This letter is the formal response of the City of California City to the April 18, 2018 Kern County Grand Jury report entitled City of California City “A Tale of a City”. After reviewing the Findings and Recommendations it is apparent that they are based mostly upon unattributed statements and there was no apparent attempt to ascertain a factual basis for the findings or the basis of the recommendations. One is hard pressed to respond, given the limitation of asking those who were bound to silence about anything said or provided to the Grand Jury. Nonetheless, the following is offered for your consideration.
FINDINGS:
F 1. Disagree. The Mayor and Council visit City Hall as needed in their official capacity at varying times. The table detailing frequency of visits is only partially accurate. The Mayor likely does put in 40 plus hours per week in performing her duties but only a very small portion of this time is spent at City Hall. The Mayor represents the City and the City Council in a broad range of local boards, regional boards and commissions. Given the requirement of the Mayor as the signatory on many official documents and co-signer on checks she is at City Hall several times each week.
The other members of the Council visit City Hall on an irregular basis. Some visit a few times each week others a few times each month. The variation is based upon specific Council assignments to represent the City.
F 2. Disagree. This finding asserts that Council Members meeting with the City Manager weekly could be a violation of the Ralph M. Brown Act (California Government Code Section 54950 et seq.) if the same discussion is shared among the other Council Members. In the normal course of conducting the City’s business the City Manager is free to meet with anyone desiring to do so, whether the public or Council Members. Unless the purpose of meeting with the Council Members is to divide them into non-quorum sized groups to “poll them” on an issue they would be deciding on, there is no violation of the Brown Act. There is no indication that the former City Manager “polled” the Council at any of the meetings where they would “discuss issues and answer agenda questions”. The current City Manager has not seen the reported level of involvement from Council members and has not in any way violated the Brown act as the Grand Jury warns of. It seems to have escaped the Grand Jury that a well-informed Council Member would take full advantage in gaining insights to the decisions that would come their way by gathering all available information before a Council meeting. Talking with the City Manager would be one effective way of preparing themselves to make the best possible decisions for the City.
F 3. Agree.
F 4. Agree.
F 5. Agree.
F 6. Agree.
F 7. Disagree. Since the Grand Jury provides no attributable statements it is difficult to put this matter into perspective. The reality is that the portion of the building that was the subject of the red tag is the subject of litigation between a former tenant and the owner. The former tenant has waged a campaign to use the city code enforcement resources to bolster his claims in the litigation. He has produced a myriad of photos and his attendant notes. This ongoing civil tort action has never involved the City as a party. The interior space that is not occupied may have various code violations, as do many unoccupied buildings in the City. When such violations do not present an imminent hazard, no action will be taken until the space is to be occupied. The unattributed statements in the report contain partial truths and many errors. Since portions of the building are being used as church, it is not surprising that on the visits by the Grand Jury Committee, people and vehicular activity were observed. Due to the ongoing litigation and the past efforts of the prior tenant to use the City as a tool to harass the owner, code enforcement officers have been directed to only respond to complaints that would indicate a real danger. Management must at all times balance the demands for service - with the financial and operational capacity of any city operation in allocating time and resources. Consequently, it is sometimes necessary to place complaints on a hierarchy of response.
F 8. Agree.
F 9. Agree.
F 10. Disagree. We can find no record of any individual or business owning, managing or controlling 7,000 parcels in the City. Again, without attribution the claims of the Grand Jury cannot be corroborated.
F 11. Agree.
F 12. Disagree. The City Clerk is hired by and reports to the City Manager. The stated duties are correct.
F 13. Disagree. At the time of the Grand Jury investigation there was a backlog of City Council meeting minutes. This backlog has been reduced and progress continues. Minutes of Council Meetings are always set on the Consent Calendar and any member of the Council, citizens, or staff may request to have an item removed from consent for discussion before a vote is considered.
F 14. Agree.
F 15. Agree.
F 16. Agree.
F 17. Disagree. How could someone report on the results of the Council’s actions being 3-2-0, or 2-2-1 if they could not access the minutes?
F 18. Agree.
