patrol.
F03:
Harbor Patrol Officers are on patrol every day from 6:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. There is a designated on-call officer during the intervening hours. (Note: The Harbor Patrol discontinued 24-hour staffing in 1991 due to budgetary constraints.)
F04:
From 2:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m., calls to the Harbor Patrol are answered by a recorded message which directs the caller to the on-call Harbor Patrol Officer.
F05:
The Harbor Patrol is staffed with eight full-time positions (including the Harbormaster) and one part-time position. Additional staff is utilized on a per diem basis as needed.
F06:
Harbor Patrol Officers receive hundreds of hours of specialized training as required by the California State Commission on Peace Officers Standards and Training (POST), as well training by the California State Department of Boating and Waterways.
F07:
All full time Harbor Patrol Officers must successfully complete a 20-week training course after which they are certified as Level One Emergency Medical Technicians.
F08:
Harbor Patrol Officers frequently respond to and handle potential high-risk situations where a detention may result, including alarm calls, suspicious persons, persons under the influence of drugs or alcohol, and suspicious vehicles or vessels.
F09:
Harbor Patrol Officers are authorized as California peace officers to carry firearms; however, this authorization is contingent upon a secondary authorization from the District. The District has not authorized its Harbor Patrol Officers to carry firearms, nor do they carry defensive devices such as personal impact weapons or tasers.
F10:
The District does not publish an annual or monthly report of all crimes and incidents occurring on properties owned by the District that the public can readily access and review.
F11:
Federal funding for port security upgrades may be available to the District under the Safe Port Act of 2006 (H.R. 4954). The District has not applied for this funding.
F12:
The VPD is the primary law enforcement agency responsible for providing police services to District-owned properties that lie within city boundaries.
F13:
Reduced staffing levels of the VPD have negatively impacted the delivery of certain services throughout the City, including the District, such as response to alarms and non-injury traffic accident investigation.
F14:
Response time to District-owned properties by VPD may often take 20-25 minutes because of the unique geographic location of the properties within the City.
F15:
There is no VPD sub-station serving the properties owned by the District. There is also no designated beat officer from VPD serving as a waterfront beat liaison to the Harbor Patrol.
F16:
The VPD does not have a patrol boat to patrol or respond to waterfront residents, whether they reside in or out of properties owned of the District. The VPD frequently relies on the Harbor Patrol to provide this service.
F17:
VCSD is the primary law enforcement agency responsible for police services on the ten acres of unincorporated territory that the District owns.
F18:
Maritime law enforcement or rescue assistance is available to the Harbor Patrol from the U.S. Coast Guard station in Channel Islands Harbor, which is over six miles away.
F19:
According to data provided by VPD, property crimes, vehicle traffic accidents, and calls regarding homeless persons loitering on District-owned property have gradually increased during the past three years.
F20:
As an independent special district, the District fully manages its property, facilities, and services with no financial support from the City of Ventura.
F21:
The District has in place major development plans that will greatly increase commercial, residential, and docking facilities within the properties owned by the District. Conclusions C-01. The District does not adequately inform the general public of the mission, duties, responsibilities, and enforcement authority of the Harbor Patrol. (F-02 through F-08) C-02. The District does not compile data or adequately inform the public of crimes and incidents occurring on its property. A more complete compilation and public dissemination of crime data could better identify trends and identify “hot spots” and assist with the deployment and staffing of Harbor Patrol personnel within District-owned properties. (F-03 through
Additional Recommendations
6
Not linked to specific findings.
R01:
The District should consider the feasibility of reinstating 24-hour patrol coverage of its property and facilities. This may be accomplished by either increasing the number of Harbor Patrol Officers or by obtaining additional police services from the VPD. (C-03 through C-07)
R02:
The District should execute formal agreements with VPD and the VCSD defining the operational and jurisdictional interface between the Harbor Patrol and those agencies. (C-04 through C-07)
R03:
The District should revise its official Web site to describe fully the mission, responsibilities, and enforcement duties of the Harbor Patrol. (C-01)
R04:
The District needs to publish in its annual report a section that lists all crimes and incidents occurring on District owned properties. This report should be made available for public review. (C-02)
R05:
The District should consider authorizing Harbor Patrol Officers to carry firearms while on duty. Less lethal devices, such as personal impact weapons or tasers, should also be available to officers. The District should provide funding for the purchase of these defensive weapons, and for additional training. (C-06, C-07)
R06:
The District should review and make application to receive federal grant monies for which it may qualify under the Safe Port Act. Some or all of these monies could be used for purchasing equipment and providing training to the Harbor Patrol. (C-01) Responses Responses Required: Board of Port Commissioners, Ventura Port District (R-01 through R-06) City Council, City of Ventura (R-02) Sheriff, County of Ventura (R-02) Responses Requested: City of Ventura Police Department (R-02) References Ref-01. Ordinance Regulating the Use of Ventura Harbor and Setting Penalties for Violations of any of the Provisions Hereof (on the Web at ). (This page intentionally blank)
Findings & Recommendations
44 findings
F01:
Triunfo Sanitation District (TSD) is an independent special district, formed in 1963, that supplies potable water, reclaimed water, and sewer services to customers within a fifty square mile area in parts of Southeastern Ventura County adjacent to the Los Angeles County line.
F02:
TSD has no employees.
F03:
TSD has outsourced all management and labor positions to Ventura Regional Sanitation District (VRSD). This contract is for the equivalent of approximately 10 full-time positions. Governance
F04:
California Health and Safety Code §§4730 and 4730.1 prescribe how a sanitation district’s board of directors is constituted. The TSD Board is composed of the Chairman of the Ventura County Board of Supervisors (BOS), the Mayor of Thousand Oaks, the Chairman of the VRSD Board (or designees from their respective boards), and two members elected at-large from the TSD service area.
F05:
The two elected TSD Directors must reside within the District’s boundaries. The other three directors may reside elsewhere in Ventura County.
F06:
The Ventura County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) recommended in 2004 that TSD should examine increasing the number of directly elected directors from two to three [Ref-02, §III.1].
F07:
The TSD Board could be reconstituted to be entirely elected at-large from among residents of the TSD service area according to Health and Safety Code §4730.1(b) by following the procedures set forth in §4730.2.
F08:
For many years prior to November 2004, the two “elected” TSD Directors were appointed by the BOS because neither of the elected at-large seats were contested. A non-incumbent ran for election and was defeated in 2004. A non-incumbent candidate ran successfully in 2006, unseating a longtime incumbent. Triunfo Sanitation District
F09:
In March 2005, a motion was made to change TSD’s governance to a fully elected board. However, the motion died for lack of a second.
F10:
In April 2007, the TSD Board again considered the District’s governance: • A motion to have a fully elected board was defeated by a vote of 3-2. • Subsequent motions to replace one or two non-elected directors with elected directors were similarly defeated or died for lack of a second. • TSD’s attorney stated that his preliminary analysis of California codes indicated that an action to increase the number of elected directors would require changing to a fully elected board. • The Board directed its attorney to research this issue more fully, including seeking a formal opinion from the California Attorney General, and then report back to the Board.
F11:
TSD pays $218 per director per meeting or day of service with a maximum of six compensated days per month. The employee portion of Social Security taxes (FICA) is paid by TSD. Directors attend regional and national conferences at TSD expense.
F12:
In fiscal years 2002-2003 and 2005-2006, several TSD Directors attended as many as four conferences in such locations as Palm Springs, Monterey, Napa, and Yosemite National Park as well in Orlando and Washington, DC, at TSD expense.
F13:
A March 2005 memorandum from the VRSD General Manager to the TSD Board of Directors regarding TSD governance stated: Consolidation with Las Virgenes Municipal Water District (LVMWD). I believe this is the best approach environmentally, technically and managerially. The system is currently bifurcated and would continue to be with the above systems [referring to either maintaining the status quo or going to an all-elected board]. This idea was brought to LVMWD several years ago, but there was little interest at that time.
F14:
California Water Code §71060 indicates that a municipal water district can have territory in more than one county. Conflicts of Interest
F15:
Both VRSD and TSD use the same law firm for legal representation.
F16:
The same accounting firm performed both VRSD and TSD annual audits. In March 2007, the TSD Board of Directors hired a firm for its future audits, a firm different from the one used by VRSD.
F17:
The VRSD auditor conducted an exit audit when a former finance director left that district. The July 2004 auditor’s report to VRSD recommended that several actions taken by the former VRSD finance director — actions affecting TSD — be reevaluated to determine whether they were Triunfo Sanitation District 3 appropriate and beneficial. The auditor further recommended that each action should then be ratified or reversed by the VRSD Board.
F18:
The July 2004 exit audit report to VRSD was not presented to the TSD Board until 2006. Two TSD Directors who were also VRSD Directors — as well as VRSD staff serving TSD — received the report when it was originally presented to VRSD, but they failed to bring relevant TSD items in the report to the attention of the other TSD Directors.
F19:
After the July 2004 auditor’s report was presented to the VRSD Board, that Board took none of the recommended actions.
F20:
An October 2000 report by consultant Arroyo Associates [Ref-03] noted that a specific Triunfo District Manager position was to be provided by VRSD. At that time the position was vacant, and how or when it would be filled was uncertain. Currently the VRSD General Manager also serves as TSD District Manager. (See Attachment 1 for a time-line corresponding to findings F-21 through F-26.)
F21:
Prior to the current TSD-VRSD contract for labor and management services, the California Water Service Company (CalWater) was solicited to make a proposal to manage TSD’s water service. Data initially provided to CalWater by VRSD staff was summary information that was insufficient for preparing a meaningful proposal.
F22:
The VRSD General Manager informed the VRSD Executive Committee about the CalWater proposal. In a letter to the Executive Committee, the General Manager stated, “Approval by the TSD Board for a private purveyor contract would cause significant reductions in the VRSD revenues and work force.” Two members of the Executive Committee who were informed of the CalWater proposal were also TSD Directors at that time.
