Friday, August 27, 2010
By Matthew Hedger
E. Peterson & Company
A copy of the City of Sutter Creek's proposed response to the 2009/2010 Amador County Grand Jury report has been released prior to a special city council meeting Aug. 30, expected to draw a vociferous crowd.
The draft response begins by saying city leaders appreciate the seriousness of issues raised and acknowledges a jury finding that the council has "final overall responsibility for all aspects of the city's operations."
It does, however, say that the jury was "incorrect" in its comments suggesting councilmembers were unaware of many issues.
"This implies that if it were not for the Grand Jury Report, many of these issues would never have been revealed or corrected," states the response, penned largely by Sutter Creek City Manager Sean Rabe. "This is incorrect, especially regarding the Finance, Administration and Personnel section of the report. The City Council has taken very significant actions to correct many of these issues long before they were referred to the Grand Jury."
In all, the draft says the council agrees with 53 jury findings in the finance, administration and policy section of their report, partially agreed with 3 findings, and disagreed with 6 statements, including one suggesting the use of city credit cards to pay for meals with consultants and contractors, and then seek reimbursement from same, was a conflict of interest. It also rejects a suggestion that the city's finance department be required to report directly to the council, and a suggestion to renegotiate city employee contracts.
"The city council feels that although there is significant support for this issue, the benefit package of city employees is a matter for collective bargaining process rather than the Grand Jury," states the draft response.
An exhortation in the jury's report calling for citizens to become actively involved to help city government "avoid defaulting to continued mismanagement" is referred to in the response as "an unwarranted insult and below the professional standard expected of a Grand Jury recommendation."
City leaders also disagreed with the jury's finding that their public-funded partnership with the privately held Amador Council of Tourism could be a conflict of interest.
Regarding jury findings concerning the city's Sanitary Sewer Management Plan, the preliminary response from the city is largely agreeable, and recommends implementing many of the jury's recommendations. But the city disagreed on several other points, including an allegation that much of the SSMP work had been neglected due to the city's "budget crisis."
The city also agreed with many of the jury's statements concerning the Waste Water Treatment Plant, including a finding that the plant was not operating as planned. City leaders have stopped short, however, of agreeing with an allegation that a $2.2 million upgrade to the plant was a failure, saying that suggestion is premature, pending a final review and report on plant operations, expected within 90 days. The council also responded that it "agrees in part" with a finding that the WWTP effluent is currently exceeding Regional Water Quality Control Board standards and that the plant modifications "did not establish compliance." The council also agreed that sub-contractors hired to perform the work were poorly managed. A slew of problems identified with the plant is the subject of an independent analysis currently being conducted, which is expected to be completed and presented to the council by the end of the year. Financial problems associated with the plant have been referred to the new finance director, who is expected to report on his findings within 90 days.
Grand Jury findings of perceived problems facing the city's police department were, by and large, accepted by city leaders, with many of the jury's recommendations to solve them listed as implemented. Many of the procedural and staffing issues identified have been alleviated by the departure of the multi-tasked former Chief of Police Rob Duke and the subsequent hiring of a new chief. The city disagreed with a jury allegation that a shortage of staff officers was causing them to be reactive, rather than proactive.
"There is not enough evidence to support this finding," states the report, "The SCPD has a long history of effective investigations and successful prosecution of major crimes."
Procedural changes related to animal control within the city which caused confusion and were identified in the jurys' report have also been addressed, according to the city's response. The city has re-implemented their contract with the county for animal control services, and all officers have been apprised of proper procedures. The council is disagreeing with a recommendation that the agreement with the county be renewed annually, pointing out it has been in force continously since 2005 and is self-renewing.
The city provided two attachments to the draft response, one, listed as an audit committee preliminary report, and the second, a task list related to financial control issues. Both documents outline the city's continued attempts to codify and manage tasks the jury felt were not being performed correctly.
A special city council meeting to discuss the preliminary draft response to the Grand Jury Report is scheduled for 7 p.m. in the Community Center.
http://www.ledger-dispatch.com/news/newsview.asp?c=273620
No comments:
Post a Comment