The Tribune (San Luis Obispo, Calif.) June 26, 2010
By Sarah Linn, The Tribune, San Luis Obispo, Calif.
June 26--Atascadero Unified School District officials recommended hiring Atascadero High School principal E.J. Rossi despite allegations that he had misappropriated public funds at another school district, according to a grand jury report.
"When we hired Mr. Rossi (in 2007) as assistant principal, it was our understanding that the issues with his former district had been resolved," district Superintendent John Rogers said. "Apparently the issue wasn't resolved. That became revealed later."
In its nine-page report, the civil grand jury examined whether Atascadero Unified failed to perform due diligence in hiring and promoting Rossi.
Rossi worked as a superintendent and principal for the San Ardo Union School District in Monterey County from September 2003 to July 2007. He accepted the position of assistant principal at Atascadero High School in August 2007.
Days after Rossi's departure, however, the San Ardo district discovered about $6,000 in missing equipment and funds, the grand jury found. Rossi agreed to pay restitution.
Then an annual district audit for fiscal year 2006-07 revealed "improper accounting and documentation leading to a shortage of $56,000," the grand jury reported. The shortage was attributed to Rossi. Another audit ordered by the Monterey County schools superintendent confirmed those findings.
The Monterey County District Attorney's Office also investigated the case, concluding in January 2009 that there was insufficient evidence to support criminal prosecution.
When San Ardo learned Atascadero was eying Rossi as a potential principal, the school district sent copies of its audit findings to the Atascadero Unified School District Board of Trustees and school administrators. San Ardo's superintendent also discussed the situation with an Atascadero administrator, the jurors found.
"Testimony revealed that this information was not shared with the hiring committee, and it was disregarded because the audit referred to 'the previous superintendent' rather than to Mr. Rossi by name," the grand jury said.
When Rossi approached Atascadero's superintendent and director of human services "to explain he was under investigation," the grand jury reported, "both chose to treat this as a minor misunderstanding between Rossi and his former employer and again, failed to inform the hiring committee."
In addition, jurors found that Atascadero Unified conducted only two telephone reference checks when considering Rossi for the principal position. (The Monterey County schools superintendent later denied being contacted by Atascadero Unified.)
"Our typical practice is to have six," Rogers said. "Why six weren't recorded? I can't answer that at this point."
Rogers said he couldn't speak about what information was shared by Atascadero administrators with the hiring committee, as he was on medical leave "pretty much through the hiring process."
However, he noted the allegations that Rossi had misappropriated funds were viewed as just that.
"Certainly, the more information that's available, the better the decisions are going to be," Rogers said. "At the same time, the information needs to be other than allegations. ... That's problematic too, to make decisions based on other than what is known."
Rossi, who became the Atascadero High School principal in August 2008, signed a settlement agreement in December 2009 in which he agreed to repay $32,000 of the missing $56,000.
"To our view, the conflict was resolved satisfactorily by both parties," Rogers said.
In its report, the grand jury also investigated allegations that Rossi mishandled student activity funds at Atascadero High, but it was unable to find supporting documentation.
Jurors recommend that Atascadero Unified implement a new policy requiring the superintendent to conduct a full investigation whenever civil or criminal complaints are lodged against staff members. The grand jury also recommends that the district contract with an outside agency to conduct pre-employment background checks on job candidates with access to public funds.
The Atascadero Unified School District has until Sept. 16 to respond to the grand jury report.
"We will be reviewing district hiring practice and modifying it as it is appropriate to do so," Rogers said.
-----
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Contra Costa Grand jury report cites appearance of conflict of interest in First Five
By Rick Radin
Contra Costa Times
Posted: 06/26/2010 04:02:37 PM PDT
Updated: 06/26/2010 05:43:49 PM PDT
A recent Contra Costa County civil grand jury report criticized First Five Contra Costa for what it said is an appearance of a conflict in interest in awarding contracts, but commissioners say they already comply with a key recommendation.
"A Commissioner who has a financial interest in the awarding of a contract is (now) required to disclose the interest and recuse him or herself from the vote," according to the report. He or she is not required, however, to abstain from discussion or leave the room during the vote, the report said.
"Take a board member who gets $1 (million) or $2 million for his business and he is able to be in on the discussion and then he's there when the vote takes place," said jury foreman Ron Tervelt. "There could be an intimidation factor, the appearance of an ethics violation."