F23:
On a recommendation from VRSD staff (acting as TSD staff), the TSD Board approved a new contract with VRSD more than five months before Brown & Caldwell, an outside consultant, submitted its review of the CalWater proposal. (See F-25.)
F24:
The vote of the TSD Board to ratify the contract with VRSD was 4-0-1, with two TSD Directors who were also VRSD Directors voting in favor.
F25:
A detailed proposal based on more comprehensive data specific to TSD was presented by CalWater to TSD. Brown & Caldwell was retained to evaluate that proposal.
F26:
Brown & Caldwell concluded that the CalWater proposal would be more costly than the VRSD contract. This conclusion was not reported to the TSD Board [Ref-01] until after the ratification of the contract with VRSD. Services
F27:
TSD area sewage is processed by the Tapia Water Reclamation Facility (Tapia), which is jointly owned with the Las Virgenes Municipal Water District (LVMWD) through a joint-powers agreement. Potable water 4 Triunfo Sanitation District purchased from the Calleguas Municipal Water District is distributed by TSD. TSD’s infrastructure for providing both sewer and potable water services is maintained by VRSD as a contractor to TSD.
F28:
TSD owns 29.4% of Tapia, which is located in Los Angeles County adjacent to Malibu Canyon. LVMWD manages operations of Tapia as its majority owner. In this role, operations of LVMWD to provide services within its jurisdiction are kept separate from the operation of Tapia.
F29:
The 1994 ten-year services contract between VRSD and TSD included an option for an independent review of VRSD service performance every two years. The only performance report was completed and submitted to the TSD Board in October 2000 [Ref-03]. Financial Issues
F30:
Acting as fiscal manager for TSD, VRSD placed TSD capital funds into a non-interest-bearing bank account in 2004. The balance in this account fluctuated, at one time reaching $3.1 million. Thirty months later VRSD management stated that the failure to place these funds in an interest- bearing account was an “oversight”.
F31:
In August 2006, TSD was credited with a payment from VRSD of $99,736.36 to compensate for foregone interest earnings on its funds. The TSD Board was informed by VRSD staff that the payment was based on what an interest-bearing account would have earned. However, the actual payment was based on what might have been earned on TSD’s actively managed investment portfolio. (See F-34.)
F32:
VRSD calculated the interest reimbursement and credited it to TSD without any input from or prior approval by the TSD Board.
F33:
In September 2003, approximately $9.6 million of TSD’s $12 million investment portfolio was transferred from accounts in the California State Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) and the County of Ventura pooled investment fund (MCP) into an actively managed bond portfolio.
F34:
In accord with TSD investment policy at that time, much of the bond portfolio was sold prior to maturity and reinvested in an attempt to improve investment returns. Substantial losses and transaction fees were incurred as a result of this policy.
F35:
On three occasions in 2005, VRSD staff recommended that bonds in the TSD investment portfolio be held to maturity. The TSD Board took no action.
F36:
Beginning in 2004, a TSD Director and members of the public expressed repeated concerns regarding ongoing losses in the professionally managed bond portfolio. However, the TSD Board took no action to revise the District’s investment program until 2006. Remaining bonds are now being held to maturity, with resulting proceeds being invested in the State and County pooled investment funds. Triunfo Sanitation District 5 Public Involvement
F37:
According to the California Little Hoover Commission, special districts are often invisible to the public and policy-makers, compromising oversight and accountability. [Ref-04]
F38:
Compared to City Council elections, the electoral process for special districts is less vigorous with fewer competitive races, fewer voters involved, and more seats filled by appointment. [Ref-04]
F39:
A long-standing special district concern is that compensation paid to board members discourages them from giving up their seats in the name of efficiency. [Ref-04]
F40:
TSD Board meetings are sparsely attended except when controversial issues are on the agenda. Meeting notices are posted on the District’s Website and at the Oak Park Library.
F41:
Regular TSD Board meetings are held at 5:15 p.m. on the fourth Monday of each month. Most special districts hold meetings after working hours at a time that would be more convenient to residents. [Ref-02]
F42:
An existing Oak Park water tank was to be replaced by TSD based on a finding of no significant impact (negative declaration). However, community opposition forced further study, which resulted in a requirement to prepare an environmental impact report (EIR).
F43:
Two opposite positions regarding the originally proposed location of a new water tank are: • The site is in a remote location, at a high elevation, on ground that will support the filled structure, not visible from any residence, and is close to the water distribution system. • The site is next to a heavily used hiking trail leading to the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation area, will be illuminated after dark, will spoil views, and will require a paved access road.
F44:
Water and sewer services in the District are more expensive than in surrounding areas for a number of reasons including: • All of the water is high-quality water from the California Water Project, which is significantly more expensive than water pumped from local aquifers. • TSD must repay revenue bonds that were issued to purchase the Oak Park Water Service from a private water company. The water rate is TSD’s only source of revenue for this purpose, thus requiring a rate higher than otherwise required to purchase water and pay operating expenses. • Wastewater effluent from Tapia is not permitted to be discharged into the Malibu Creek Watershed without undergoing expensive tertiary processing. Triunfo Sanitation District Conclusions C-01. TSD rate-payers may be ill-served because three out of five directors are neither elected from nor required to reside in the TSD service area. The TSD Board has considered increasing the number of directly elected directors. While this has not been favored by a majority of the Board, the issue remains unresolved. (F-04 through F-10, F-13, F-18, F-24, F-29) C-02. TSD out-sources its labor and management staff from VRSD. A VRSD Director is also a TSD Director, which presents the appearance of a conflict of interest. (F-02, F-03, F-17 through F-20, F-22, F-23, F-24, F-32) C-03. Employment of the same law firm and the same accounting firm by both VRSD and TSD may give the appearance of a conflict of interest. (F-15,
Additional Recommendations
7
Not linked to specific findings.
R01:
The TSD Board of Directors should be reconstituted to an entirely elected board. (C-01, C-02)
R02:
In order to minimize the appearance of conflicts of interest, TSD should consider: • hiring an individual or retaining a private firm or public agency (other than VRSD or LVMWD) to provide general management and oversight services and to be accountable directly to the TSD Board Triunfo Sanitation District 7 • engaging a law firm different from that used by VRSD (C-03, C-04, C-06)
R03:
A focused review should be conducted for TSD by an independent auditor or other qualified professional to verify that interest earnings reimbursed by VRSD were equitable. (C-06)
R04:
All aspects of major capital projects and issues, including EIRs, should be considered by the TSD Board at well-publicized meetings with notification to stakeholders. (C-05, C-08)
R05:
In order to increase public awareness and involvement, TSD should publicize all meetings in local newspapers and water bills. Community TV coverage should be invited, and notices should be posted in public locations and on the District’s Website. Additionally, annual mailings should be distributed to District rate-payers. In easily understood terms, annual mailings should include: • District mission and purpose • summary financial information presented in a standard format and simple language, including information about reserve funds and their purpose • District policy on the accumulation and use of reserves • plans for the future, including anticipated revenues, expenditures, reserves, trends in user rates, and capital projects • performance and quality of service indicators • Board member benefits and compensation (C-05, C-08)
R06:
The TSD Board of Directors should adopt a formal policy regarding conference attendance. The policy should also require disclosure in the District’s annual report of the number and type of conferences actually attended at District expense. (C-07)
R07:
TSD should explore consolidation with another special district. (C-09) Responses Responses Required From: Triunfo Sanitation District Board of Directors (R-01 through R-07) Other Responses: Responses from individual directors of the Triunfo Sanitation District will be accepted. Triunfo Sanitation District References Ref-01. Brown and Caldwell letter; subject: Analysis of Oak Park Water System Water Storage Replacement Options and Cal Water Operating and Leasing Proposal; dated July 22, 2004 Ref-02. Water and Wastewater Municipal Service Review Report; LAFCO; January 2004 (on the Web at ) Ref-03. Interagency Service Evaluation and Benchmarking Study for the Triunfo Sanitation District; Arroyo Associates, Inc.; October 12, 2000 Ref-04. Special Districts: Relics of the Past or Resources for the Future?; Little Hoover Commission; May 2000 (on the Web at ) Ref-05. “Triunfo County Sanitation District”, County of Ventura Grand Jury Report 1979-1980 Ref-06. Minutes of the Triunfo Sanitation District Board of Directors meeting of January 26, 2004 Attachments 1. Timeline for Approving Current Contract Between TSD and VRSD Triunfo Sanitation District 9 (This page intentionally blank) 10 Triunfo Sanitation District Attachment 1: Timeline for Approving Current Contract Between TSD and VRSD Sep 15, 1977 Original TSD-VRSD contract signed. Nov 1, 1990 Original TSD-VRSD contract modified and extended. Mar 1994 New ten-year TSD-VRSD contract signed. Jul 22, 2003 After two contract extensions, VRSD General Manager memo to TSD Board advising of upcoming March 17, 2004, contract expiration. Oct/Nov 2003 Initial proposal to operate potable and reclaimed water services submitted to TSD by CalWater. Dec 2003 At its December meeting, TSD Board directs CalWater to refine its proposal and present a more comprehensive proposal. From the discussion, VRSD initially provided incomplete information on TSD to CalWater. Jan 2, 2004 VRSD General Manager memo to VRSD Executive Committee (included TSD Directors Gillette and Acosta) re-affirming to the Committee that a competing proposal was being prepared by CalWater to operate potable and reclaimed water services for TSD and that such a change “… would cause significant reductions in the VRSD revenues and work force”. Jan 16, 2004 CalWater memo to VRSD General Manager responding to TSD’s December 2003 directive to refine its proposal. (CalWater requested up-to-date financials, operating expenses, and capital assets for Oak Park Water Service only, since consolidated, general information previously provided by VRSD was of little value.) Jan 26, 2004 VRSD contract renewal approved by a 4-0-1 vote by the TSD Board. CalWater’s revised proposal was still being prepared but not yet received. The new contract with VRSD was approved after two TSD Directors and the joint TSD-VRSD attorney declared potential conflicts of interest. [Ref-06] May 14, 2004 CalWater’s revised proposal submitted to TSD. TSD contracts with Brown & Caldwell to evaluate the proposal. Jul 22, 2004 Brown & Caldwell report to VRSD General Manager validating correctness of January 2004 Board action approving VRSD contract renewal. Triunfo Sanitation District 1 Attachment 1 (This page intentionally blank) 2 Triunfo Sanitation District Attachment 1
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
17 findings
F01:
District Ordinance No. 2 [Ref-01] is an ordinance passed by the District Board of Directors. It establishes rules and conditions governing the use of District parks and facilities and participation in District programs.