F 19. Disagree. We cannot find any indication that emails have been removed from the City servers. None of the employees who manage the email servers or the contractor who diagnoses and repairs the City management information system has heard of this issue or are aware of any deletion of emails as described in the report. Again, without a time, place, or person to contact to verify which email accounts were affected there is no way to investigate and resolve any concerns.
F 20. Agree.
F 21. Disagree. There have been no instances where an employee has been written up after interviewing with the Grand Jury. No employees have filed complaints of harassment after interviewing with the Grand Jury or providing documents to the Grand Jury.
F 22. Disagree. The fee structure for the Cannabis permits is clearly stated and has been implemented as drafted. The city uses a central point of collecting fees and payments. This ensures funds are properly receipted and accounted for. There are no indications that funds for Cannabis permits have not been accounted for correctly. The Committee spoke to individuals away from the workspace and expected each to have a detailed memory of the questions which were asked of them. There does not appear to be any effort on the part of the Grand Jury Committee to conduct even a cursory check on the statements they use to make a finding. All people in the chain of collecting funds from Cannabis and other fees report that they understand the coding for receipting these funds.
F 23. Disagree. Account clerks are like all people. They make mistakes whether directly supervised or not. Staffing for the cashier area is adequate for the resources of the City and the margin of errors is well within any reasonable standard for similar operations.
F 24. Agree.
F 25. Disagree. The City Council only hires the City Attorney and City Manager. The City Clerk is hired by the City Manager. All other parts of this finding are correct. It is interesting to note the Grand Jury Committee in this finding can draw the conclusion that the Community’s perceptions about the Mayor are “unsubstantiated” while allowing many equally unsubstantiated comments and assertions throughout their report to go forward without the same conclusion.
F 26. Agree.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
R 1. This recommendation runs counter to the statutory responsibilities of both the City Council and the City Manager. There is nothing the Ralph M. Brown Act that precludes or limits the individual Councilmembers and the Manager from meeting outside of City Council meetings. It would be unlikely that a Council member could do an adequate job of representing their constituents without meeting as needed with the City Manager to enquire about issues of concern to their constituents or in preparations for Council meetings.
R 2. The City Manager, with oversight by the City Council, is tasked with directing and managing all the operations of the City. In our City Municipal Code, Sec. 2-1.102., it clearly identifies that the City Council does not control or direct the actions of any city employee except for the City manager. Having said that, the City Manager has not directed any of the listed employees to take any actions based upon who the affected property owner may be.
R 3. The completion and posting of minutes by the City Clerk has been addressed and will continue to be monitored for timeliness and accuracy.
R 4. Updates to the City web site are ongoing and the goal of the City is to continue improving this tool to communicate with the citizens.
R 5. The security of the city’s email processing has been reviewed and found to be in line with records retention regulations.
R 6. The City Manager, department heads, and supervisors will continue to be trained in all aspects of effective supervision, conflict resolution, and harassment. There have been no reported instances of harassment or whistleblowing retaliation for sharing information with the Grand Jury.
R 7. The City’s most recent audits do not indicate any reasons for the costly forensic audits recommended. Indeed, the unattributed accusations, rumors, and inaccurate conclusions of the City’s finances and controls have been shared regularly with the State Auditor and District Attorney. Had there been any merit to these allegations, both would have initiated investigations and filed charges. Consequently, the City will not be ordering forensic audits of its financial transactions.
R 8. The responsibility to Complete the Correction Action Plan for the June 30, 2017 Financial audit is the responsibility of the City Manager (who is doing so) and not the City Council. Should the City Council assume these responsibilities they would be violating their own ordinance, State statutes on general law cities, and the basic role of the legislative body to oversee the financial management of the City by holding the City Manager accountable.
It is unfortunate that the Grand Jury has been used as a bludgeon by individuals and groups to air their unfounded grievances. The effect of cloaking these grievances in the secrecy required of the Grand Jury process simply adds fuel to the fire and does little to engender faith in either local government or the Grand Jury itself. We apologize for our citizens and critics (sometimes they are the same people) wasting your valuable time.
Sincerely, Robert Stockwell, City Manager
July 23, 2018
Mojave Desert News
No comments:
Post a Comment