CALIFORNIA CITY – The Kern County Grand Jury’s report released Monday paints the government of California City as dysfunctional and cliquish, with 26 different findings ranging from code enforcement problems to a lack of transparency and even violations of state transparency and whistleblower protection laws.
“The city government is in need of guided directions,” the report read. “It appears that many employees and council members believe they are in full control of the city business. But actually, personal bias appears to be in charge of the city. Most decisions seem to be made based on personalities, which are not necessarily good for the city.”
Rather than this report coming from a routine inspection, the Grand Jury came to town after numerous complaints were filed by local citizens.
The Grand Jury recommends that the mayor and council members stop meeting with the city manager outside of city council meetings; that meeting minutes be approved and posted in a timely manner; that code enforcement be allowed to do its job regardless of who owns the property; and that the city manager and department heads be trained on how to become better leaders, how to supervise staff, and how to resolve conflicts in the workplace, while not harassing city employees who act as whistleblowers, among other recommendations.
At the top of the list of findings is what appears to be the state transparency law violation.
According to the report, the mayor and council members met with the previous city manager on a weekly basis to inquire into city business. This action would be a violation of the Ralph M. Brown Act (California Government Code Section 54950), if the same discussion is shared among the other Council Members. The previous city manager, Tom Weil, stated in an interview with the Grand Jury that it was standard procedure to discuss issues and answer agenda questions with each of the council members prior to each city council meeting. The current city manager, Robert Stockwell, stated in a Grand Jury interview that most inquiries are now phone calls rather than frequent office visits.
The report stated the grand jury interviewed 21 current and former employees, and of those, eight said they had filed a grievance, complaint or concern about the working conditions. The Human Resource Director was involved in the resolution of most of these complaints resulting in promotions, resignations, placement on administrative leave for over a year, or reassignment to another supervisory position.
But some city employees shared concerns with the Grand Jury that they were harassed by supervisors or were written up for minor details after having interviewed with the Grand Jury’s committee. Although the report didn’t spell out that this would be a law violation, California Labor Code section 1102 states that an employer may not retaliate against a whistleblower.
Regarding code enforcement, one of the two code enforcement officer positions was vacant at the time of the Grand Jury’s visit, and the department is under the supervision of the fire chief after having been under the police chief and the city manager within the past 10 years. The Code Enforcement Department can red-tag a building when it’s not permitted or is unsafe, and the tag isn’t to be removed until the problem is safe.
But the report highlighted a few instances of interference with the Code Enforcement Department doing its job.
An unoccupied building was red-tagged at a local mall in August 2017 after a citizen complaint prompted an investigation that found two men working and living in the building. The fire marshal red-tagged the building due to finding living quarters. But city officials removed the red tag after the owner complained to the city and the living quarters were removed. The fire marshal was not able to gain access to ensure there were no violations with the electrical wiring, sprinklers, safety concerns, or storage of items. Code enforcement officers and the fire marshal were directed by city officials not to go back, according to the Grand Jury report.
People the Grand Jury interviewed regarding that building showed pictures of vehicular activity there, and stated the place was used as a church, nursery, storage area and office. Activity finally stopped in the first week of April, and the building might now be vacant, nearly eight months after the initial red tag.
The report also states that of the 54,000 parcels in town, about 7,000 are owned, managed, or otherwise under the control of one man and/or his companies. Code enforcement officers were told not to inspect some of them, according to the report.
Regarding late minutes, the report pointed out that the minutes for meetings on Aug. 8 and Sept. 26, 2017, council meetings weren’t approved until March 13, 2018. Also, during the Dec. 28, 2017, council meeting, one item on the consent agenda approved the minutes for meetings held on March 14 and 28, April 11, May 2, 9 and 23, June 13, and Sept. 12, 2017. The Grand Jury committee found that the approved minutes had many inaccuracies with the voting record of the council members.
Meanwhile, the city has a lack of public transparency, according to the report. The mayor and council members’ contact information isn’t readily available to the public, the city website isn’t up to date with photos or contact information of council members, and minutes aren’t published in a timely manner. It’s gotten to the point that people who want to know what goes on at the council meetings will watch the video or read posts and comments on social media.
The grand jury found at least two instances of emails between employees disappearing from the city’s email server, and several emails from city employees to the grand jury have also disappeared.
Although the city has passed ordinances allowing the cultivation, manufacturing and transport of cannabis, several departments have a hand in the permitting process, with multiple places to go to pay fees or get needed documents. Several employees at the front window can receive and receipt funds and fees, which can lead to inaccurate accounting.
So far, four cannabis businesses have been approved. But due to conflicting statements to the committee, it’s not clear how many funds have actually been received. About 185 applicants have started the process and paid at least some of the fees, but not all fees were entered under the same budget code, making it difficult to reconcile.
The account clerks at the payment window in City Hall collect payments for water bills, cannabis permits, business licenses, and other city charges. But the report said direct supervision is sometimes lacking, and there are instances of refund checks and account credits being issued for the same accounts.
The Grand Jury also found that not all council members were completely accurate on their Form 700 (Statement of Economic Interests with the California Fair Political Practices Commission) filed in September 2017.
There was one small bright spot toward the end of the list of findings, though.
“Community perception that the mayor has hired friends as city employees, dismissed employees that oppose the mayor, and issued cannabis business permits to friends is unsubstantiated,” the report stated. “In actuality, the mayor and council members, working as a body, only hire the city clerk and city manager. The city manager hires, dismisses, and disciplines all city employees. The city council is involved in the appeal process for employee discipline.
“The city council as a unit, will issue cannabis permits after all phases and vetting processes are completed.”
The city is legally required to respond to the report within 90 days.
The full report is posted on the Kern County Grand Jury website at www.kerncounty.com/grandjury/. This report and others are filed under “Early Releases.”
April 24, 2018
Mojave Desert News
By Aaron Crutchfield
No comments:
Post a Comment