F02:
Enforcement of Ordinance No. 2 is the responsibility of the Ranger Program.
F03:
The District Ranger Program currently has three full-time, five part-time, and three special-event rangers to patrol the properties within the District.
F04:
Rangers are on patrol seven days a week from 10:00 a.m. to midnight.
F05:
The Ranger Program compiles monthly statistics of their calls for service and ranger-initiated activities and incidents.
F06:
The Ranger Program does not provide periodic safety reports of any kind to the District Board of Directors.
F07:
The District and the Ranger Program do not provide information regarding District safety statistics to the public.
F08:
The District Board of Directors does not require that an annual report from the Ranger Program be compiled, presented and made available to the general public.
F09:
The current Web site of the District has limited information about the Ranger Program.
F10:
Loitering by homeless persons and gang activity on District property is increasing and frequently requires assistance from either SVPD or VCSD.
Related Recommendations (1)
R01:
The District should consider providing 24-hour, seven-day-a-week patrol coverage of its properties and facilities so that it can better address security needs. This could be accomplished by increasing the number of rangers or contracting with the SVPD and VCSD to provide additional patrol of District properties. (C-03)
F11:
The SVPD is the primary law enforcement agency providing police services to District properties within city boundaries. (See Attachment 1.)
F12:
The VCSD is the primary law enforcement agency providing police services to District properties within unincorporated areas of the County.
F13:
No formalized agreements exist requiring the SVPD or VCSD to provide additional patrol and enforcement on properties owned by the District.
Related Recommendations (1)
R02:
The District should execute formal Memoranda of Understanding/Agreement with SVPD and VCSD defining the operational and jurisdictional interface between the Ranger Program and the two agencies. (C-04)
F14:
No formalized agreements exist with the SVPD or VCSD setting forth operational procedures and liability issues within the Ranger Program.
Related Recommendations (1)
R02:
The District should execute formal Memoranda of Understanding/Agreement with SVPD and VCSD defining the operational and jurisdictional interface between the Ranger Program and the two agencies. (C-04)
F15:
The District has no formalized tracking system for noting responses by the SVPD or VCSD to incidents occurring on District property.
Related Recommendations (1)
R03:
The District should establish a mechanism by which SVPD and VCSD report to the Ranger Program all crimes and incidents occurring on District property. (C-05)
F16:
The District has had difficulty convincing the Ventura County District Attorney’s Office (VCDA) to prosecute citations written by the Rangers.
Related Recommendations (1)
R06:
The District should meet regularly with the VCDA to exchange information and better educate VCDA personnel about activities of the Ranger Program. (C-02) Responses Responses Required From: Rancho Simi Recreation and Park District Board of Directors (R-01 through R-05) Simi Valley City Council (R-02, R-03) Ventura County Board of Supervisors (R-02, R-03) Ventura County Sheriff (R-02, R-03) Ventura County District Attorney (R-02, R-03, R-06) Responses Requested From: Simi Valley Police Department (R-02, R-03) Attachments 1. Simi Valley Police Department, General Order 0831 (Park District Rangers) References Ref-01. Rules and Regulations Governing Use of District Facilities (on the Web at ) (This page intentionally blank)
F17:
The District has plans in place to expand its property holdings and facilities. Conclusions C-01. The District does not adequately inform the general public of the mission, duties, and responsibilities of the Ranger Program. (F-06 through F-09) C-02. A lack of awareness of the mission, duties, enforcement authority, and responsibilities of the Ranger Program has resulted in the District having difficulty obtaining criminal prosecution through the VCDA. (F-02, F-16) C-03. The District Ranger Program is not staffed to carry out patrol duties on a 24-hour, seven-day-a-week basis, thus leaving the property and facilities vulnerable to criminal acts during the ten hours a day that rangers are not on patrol. Since the District has plans for expansion, additional Ranger staff may be required. (F-01 through F0-04, F-13, F-17) C-04. Without formalized agreements with city and county law enforcement, there is a likelihood that confusion and misunderstandings could result regarding jurisdictional responsibilities and expectations in the event of a significant incident occurring on District property. (F-02, F-11 through
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Simi Valley Police Department, General Order 0831 (Park District Rangers) References Ref-01. Rules and Regulations Governing Use of District Facilities (on the Web at ) (This page intentionally blank)
Findings & Recommendations
73 findings
F01:
The Ventura County Auditor-Controller is an elected official who is required to meet the qualifications for the position of Auditor described in California Government Code §26945.
F02:
The Auditor-Controller is the County of Ventura’s Chief Financial Officer and maintains all basic financial information, analyzes accounting reports, and makes appropriate recommendations to the Board of Supervisors (BOS) and County agencies relating to the County’s financial condition.
F03:
The Auditor-Controller is responsible for financial compliance and operational audits of County agencies, public authorities, and dependent districts. County Governance
F04:
The BOS is the governing body of Ventura County. The Board has the authority to adopt ordinances and make appropriations. The final budgets of agencies under both elected and appointed County officials are approved by the BOS.
F05:
County Ordinance No. 4235 (CEO Ordinance) was adopted by the BOS on May 22, 2001, less than two months after the current County Executive Officer (CEO) was hired, to redefine that position and to re-title it from County Administrative Officer to County Executive Officer.
F06:
The CEO Ordinance reflected a change in the role of the County’s chief employee from an administrator to an executive. Failure to Audit
F07:
The CEO Ordinance changed budgeting responsibility from the Auditor- Controller to the CEO. This consolidated budgeting and finance under one office.
F08:
The CEO Ordinance states, “All departmental requests for Board action shall be through the CEO. Board members are encouraged to seek both CEO and County Counsel review of proposed items.”
F09:
The CEO Ordinance established specific duties and responsibilities of the CEO including, “The CEO shall, in cooperation with the Auditor- Controller, supervise, direct, review, and maintain an adequate internal auditing system.”
F10:
Supervisors rely on the CEO and his staff for recommendations on financial management issues.
F11:
The CEO and the Chairman of the BOS set the time allocations for the BOS discussion of agenda items.
F12:
The Auditor-Controller is often involved late or not involved at all in reviewing issues being decided by the BOS that affect the fiscal health of the County.
Related Recommendations (1)
R07:
The BOS should not act on any fiscal or financial issue without first obtaining and acknowledging a written opinion from the Auditor-Controller. This includes, but is not limited to, actions on personnel issues (staffing levels, compensation, and benefits), budgets (including revisions to budgets already adopted), and debt financing. (C-01, C-04, C-17)
F13:
The Auditor-Controller is rarely asked by the BOS for an opinion on issues that affect the fiscal health of the County. County Budget
Related Recommendations (1)
R07:
The BOS should not act on any fiscal or financial issue without first obtaining and acknowledging a written opinion from the Auditor-Controller. This includes, but is not limited to, actions on personnel issues (staffing levels, compensation, and benefits), budgets (including revisions to budgets already adopted), and debt financing. (C-01, C-04, C-17)
F14:
Budgeting was transferred from the Auditor-Controller to the CEO because state law requires that the BOS be responsible for the budget. The Auditor-Controller is independently elected and does not report to the BOS.
F15:
The office of the CEO recommends proposed (target) budgets, including the budget for the Auditor-Controller.
F16:
Agencies requesting budgets greater than the CEO’s target budget, including agencies headed by an elected official, must justify their requested increase to the CEO before the overall target budget is submitted to the BOS.
F17:
Requests for supplemental funding for budgets not included in the target budget document are presented to the BOS without support or recommendation from the CEO. The BOS rarely approves a supplemental budget request.
F18:
The Auditor-Controller has asked for additional audit staff during the past six years. The appeals to the BOS have been denied, as have requests by other County agencies for additional funding.
F19:
In the past five years, the office of the Chief Deputy Executive Officer has grown from two employees to approximately 12, with eight analysts reporting directly to the Chief Deputy. Those reporting directly all earn approximately $100,000 per year. Failure to Audit 3 Audit Division
F20:
Government Code §26884 states, “In the event the BOS elects to require that the county Auditor-Controller perform the additional services [audit] authorized by this chapter it shall have the power and it shall be its duty to provide the proper appropriations for any additional personnel, equipment, supplies or expenses made necessary thereby.”
F21:
The current (March 1, 2007) audit staff consists of two auditors: one with CPA certification and one with a BS degree in accounting. The entry level salary is $38,000 per year.
F22:
The Audit Division is budgeted for two Auditor III positions at $50,000 each and two Auditor IV positions at $70,000 each.
F23:
Current senior level auditor compensation levels are not sufficient to attract and/or retain experienced senior level auditor staff. During 2006, the Audit Division hired three entry-level Auditor I employees at $38,000 each because experienced Auditor III and Auditor IV auditors could not be recruited.
F24:
The audit staff in 2003 consisted of seven people: four CPAs (two of whom had Master’s degrees), two certified internal auditors, and one certified fraud examiner.
F25:
The audit staff in 1991 consisted of ten auditors.
F26:
The Audit Division frequently has open positions which it is unable to fill. The only recruitment advertisement is that which is posted on the County Web site.
F27:
With the exception of the Chief Deputy Auditor-Controller, all current audit staff has been employed by the County for one year or less.
F28:
The audit staff has been weakened due to turnover of experienced auditors seeking career advancement.
F29:
The Audit Plan for 1990-91 for the County of Ventura provided 14,147 direct time audit hours with mostly experienced auditors.
F30:
The Audit Plan for 2006-07 for the County of Ventura provided 5,760 hours with mostly inexperienced auditors.
F31:
The Audit Division is understaffed in numbers and qualifications. With the exception of mandated audits, only cursory other audit activities are being accomplished.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3:
that the BOS take active responsibility for internal audit resources, including annual budget, staffing size, salaries, and position classification.
R08:
The BOS must provide sufficient budgeted resources to the Auditor- Controller to audit each County agency at least once every three years. The BOS must also direct each County organization operating as an enterprise fund to budget sufficient funds to pay the Auditor-Controller to audit them annually. (C-02, C-07, C-09, C-10, C-11, C-14 through C-17) Responses Responses Required From: Board of Supervisors (R-01, R-02, R-03, R-04, R-06, R-07, R-08) Auditor-Controller (R-03, R-05, R-07) Responses Requested From: County Executive Officer (R-04) References Ref-01. Recommended Practice, Establishment of Audit Committees; Government Finance Officers Association; October 25, 2002; see Failure to Audit 13 (This page intentionally blank) 14 Failure to Audit
F32:
County entities with revenues from fees charged to the public for services rendered are termed “enterprise fund” organizations. Such organizations are not currently being audited except for audits mandated by state and federal laws. For example, • The Department of Airports has not had a comprehensive financial audit since 1989. Failure to Audit • No record can be found of the last comprehensive financial audit of the Harbor Department.
F33:
In order to accomplish tri-annual audits of all 26 agencies in the County of Ventura, additional experienced auditors are needed.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3:
that the BOS take active responsibility for internal audit resources, including annual budget, staffing size, salaries, and position classification.
R08:
The BOS must provide sufficient budgeted resources to the Auditor- Controller to audit each County agency at least once every three years. The BOS must also direct each County organization operating as an enterprise fund to budget sufficient funds to pay the Auditor-Controller to audit them annually. (C-02, C-07, C-09, C-10, C-11, C-14 through C-17) Responses Responses Required From: Board of Supervisors (R-01, R-02, R-03, R-04, R-06, R-07, R-08) Auditor-Controller (R-03, R-05, R-07) Responses Requested From: County Executive Officer (R-04) References Ref-01. Recommended Practice, Establishment of Audit Committees; Government Finance Officers Association; October 25, 2002; see Failure to Audit 13 (This page intentionally blank) 14 Failure to Audit
F34:
In the 2001-2002 budget approved by the BOS, three positions were transferred from the Auditor-Controller’s Office to the CEO in order to strengthen the County’s financial management. This resulted in a decrease of three auditors in the Audit Division.
F35:
A supplemental budget request in the amount of $155,000 by the Auditor- Controller to fund replacing those three positions in the Audit Division was not recommended by the CEO and was subsequently denied by the BOS. The Auditor-Controller informed the BOS that this lack of funding would delay the full implementation of the enhanced audit program by leaving audit positions vacant. Prior Grand Jury Reports
F36:
In the Auditor-Controller’s August 14, 2002, response to the report “The Public Administrator and Public Guardian as Conservator” of the 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury, which was sent to the BOS and the CEO, the Auditor-Controller stated, “Because of limited audit resources, audits of the PA/PG must compete with other audit requirements and priorities.”
F37:
In the Auditor-Controller’s July 17, 2003, response to the report “Independent Auditing within Ventura County Government” of the 2002- 2003 Ventura County Grand Jury (2002-03 Grand Jury), which was sent to the BOS and the CEO, the Auditor-Controller stated, “… the internal audit function with the Auditor-Controller’s Office should be strengthened, particularly in light of difficult financial circumstances.” The Auditor- Controller also stated, “We believe the Board of Supervisors is aware of the importance of internal audits for the Auditor-Controller.”
F38:
The Auditor-Controller agreed with 2002-03 Grand Jury recommendation
F39:
The BOS responded to recommendation R-3 in the 2002-03 Grand Jury report by suggesting that individual departments deal with the issue of internal audits through reorganization and the reallocation of resources.
F40:
In the Auditor-Controller’s May 12, 2004, response to the report “Anatomy of an Audit” of the 2003-2004 Ventura County Grand Jury, which was sent to the BOS and the CEO, the Auditor-Controller stated, “We do not have sufficient audit resources to establish a meaningful audit program for the County.” Failure to Audit 5 Internal Control Self-Assessment Program
F41:
Government Code §26881 states, “…Auditor-Controller shall prescribe, and shall exercise general supervision, including the ability to review departmental and countywide internal controls.”
F42:
Auditing, whether contracted through independent CPA firms or performed by the Audit Division, is one of the means used by the Office of the Auditor-Controller to fulfill its statutory responsibilities.
F43:
Under government auditing standards, department management is responsible for establishing an effective system of internal controls to ensure compliance with laws and regulations.
F44:
The tri-annual Departmental Internal Control Self-Assessment Program was initiated by the Auditor-Controller and the CEO in February 2004. Under this plan, every department is responsible for reviewing its internal controls, determining risk areas within its operations, and strengthening its internal control structure.
F45:
The initial efforts of the Internal Control Self-Assessment Program were developed to assist departments to perform the review. Thereafter, the Audit Division would periodically assess each department’s implementation of the Self-Assessment Program and recommend necessary corrective actions.
F46:
Not all county agencies completed the questionnaires and returned them to the Auditor-Controller as required by the Departmental Internal Control Self-Assessment Program. Among those not in compliance was the office of Treasurer-Tax Collector.
F47:
As a result of staff reductions in the Audit Division, no follow-up or review of the Internal Control Self-Assessment Questionnaires has been done.
Related Recommendations (1)
R05:
The Auditor-Controller should issue semi-annual reports on the Internal Control Self-Assessment Program to both the BOS and the Audit Committee on compliance, potential weaknesses in internal controls, and recommended corrective actions. The BOS must budget sufficient resources to make this Program effective. (C-01, C-07, C-09, C-10, C-11, C-15, C-16)
F48:
While all departments have been directed to report to the Auditor- Controller when weaknesses in internal controls are found, compliance is inconsistent. A Breakdown of Internal Controls
Related Recommendations (1)
R05:
The Auditor-Controller should issue semi-annual reports on the Internal Control Self-Assessment Program to both the BOS and the Audit Committee on compliance, potential weaknesses in internal controls, and recommended corrective actions. The BOS must budget sufficient resources to make this Program effective. (C-01, C-07, C-09, C-10, C-11, C-15, C-16)
F49:
In 2005, embezzlement was discovered in the Public Guardian’s Office, resulting in part from a breakdown in that office’s internal controls.
F50:
The Auditor-Controller was not involved in detecting or correcting the breakdown in internal controls in the Public Guardian’s Office.
F51:
A criminal investigation of embezzlement within the Public Guardian’s Office and indictments of those accused in those crimes cost Ventura County over $628,000 through the end of November 2006.
F52:
Restitution to four victims of embezzlement in the Public Guardian’s Office cost Ventura County more than $81,000, plus an additional amount still under negotiation with a fifth victim. Continuing investigation may uncover additional victims. Failure to Audit
F53:
The County has contracted for an outside audit of the Public Guardian’s Office at a cost of $56,750, with an option to expand that audit to include the entire Office of the Treasurer-Tax Collector. Independent CPA Firms
F54:
California statutes provide that the Auditor-Controller has the authority and responsibility for the County’s audit program.
F55:
The Auditor-Controller hires an independent Certified Public Accounting (CPA) firm each year to perform a financial statement audit and express an opinion on those financial statements.
F56:
The independent auditor does not evaluate or express an opinion on the effectiveness of the County’s internal controls.
F57:
The Auditor-Controller has changed audit firms three times in the past three years. • KPMG performed the fiscal year 2003-2004 audit. • Macias Gina performed the fiscal year 2004-2005 audit. • Vavrine, Trine, Day performed the fiscal year 2005-2006 audit. Each of these firms was paid approximately $150,000 for their services.
F58:
Changes in financial audit firms were due to pricing, failure to provide services per contract, and quality of services.
F59:
The CEO allocates funds to selected departments for independent management audits (e.g., review of internal controls, evaluation of department procedures and processes). Departments receiving such budget allocations are not required to notify the CEO if their audits do not exceed $10,000.
F60:
The Auditor-Controller is not included in the decision to hire management auditors, setting the scope of the audits, or informed as to the results of the work.
Related Recommendations (1)
R06:
The BOS should adopt an ordinance requiring the Auditor-Controller’s signature on any contract between a County agency and an independent, outside CPA or management firm for any management, operational, financial, or internal control audit or review of a department within that agency. Such contracts must require that the Auditor-Controller receive any interim and final reports issued to the contracting agency by the outside firm. (C-04, C-06) 12 Failure to Audit
F61:
Department heads are routinely notified that the Auditor-Controller should be involved in scheduling outside audits and participating in audit exit interviews. Audit Committee
F62:
In 1997 and again in 2002, the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) recommended that every governmental entity should establish an audit committee or its equivalent. [Ref-01]
F63:
The auditor of a state or local government’s financial statements must be independent, both in fact and in appearance. A properly constituted audit committee helps to enhance the financial statement auditor’s real and perceived independence by providing a direct link between the auditor and the governing board. [Ref-01] Failure to Audit 7
F64:
One role of an audit committee is to facilitate communication between management, the auditors, and the governing board.
F65:
The GFOA recommends the use of an audit committee to limit the reliance of governing bodies on the technical expertise of the independent auditor.
F66:
According to the GFOA, an audit committee is also useful in helping to focus and document the government’s process for managing the financial statement audit.
F67:
The BOS approved a resolution on March 15, 1983, to create an Audit Advisory Committee. This action was prompted by Recommendation #1 in the report “Auditor-Controller” of the 1981-1982 Ventura County Grand Jury.
F68:
An Audit Advisory Committee of seven members — including a County Supervisor — was appointed in accord with the BOS resolution. However, the Audit Advisory Committee was never able to obtain a quorum for conducting a meeting and subsequently ceased to exist. In the Auditor- Controller’s response to the 2002-03 Grand Jury report, the BOS was informed that the Audit Advisory Committee no longer existed.
Related Recommendations (3)
R01:
The Grand Jury urges the BOS to establish an independent Ventura County Audit Committee by ordinance, using guidelines provided by the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA, Ref-01). Because many of the County agencies that would be audited report to the CEO, the CEO should not recruit or recommend members for the Audit Committee in order to ensure the integrity of the audit process and the independence of the Committee. Although the function of the Audit Committee is to support the efforts of the Auditor-Controller and work cooperatively with that office, independence of the Audit Committee also requires that its members not be recruited or recommended by the Auditor-Controller. (C-01, C-05, C-12, C-17)
R1:
In order to insure that the County meets the newer standards for independent audit the Board of Supervisors establish an effective oversight mechanism to insure adequate audit resources and independence.
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends the establishment of an Audit Oversight Committee reporting to the Board of Supervisors. This committee would be charged with responsibility for oversight of internal controls and independent audits within the County. It would be composed of a Chair, a Co-Chair, The Chief Executive Officer, the Auditor-Controller, the Treasurer–Tax collector as a non-voting member, and one outside member from the private sector appointed by the Board of Supervisors. The Purpose of this committee would be: A. Oversee the establishment and maintenance of the County’s internal control structure. B. Oversee the quality of financial reporting activities. C. Oversee and monitor County compliance with internal controls, pertinent laws, regulations and standards. Failure to Audit D. Oversee the resources allocated to the internal control and internal audit functions. E. Receive regular briefings from the internal audit staff on all planned and inprocess audits. F. Study the Orange County paradigm to internal audits with a view to avoiding potential audit weaknesses. G. Review the possibility of separation of the duties of Auditor-Controller. The Auditor responsibilities would return to its elected status while the Controller responsibility would report to the CEO.
F69:
The CEO is tasked by the CEO Ordinance to track BOS directives and to monitor their implementation.
Related Recommendations (1)
R04:
The BOS and CEO should develop an ongoing process to monitor how County agencies implement Grand Jury recommendations with which they agree. This process should ensure that each affected agency named in the report be made aware of actions other affected agencies are taking, including agencies headed by elected officials. The CEO should present semi-annual reports to the BOS and the Grand Jury on progress toward implementing those agreed-upon recommendations. This recommendation applies to all present and future Grand Jury reports that address County agencies and operations. (C-09)
F70:
The 2002-03 Grand Jury report “Independent Auditing within Ventura County Government” recommended that the BOS establish an oversight mechanism such as an independent audit committee.
Related Recommendations (3)
R01:
The Grand Jury urges the BOS to establish an independent Ventura County Audit Committee by ordinance, using guidelines provided by the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA, Ref-01). Because many of the County agencies that would be audited report to the CEO, the CEO should not recruit or recommend members for the Audit Committee in order to ensure the integrity of the audit process and the independence of the Committee. Although the function of the Audit Committee is to support the efforts of the Auditor-Controller and work cooperatively with that office, independence of the Audit Committee also requires that its members not be recruited or recommended by the Auditor-Controller. (C-01, C-05, C-12, C-17)
R1:
In order to insure that the County meets the newer standards for independent audit the Board of Supervisors establish an effective oversight mechanism to insure adequate audit resources and independence.
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends the establishment of an Audit Oversight Committee reporting to the Board of Supervisors. This committee would be charged with responsibility for oversight of internal controls and independent audits within the County. It would be composed of a Chair, a Co-Chair, The Chief Executive Officer, the Auditor-Controller, the Treasurer–Tax collector as a non-voting member, and one outside member from the private sector appointed by the Board of Supervisors. The Purpose of this committee would be: A. Oversee the establishment and maintenance of the County’s internal control structure. B. Oversee the quality of financial reporting activities. C. Oversee and monitor County compliance with internal controls, pertinent laws, regulations and standards. Failure to Audit D. Oversee the resources allocated to the internal control and internal audit functions. E. Receive regular briefings from the internal audit staff on all planned and inprocess audits. F. Study the Orange County paradigm to internal audits with a view to avoiding potential audit weaknesses. G. Review the possibility of separation of the duties of Auditor-Controller. The Auditor responsibilities would return to its elected status while the Controller responsibility would report to the CEO.
F71:
The responses from the BOS, CEO, and Auditor-Controller to recommendations R-1 and R-2 in the 2002-03 Grand Jury report were generally positive.
F72:
The Auditor-Controller agreed to coordinate with the BOS and the CEO to determine the best course of action in the establishment of an Audit Oversight Committee by September 30, 2003.
F73:
Action to create an Audit Oversight Committee was never taken. Conclusions C-01. By State law, the Auditor-Controller, an elected official, is charged with responsibilities normally associated with those of a chief financial officer. The independence and effectiveness of the Auditor-Controller to perform essential elements of its statutory requirements, including operational audits for the County of Ventura, have been negatively impacted over the past six years. (F-01, F-02, F-03, F-09, F-40, F-54) C-02. Beginning with the adoption of County Ordinance No. 4235 (CEO Ordinance), the Auditor-Controller’s audit function has been compromised by reduced audit staff, reduced budgeted salaries, and potentially insufficient budget for engaging outside auditors. (F-05, F-07, F-18, F-21,
Findings & Recommendations
36 findings
F01:
The Ventura County Watershed Protection District (WPD), as part of its flood control responsibility, has mapped certain flood scenarios and developed maps from which Ventura County Sheriff’s Department’s Office of Emergency Services (VC OES) and local emergency responders can create evacuation plans.
F02:
Repetitive flood areas and levee break/overflows are mapped by WPD with some recommended evacuation routes mapped by VC OES. [Ref-01] • 100-year flood inundation scenarios are mapped for levee break/overflow by WPD without evacuation route recommendations. • 500-year flood inundation scenarios are mapped by WPD for dam failures only.
F03:
The November 15, 2005, Ventura County General Plan, Hazards Appendix, states that there are 20 dams with inundation potential in the County. At least 16 of the 20 are earth-fill dams. (An earth-fill dam is a simple embankment of compacted earth, typically with a watertight core or upstream face of concrete or clay.) [Ref-02]
F04:
According to the Casitas Dam Evacuation Map, published approximately 14 years ago by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR), the downhill water course from a failure of the Casitas Dam will follow the Ventura River, Highway 33, and Ventura Avenue to the ocean. [Ref-03] 2 Ventura County Disaster Evacuation
F05:
California has sustained 16 earthquakes exceeding magnitude 7.0 since 1812, including the following two near Casitas Dam: • a magnitude 7.1 earthquake west of Ventura in the Santa Barbara Channel on December 21, 1812, approximately 10 miles from Casitas Dam • a magnitude 7.9 earthquake near Fort Tejon on January 9, 1857, approximately 50 miles from Casitas Dam
F06:
In 1999, the USBR began a two-year seismic retrofit of the Casitas Dam. This modernization program was engineered to enable the dam to withstand a magnitude 7.0 earthquake.
F07:
According to VC OES, 11 fixed-point warning systems (sirens) were installed in the inundation zone by the USBR during the Casitas Dam seismic retrofit. Operation and maintenance of the sirens were transferred to the Casitas Municipal Water District upon completion of the retrofit. The Ventura County Disaster Council (VCDC) has not decided which agency will ultimately be responsible for these sirens.
F08:
The VC OES has assumed oversight of the Casitas Dam sirens. The sirens are tested quarterly at the direction of VC OES. As of May 2007, several of the sirens are non-operative because of repair needs.
F09:
Since assuming oversight of the sirens, VC OES has repaired some of them, although funds have not been budgeted for regular on-going maintenance. VC OES has estimated that refurbishment of the current system would cost approximately $60,000 to $70,000. Annual maintenance costs would run approximately $10,000 to $15,000.
F10:
VC OES formally proposed to the VCDC that the siren system be decommissioned. As of June 2007, no decision had been made.
Related Recommendations (1)
R02:
The VCDC should decide whether to maintain the fixed-point warning sirens that currently exist near the Casitas and Piru Dams. (C-02 through C-05)
F11:
VC OES also assumed oversight responsibility for the two remote-controlled warning sirens that are located near the Piru Dam. These sirens are operable and are tested monthly by the Ventura County Fire Department. Tsunami
F12:
According to the Tsunami Safety Committee of the California Seismic Safety Commission, more than 80 tsunamis have been observed or recorded along the California coastline during the past 200 years. Nine of these tsunamis caused minor damage in various California ports and harbors, and two caused major damage.
F13:
Although the last destructive tsunami which affected Ventura County was in 1812, several small non-destructive tsunamis have occurred since that time.
F14:
Ventura County is subject to threats from both tele-tsunamis (distance generated, trans-oceanic) and locally generated events from the Santa Barbara Channel and Gulf of Catalina. Ventura County Disaster Evacuation 3
F15:
Ventura County has 42 miles of coastline, approximately half of which is at potential risk for a ten-meter (33-foot) tsunami. A significant number of small communities within the County would be affected by a major tsunami. [Ref-04]
F16:
Japan has developed a very effective tsunami warning system. The Japanese model has shown that the threat to human life during a tsunami can be mitigated by an effective warning system and clearly defined evacuation routes when advance notice is available.
F17:
The West Coast and Alaska Tsunami Warning Center (WCATWC) provides tsunami warning guidance for British Columbia and all west coast states. If the United States Geological Survey detects an earthquake of magnitude 7.0 or greater in the Pacific Ocean, it alerts WCATWC, which monitors pressure sensors in the ocean and tidal gauges along the coast. The WCATWC then alerts the appropriate emergency service organizations on the west coast. For California, that is the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (State OES) in Sacramento, who in turn alerts the VC OES. VC OES is responsible for notifying local communities that would most likely be affected.
F18:
VC OES only makes recommendations to local municipal emergency managers whether to evacuate or not; local authorities are responsible for formulating and executing evacuation plans for their jurisdictions under a tsunami warning.
F19:
In August 2006, the VC OES posted a 52-page Ventura County Operational Area Tsunami Evacuation Plan (Tsunami Evacuation Plan) on its Web site. The stated intent of the plan is to inform the public about potential inundation areas, warning communication systems, and evacuation routes.
F20:
The California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS) has issued an official notification that authorizes local authorities to install tsunami signs in tsunami inundation areas as defined by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). These signs are intended for placement on state highways, local streets and roads, near the coast in parking lots, and at parks and beaches to identify hazard zones and evacuation routes, and to direct road users (including pedestrians and bicyclists) to safe areas.
F21:
There are currently no tsunami evacuation route signs posted in the inundation areas of Ventura County.
Related Recommendations (1)
R08:
The County should obtain approval and/or permits from appropriate governmental agencies for tsunami warning signage in potential inundation danger areas. Signs should be installed as soon as possible. (C-02)
F22:
Several cities along the Pacific coastline in potential tsunami inundation zones have created comprehensive public awareness campaigns to educate residents about the hazards of tsunamis. Such efforts have included the distribution of tsunami brochures throughout the community, installation of public information kiosks at beach access points, and installation of evacuation route signs. Ventura County Disaster Evacuation
F23:
The National Weather Service (a department of NOAA) has established a “Tsunami Ready” certification for jurisdictions that have satisfied certain criteria such as: • the ability to disseminate warnings • having a designated emergency operations center • implementing a community awareness program • designation of hazard zones • development of evacuation plans
F24:
Currently there are 40 “Tsunami Ready” sites in ten states. California sites that have achieved Tsunami Ready certification are the cities of Crescent City, Dana Point, and Huntington Beach, as well as the University of California at Santa Barbara.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
Ventura County, as well as all coastal cities in the County, should meet required standards to obtain “Tsunami Ready” certification from the National Weather Service. (C-05)
F25:
The current County tsunami warning and evacuation plan is to broadcast warnings via the Emergency Alert System (radio, television), helicopter and police vehicle public address systems, and by knocking on doors.
F26:
The Board of Supervisors (BOS) recently voted to implement a “Reverse 911” Interactive Community Notification System, which would allow direct telephone notification to residents throughout the County during emergency situations. This system is not yet fully operational.
Related Recommendations (1)
R11:
VC OES should work closely with the BOS to obtain all funding required to complete the County’s “Reverse 911” notification system. (C-04) Ventura County Disaster Evacuation 7
F27:
Although discussed by VC OES and VCDC, there has been no decision or agreement as to whether a fixed-point audible warning system along the Ventura County coastline should be installed, maintained, and operated.
Related Recommendations (1)
R05:
The VC OES and VCDC should decide if a coastal tsunami audible warning system is necessary and advisable. (C-02)
F28:
According to a December 2005 study by the State of California Seismic Safety Commission titled “The Tsunami Threat for California”, two of the five final recommendations include the necessity for obtaining matching funds from state or federal sources for local jurisdictions. Evacuation Strategies
F29:
The Ventura County Transportation Commission is working on a VCDC proposal to mobilize county bus operators to assist with evacuation transportation. An operational plan is not yet in place.
F30:
Strategies and public educational campaigns to mitigate vehicle traffic gridlock in the event of an evacuation have not been implemented.
F31:
VC OES does not coordinate evacuation training with municipalities except for joint training efforts with coastal cities regarding tsunami evacuations. All law enforcement agencies within the County have been given copies of all disaster plans and maps. VC OES expects each municipality to develop its own evacuation plans, train its own personnel, and distribute appropriate maps. Ventura County Disaster Evacuation 5
Related Recommendations (1)
R01:
VC OES and the VCDC should work with the ten cities in the County to facilitate development of coordinated and integrated emergency evacuation plans for each of these communities. These plans should include how the public and emergency service providers are to be informed of an alert and what their responses should be. These local plans need to recognize that the VC OES is the chief disaster coordinator in the County; the plans need to be readily available to the public. (C-01)
F32:
A “Hot Spots” manual [Ref-05], which identifies areas vulnerable to repetitive flooding, has been developed by VC OES in conjunction with the WPD. The manual is updated annually, and copies are distributed to each emergency response agency to assist responding personnel in the event of an evacuation alert.
F33:
The “Hot Spots” manual does not identify evacuation routes or recommend assembly areas.
Related Recommendations (1)
R07:
VC OES should revise and reissue the “Hot Spots” manual to include evacuation routes and safe assembly areas. A copy should be maintained in every emergency response vehicle within Ventura County. (C-03)
F34:
The November 2003 WPD manual Weathering the Storm [Ref-06] advises residents to plan and practice an evacuation route and to contact the VC OES for a copy of the community flood evacuation plan.
F35:
The VC OES Web site only lists three radio stations (one Spanish language) in the County that will broadcast emergency information.
Related Recommendations (2)
R06:
Any evacuation plans developed by VC OES and the cities or special districts in Ventura County should be publicized and widely distributed. A user-friendly brochure detailing preparedness actions and evacuation routes should be developed for distribution to all residents in the County. As maps and plans are updated, the changes should be similarly publicized. (C-01, C-02)
R09:
All County radio, television, and cable networks should be included in the emergency notification procedure, including broadcasters based in neighboring counties. (C-06)
F36:
The Ventura County Information Systems Department (ISD) Geographic Information Services developed and published a photographic poster of the Ventura County coastline dated October 25, 2006, which shows the evacuation routes for coastal residents living in tsunami inundation areas. This poster is unique and is exhibited in the basement area of the Hall of Administration (near Employee Health). Conclusions C-01. It is important that individuals in susceptible areas be educated about and prepared for flooding, dam failures, and tsunamis before they happen. Evacuation warnings and information without prior public education will not be effective if the public does not receive, know how to use, and act upon this information. A lack of adequate planning could potentially create panic and gridlock, severely hampering the evacuation process. (F-26, F-28 through F-30, F-34 through F-36) C-02. VC OES and VCDC have discussed evacuation signage for floods and tsunamis, as well as continuing research on the effectiveness and necessity of siren warning systems. Experience suggests that the County may need to take a more aggressive approach to educating at-risk communities about the potential dangers they face and what they should do in the event of an alert. (F-28 through F-36) C-03. Emergency responders (e.g., police, fire, paramedics) may not have adequate information and training to respond appropriately in the event of an evacuation order. (F-30 through F-34, F-36) C-04. The current lack of information being disseminated to the public may be the result of inadequate funding and a lack of coordination between different jurisdictions. (F-29 through F-33) C-05. The National Weather Service “Tsunami Ready” certification, if pursued and implemented in Ventura County, would result in an increased level of safety for residents and visitors. (F-23, F-24) 6 Ventura County Disaster Evacuation C-06. Emergency information broadcasts by only three radio stations may not be sufficient. (F-35) Recommendations
Related Recommendations (1)
R12:
The BOS should make available to all public agencies in the County the ISD Geographic Information Services photographic tsunami evacuation poster. The poster should be prominently displayed in all public buildings throughout the County. (C-01, C-03) Responses Responses Required From: Board of Supervisors (R-01 through R-08, R-10 through R-12) Ventura County Sheriff (R-01 through R-03, R-05 through R-07, R-09, R-11) Camarillo City Council (R-01, R-06) Fillmore City Council (R-01, R-06) Moorpark City Council (R-01, R-06) Ojai City Council (R-01, R-06) Oxnard City Council (R-01, R-06, R-10) Port Hueneme City Council (R-01, R-06, R-10) Santa Paula City Council (R-01, R-06) Simi Valley City Council (R-01, R-06) Thousand Oaks City Council R-01, R-06) Ventura City Council (R-01, R-06, R-10) Responses Requested From: Ventura County Fire Protection District (VCFD) (R-01, R-06) Ventura County Transportation Commission (VCTC) (R-06) Ventura County Council of Governments (VCOG) (R-01, R-06) References Ref-01. Repetitive Loss Structure, Repetitive/100-year Floodplain, URS Corporation for Watershed Management Agency, August 30, 2004 Ref-02. “Dams with Inundation Potential” (Table), Ventura County General Plan, “Hazards Appendix”, November 15, 2005 Ref-03. Casitas Dam Evacuation Map, Federal Bureau of Reclamation, 1993 Ref-04. Ventura County Hazards Map: Tsunami Inundation Hazards, U.S. Geological Survey Topographic Quadrangle Map, 2002 Ref-05. Ventura County Sheriff’s Patrol Services Flooding “Hot Spots”, February 2007 8 Ventura County Disaster Evacuation Ref-06. Weathering The Storm, Ventura County Watershed Protection Agency, November 2003 Bibliography The Tsunami Threat To California, State of California, Seismic Safety Commission, December 2005 Tsunami Sign Placement Guidelines, Oregon Emergency Management Modeling Small Area Evacuation, California Department of Transportation, April 2002 Local Planning Guidelines For Tsunami Response, State Office of Emergency Services Be Aware & Prepare: Before Disaster Strikes, American Red Cross, and Oregon Trail Chapter Ventura County Operational Area, Tsunami Evacuation Plan, Office of Emergency Services, August 2006 “1812 California Tsunami Carried A Ship Inland”, Los Angeles Times, January 9, 2005 Tsunamis Within the Eastern Santa Barbara Channel, Jose B. Gorrero et al, USC, American Geophysical Union, 1999 Tsunami, F. Gonzales, Scientific American, May 18, 1999 Could It Happen Here? J. Borrero, USC, Civil Engineering, April 2005 Ventura County General Plan, “Hazards Appendix”, November 2004 Ventura County Disaster Council Ordinance #5320 Additional Bibliography: Internet Web Sites CALTRANS Approved Tsunami Signs:< http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/signtech/signdel/tsunami.htm> About Tsunami’s, California Geological Survey: Tsunami Ready, National Weather Service: , , University of Southern California Tsunami Research Center: Tsunami Evacuation Maps, Oregon Department of Geology: Ventura River Project: Ventura County Tsunami Animation: Ventura County Disaster Evacuation 9 (This page intentionally blank) 10 Ventura County Disaster Evacuation
Findings & Recommendations
51 findings
F01:
The Ventura County employees’ retirement plan (Plan), established by the County in 1947, is a defined benefit plan organized under the County Employees Retirement Act Of 1937 (‘37 Act, California Government Code §31450 et seq.). The Plan is governed by a third-party agency known as the Ventura County Employees’ Retirement Association (VCERA) which serves as administrator and fiduciary for the pension plan trust fund.
F02:
The Plan includes all full-time county employees, Court staff (except Judges), County Supervisors, VCERA staff, and the employees of certain Special Districts.
F03:
VCERA is governed by a nine-member retirement board comprised of: • County Treasurer -Tax Collector • one County Supervisor • three public members appointed by the Board of Supervisors (BOS) 2 Retirement Plan Ventura County 2006–2007 Grand Jury Final Report • one County employee elected by safety employees (e.g., employees of the Sheriff, District Attorney, Fire Department) • two County employees elected by non-safety employees • one County retiree elected by the retirees in the Plan
F04:
Qualifications for the four elected VCERA director positions require only that they be elected by their group. No knowledge of accounting, finance, investments, or pension issues is required.
F05:
Public members are recommended by the County Executive Officer (CEO) and approved by the BOS. One public member has served over 40 years in that capacity; another public member has served over ten years.
F06:
The California Constitution (Article XVI, §17(b)) provides that members of a retirement board of a public pension or retirement system must discharge their duties with respect to the system solely in the interests of, and for the exclusive purposes of: • providing benefits to participants and their beneficiaries • minimizing employer contributions thereto • defraying reasonable expenses of administering the system
F07:
The decisions made by the VCERA Board include assumptions of future inflation; interest rates; and asset allocation of stocks, bonds, and real estate. Additionally, the Board determines which investment advisors, actuaries, and auditors will be retained. Retirement Benefits
F08:
A defined benefit plan is a retirement plan that specifies the benefits each employee receives at retirement. In most plans, the benefit is stated as a percentage of pre-retirement compensation, which is payable for the participant’s remaining life. The defined benefit plan provides a fixed predetermined benefit that has an unknown cost to the employer.
F09:
A defined contribution plan is a retirement plan in which employer contributions are allocated to the accounts of individual employees. One example is a 401(k) plan. The defined contribution plan has a predetermined cost to the employer and provides an unknown benefit to the employee, based upon the rate of return.
F10:
Ventura County and the special districts involved in the Plan guarantee retirees and their beneficiaries lifetime annuities in a defined benefit plan. Payments are generally a function of: • years of employment with the County (plus reciprocity and buybacks) • age at retirement • final credited compensation Ventura County also provides employees with a voluntary 401(k) plan. Retirement Plan 3 Ventura County 2006-2007 Grand Jury Final Report
F11:
Final credited compensation may include salary (excluding overtime pay), shift differential, auto allowance, vacation redemption, flexible benefit credit, education incentive, and County-paid employee pension contribution.
F12:
Monthly retirement benefits are calculated by a VCERA staff analyst, verified by a staff supervisor, re-verified after data entry, and subsequently sample-checked by VCERA’s independent auditors. Plan Oversight
F13:
The BOS does not receive a regularly scheduled briefing on the financial condition of the Plan.
Related Recommendations (1)
R01:
The Ventura County Employees’ Retirement Association (VCERA) should provide annual public reports to the Board of Supervisors (BOS) on the status of the Ventura County employees’ retirement plan (Plan). Each report should include: • current actuarial assumptions relating to compensation increases, investment earnings, and demographics • details about variances between those actuarial assumptions and the past year’s actual experiences • changes in assumptions recommended by VCERA’s actuary, with explanations of why any of those assumptions were not adopted by the VCERA Board • a long-term forecast of the Plan’s funded ratio • fees paid to investment advisors and how those fees relate to the performance of VCERA’s investment portfolio (C-01, C-04, C-05)
F14:
The BOS is not responsible for the amount of required annual contribution, investment of assets, or the administration of the Plan. These decisions are the responsibility of VCERA.
F15:
The elected County Auditor-Controller performed the VCERA audit until 1992, when Proposition 162 gave retirement boards more autonomy. Since that date, an independent CPA firm selected by the VCERA Board has performed the audit. VCERA began using an independent CPA firm because the Auditor-Controller is part of County government, and thus a conflict of interest could exist. Plan Funding and Performance
F16:
Neither the BOS nor VCERA management agrees on how low the funded ratio can fall before they would become concerned. The number varied from 70% to 80%.
F17:
The BOS approves current employee compensation and benefits, often without receiving a thorough written analysis of future impacts on funding the Plan.
F18:
Funded status (assets minus liabilities) of the plan decrease when: • Investment earnings are less than projected. • Salary increases are greater than projected. • Employees retire earlier or retirees live longer than projected.
F19:
The annual report issued by VCERA for the period ended June 30, 2006, [Ref-01] disclosed that the funded ratio (assets divided by liabilities) decreased from 123% on June 30, 2000, to 83% over the six-year period.
F20:
This six-year reduction in funded ratio is equivalent to a decrease in funded status from a positive $368 million to a negative $482 million – an $850 million net change. (See Attachment 1.) Components of this change were: • $99 million from salary and wage increases in excess of actuarial assumptions and unbudgeted headcount additions (See Attachment 2.) • $426 million from investment earnings less than the expected 8% actuarial assumption 4 Retirement Plan Ventura County 2006–2007 Grand Jury Final Report • $325 million from demographics (disability retirements, age at retirement, employee turnover, and longevity in retirement) not in accord with actuarial assumptions
F21:
An increase in the value of the Plan assets because of investment appreciation increases the funded status. At times, this has permitted an enhancement of benefits paid to retirees. Some of these enhancements include: • $108.44 per month to all retirees, effective January 15, 1991. This enhancement is vested for all retirees. • STAR COLA, effective October 1, 1997. Special payments for employees who retired prior to April 1981 and lost over 20% of the purchasing power from their retirement benefit because of inflation. This benefit is non-vested and must be approved annually. • $27.50 to all retirees, effective March 17, 2003. This amount is non- vested and can be discontinued.
F22:
Benefits paid to retirees and the number of retirees both continue to increase. For the six years ended June 30, 2006, the number of retired members collecting benefits increased from 3,520 to 4,570, while the number of active members in the Plan remained constant at 7,403.
F23:
For the three years ended June 30, 2006, all VCERA equity (stock) and real estate investments underperformed their benchmarks (goals).
F24:
During the same three year period, investment management fees paid by VCERA increased from $5.6 million to $7.2 million per year.
F25:
The increase in costs for investment management was the result of retaining additional managers for VCERA’s real estate holdings.
F26:
The Board of VCERA has discussed moving more of the equity portfolio from active to passive management, thereby reducing investment fees.
F27:
The decision on changing actuarial assumptions might sometimes be driven by political considerations.
F28:
VCERA determines Ventura County’s contribution rates early in the calendar year. However, changes in the contribution rates do not become effective until the fiscal year beginning in the following calendar year, 12 to 18 months later. The Cost of the Plan
Related Recommendations (1)
R07:
When VCERA determines changes in required contributions to the Plan, the changes should become effective in the County’s next fiscal year’s budget. The current extra year’s delay in the funding of those changes must be eliminated. (C-07) Responses Responses Required From: Ventura County Board of Supervisors: R-02, R-04, R-05 Ventura County Employees’ Retirement Association: R-01, R-06, R-07 Responses Requested From: Ventura County Chief Executive Officer: R-03 References Ref-01. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2006; Ventura County Employees’ Retirement Association. Ref-02. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2004; Ventura County Employees’ Retirement Association. Ref-03. “Board OKs Pension Benefit Study”, Los Angeles Times, October 4, 2006 Ref-04. “Public Employee Pensions”, Pension Watch, Web site at Ref-05. “Public Pension Price Tag”, Wall Street Journal, August 21, 2006 Attachments 1. Investment Assets vs Actuarial Liabilities 2. Salary Increases Greater Than Projected 10 Retirement Plan Ventura County 2006 – 2007 Grand Jury Final Report Retirement Plan 1 Attachments Ventura County 2006 – 2007 Grand Jury Final Report 2 Retirement Plan Attachments
F29:
Employee contributions for the Plan are currently established at 11.50% of compensation for safety employees and 5.35% for non-safety employees.
F30:
It is customary in governmental defined benefit plans for employees and the employer to share in the cost of the program.
F31:
The BOS in various labor negotiations has agreed to pay some or all employee contributions to the Plan. This agreement is negotiated periodically for a finite period of time. Retirement Plan 5 Ventura County 2006-2007 Grand Jury Final Report
Related Recommendations (1)
R05:
The BOS should eliminate the “pickup” of employee contributions to the Plan when current employee agreements expire. (C-06)
F32:
In fiscal year 2004-2005, the County contributed $25.8 million on behalf of employees as the negotiated vested and non-vested “pickup” of employee contributions.
Related Recommendations (1)
R05:
The BOS should eliminate the “pickup” of employee contributions to the Plan when current employee agreements expire. (C-06)
F33:
In fiscal year 2005-2006, the County contributed $26.8 million on behalf of employees as the negotiated vested and non-vested “pickup” of employee contributions.
Related Recommendations (1)
R05:
The BOS should eliminate the “pickup” of employee contributions to the Plan when current employee agreements expire. (C-06)
F34:
During the three years ended June 30, 2003, while the Plan’s funded status fell from a surplus of $368 million to a deficit of $145 million — a $513 million net change — VCERA did not require any normal (current) employer contributions to the Plan. Ventura County made no employer contributions during this period.
Related Recommendations (1)
R02:
The BOS should establish a Pension Reserve account. When VCERA does not require employer normal contributions to the Plan, an amount at least equal to the previous year’s employer normal contribution should be transferred into the Pension Reserve from the County’s current operating budget. When a funded status deficit occurs in the Plan, Ventura County should make payments to the Plan for that deficit from the Pension Reserve account. (C-02, C-03)
F35:
During this three year period, when the County made no employer contributions, the total required employee contributions were $70.6 million, of which the County paid $60.6 million as its negotiated “pick-up” of employee contributions.
Related Recommendations (1)
R02:
The BOS should establish a Pension Reserve account. When VCERA does not require employer normal contributions to the Plan, an amount at least equal to the previous year’s employer normal contribution should be transferred into the Pension Reserve from the County’s current operating budget. When a funded status deficit occurs in the Plan, Ventura County should make payments to the Plan for that deficit from the Pension Reserve account. (C-02, C-03)
F36:
The California Public Employees Retirement System (CALPERS) required no normal contributions from the City of Oxnard during approximately the same period cited in F-36. During this period, Oxnard chose to apply the money saved to a reserve for future contributions.
Related Recommendations (1)
R02:
The BOS should establish a Pension Reserve account. When VCERA does not require employer normal contributions to the Plan, an amount at least equal to the previous year’s employer normal contribution should be transferred into the Pension Reserve from the County’s current operating budget. When a funded status deficit occurs in the Plan, Ventura County should make payments to the Plan for that deficit from the Pension Reserve account. (C-02, C-03)
F37:
The County annual pension expense includes the normal cost and the amortization of any deficit in funded status. VCERA informs the CEO and the BOS each year how much the County must contribute to the plan for the ensuing fiscal year.
F38:
VCERA does not evaluate specific BOS actions relative to compensation and layoffs to determine if they are within the Plan’s actuarial assumptions.
Related Recommendations (1)
R03:
Actions by the BOS to change employee compensation and employment levels should be monitored by the County Executive Officer (CEO) on an ongoing basis for consistency with VCERA’s actuarial assumptions. When the cumulative effects of BOS actions fall outside the range of actuarial assumptions, the BOS should be notified immediately. (C-02)
F39:
In 2003, the VCERA Board approved a reduction in the assumed rate of return on investments from 8.25% to 8%. This reduction was estimated to have caused an increase of 2.5% of payroll in annual normal pension costs charged to the County plus a significant increase in the funded status deficit.
F40:
Deficits in the funded status are amortized as a level percentage of payrolls, payable by the County over a 15-year period. Each year, new deficits are amortized over a new 15-year period.
Related Recommendations (1)
R06:
VCERA should return to the use of 10-year amortization of deficits or surpluses in the Plan’s funded status, thus avoiding growing deficits or surpluses that may occur when corrective action is delayed. (C-04)
F41:
The June 30, 2004, VCERA annual report [Ref-02] disclosed that the unfunded liability of the Plan had doubled in one year from a negative $145 million to a negative $323 million.
Related Recommendations (1)
R06:
VCERA should return to the use of 10-year amortization of deficits or surpluses in the Plan’s funded status, thus avoiding growing deficits or surpluses that may occur when corrective action is delayed. (C-04)
F42:
On August 16, 2004, the VCERA Board increased the amortization period from 10 years to 15 years, which decreased the County’s annual pension costs.
Related Recommendations (1)
R06:
VCERA should return to the use of 10-year amortization of deficits or surpluses in the Plan’s funded status, thus avoiding growing deficits or surpluses that may occur when corrective action is delayed. (C-04)
F43:
On May 15, 2006, the VCERA Board considered an agenda item to further reduce the actuarial assumption of the rate of investment returns. The actuary suggested a range of 7.75% to 8%. By a vote of 5-4, the Board 6 Retirement Plan Ventura County 2006–2007 Grand Jury Final Report agreed to keep the rate at 8%. The cost of this actuarial change to the County would have been similar to that noted above in F-41.
F44:
The Plan uses an ongoing five-year “smoothing” of the difference between actual investment results and the expected investment return.
F45:
The total unrecognized investment gain as of June 30, 2006, is $174 million. As a result of smoothing, this amount will be recognized over the next five years.
F46:
VCERA, with its own governing board, is an independent governmental entity separate and distinct from the County of Ventura.
F47:
The County borrowed $154 million in 1995 in the form of Pension Obligation Bonds (POBs). This new debt covered a deficit in the Plan’s funded status.
F48:
POBs had the effect of exchanging the County’s obligation to VCERA for the deficit in the funded status for an increase in the County’s debt load.
F49:
POBs are debt instruments that the County has used to fully fund a shortfall in the Plan in a single payment. This debt is repaid with interest over a 15-year period.
F50:
POBs will cost the County $20 million in interest and principal in 2006-2007 with a final payment of $12 million due in 2007-2008.
F51:
Ventura County has no plans at this time to use POBs for meeting its obligations to the Plan. Conclusions C-01. The Board of Supervisors (BOS) has not been routinely briefed on the details of the Ventura County employees’ retirement plan’s (Plan) funded status. As a consequence, the public may be unaware that the Plan’s funded ratio has fallen from 123% (a surplus) to 83% (a deficit) in a span of six years. During three of the six years, the County was not required to, and did not make, any normal employer contributions to the Plan. (F-13,
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
17 findings
F01:
The report “Court Ordered Anger Management Classes” by the 2004-05 Grand Jury contained 23 findings from which five conclusions were drawn.
F02:
The conclusions in the 2004-05 Grand Jury report led to two recommendations for VCPA.
F03:
Recommendation R-01 requested tighter monitoring of providers of anger management programs, including unannounced site visits. According to VCPA, that recommendation has been implemented with one exception: counseling sessions are not observed by VCPA. (See F-16 and F-17 below.)
F04:
In recommendation R-02, the 2004-05 Grand Jury requested a copy of the revised policy on purging documents relating to anger management clients. That policy was received and reviewed by the 2005-06 Grand Jury.
F05:
A Domestic Violence Court Team — consisting of representatives from VCPA, Ventura County District Attorney, Superior Court, and providers approved by VCPA — meets monthly to review the BIPs.
F06:
The BIPs operate under the written “Standards and Guidelines” (last updated in June 2006), which is based on California Penal Code §§1203.097-1203.098. Client Complaints
F07:
Issues discussed at the monthly meetings of the Domestic Violence Court Team include complaints from clients.
F08:
All clients are individually contacted on a regular basis by VCPA to assess their progress. During these contacts, the clients are asked how they are relating to their counselors.
F09:
VCPA investigates all valid complaints lodged by clients against their counselors.
F10:
VCPA’s “Standards and Guidelines” describes how complaints are to be handled.
F11:
In the period from November 2005 through October 2006, only one client lodged a formal complaint against a provider. This complaint was investigated but not substantiated. However, the client was reassigned to a different provider.
F12:
In this same 12-month period, client complaints lodged directly with VCPA generally fell into two categories: • complaints against being ordered into the program • complaints against having to pay for both supervision by VCPA and counseling fees As those complaints were not related to services rendered by the providers, VCPA did not investigate them.
F13:
Complaints about fees are referred to the Superior Court Collections Office for resolution.
F14:
VCPA also receives client complaints about a lack of transportation to program sessions. Such complaints are not sufficient to relieve clients from their court-ordered participation in the program. Monitoring of Providers
F15:
Subsequent to the 2004-05 Grand Jury report, VCPA changed its method by which provider approvals are renewed. The process is documented in the “Standards and Guidelines”.
F16:
There is unscheduled monitoring of providers by VCPA. This does not include observations of counseling sessions.
F17:
The providers are unanimously adamant that the presence of outside observers at counseling sessions is disruptive to the extent that such sessions are rendered invalid. VCPA agrees with the providers that observed sessions should not count towards the court-ordered number of sessions (usually 52) in which a client must participate. Conclusions C-01. With the exception of VCPA observing counseling sessions, the recommendations of the 2004-05 Grand Jury have been implemented. (F- 02 through F-04, F-15 through F-17) C-02. The anger management program has a formal process through which clients may lodge complaints with VCPA. (F-06 through F-11) C-03. Anger management clients do lodge complaints against providers and against the program in general. Clients may be reassigned to different providers as a result of complaints. (F-07 through F-14) C-04. Providers of anger management programs are regularly monitored by VCPA. (F-15, F-16) Recommendations None Responses A copy of this report is being issued to the Ventura County Probation Agency; no response is requested. Bibliography Domestic Violence Batterers’ Intervention Programs: Standards and Guidelines; Ventura County Probation Agency; June 6, 2006 (This page intentionally blank)
* This report's PDF did not contain easily extractable text and required Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for analysis. There may be minor errors in the extracted findings and recommendations due to OCR limitations with scanned documents.