First Five Contra Costa invests Proposition 10 tobacco tax revenues in local health and education programs for expectant parents and children birth to age 5.
Commissioners who may be awarded contracts are required to recuse themselves from discussion and votes on the contracts, said Supervisor Susan Bonilla, of Concord, the board's representative on the commission.
Since March, commissioners have also had to leave the room when these discussions and votes take place, said First Five Executive Director Sean Casey.
Tervelt said First Five may have made the changes because of the questions jurors asked during the investigation.
Casey said commissioners made the changes based on what they learned was going on in other counties during an annual review of conflict of interest issues with county counsel.
The probe was done last fall and the report was released April 28.
The panel asked that Contra Costa's First Five avoid appointing commissioners who would be likely to bid on contracts.
However, First Five's governance structure mandates that service providers fill some commission seats because they have critical expertise, said Sherry Novick, head of the statewide First Five association.
The grand jury also recommended that the commission change auditors periodically to assure an independent assessment of First Five's finances.
The panel undertook the probe because it received complaints about the commission, according to the report.
The complaints included allegations of conflict of interest, misappropriation of funds, manager bias, favoritism and sexual harassment.
The grand jury report found no wrongdoing in these areas.
First Five Contra Costa and the board of supervisors will issue replies to the report in late July or August, Bonilla said.
Contra Costa Times
Posted: 06/26/2010 04:02:37 PM PDT
Updated: 06/26/2010 05:43:49 PM PDT
A recent Contra Costa County civil grand jury report criticized First Five Contra Costa for what it said is an appearance of a conflict in interest in awarding contracts, but commissioners say they already comply with a key recommendation.
"A Commissioner who has a financial interest in the awarding of a contract is (now) required to disclose the interest and recuse him or herself from the vote," according to the report. He or she is not required, however, to abstain from discussion or leave the room during the vote, the report said.
"Take a board member who gets $1 (million) or $2 million for his business and he is able to be in on the discussion and then he's there when the vote takes place," said jury foreman Ron Tervelt. "There could be an intimidation factor, the appearance of an ethics violation."
First Five Contra Costa invests Proposition 10 tobacco tax revenues in local health and education programs for expectant parents and children birth to age 5.
Commissioners who may be awarded contracts are required to recuse themselves from discussion and votes on the contracts, said Supervisor Susan Bonilla, of Concord, the board's representative on the commission.
Since March, commissioners have also had to leave the room when these discussions and votes take place, said First Five Executive Director Sean Casey.
Tervelt said First Five may have made the changes because of the questions jurors asked during the investigation.
Casey said commissioners made the changes based on what they learned was going on in other counties during an annual review of conflict of interest issues with county counsel.
The probe was done last fall and the report was released April 28.
The panel asked that Contra Costa's First Five avoid appointing commissioners who would be likely to bid on contracts.
However, First Five's governance structure mandates that service providers fill some commission seats because they have critical expertise, said Sherry Novick, head of the statewide First Five association.
The grand jury also recommended that the commission change auditors periodically to assure an independent assessment of First Five's finances.
The panel undertook the probe because it received complaints about the commission, according to the report.
The complaints included allegations of conflict of interest, misappropriation of funds, manager bias, favoritism and sexual harassment.
The grand jury report found no wrongdoing in these areas.
First Five Contra Costa and the board of supervisors will issue replies to the report in late July or August, Bonilla said.
Grand Jury Recommends City Police Patrol Fresno County Islands
In an effort to save the county money Fresno county grand jury members have recommended that "Fresno Police" provide law enforcement for county islands.
Right now Sheriff's deputies serve those areas.
According to the report grand jury members believe the current patrol system is inefficient and agencies struggle with boundary confusion.
Nearly fifty thousand people live in the county islands city and county leaders are now on the clock they have sixty days to provide written responses to the grand jury's recommendations.
http://www.cbs47.tv/news/local/story/Grand-Jury-Recommends-City-Police-Patrol-County/Xjxkmk1TLU-4mvz4BsMvEg.cspx
Right now Sheriff's deputies serve those areas.
According to the report grand jury members believe the current patrol system is inefficient and agencies struggle with boundary confusion.
Nearly fifty thousand people live in the county islands city and county leaders are now on the clock they have sixty days to provide written responses to the grand jury's recommendations.
http://www.cbs47.tv/news/local/story/Grand-Jury-Recommends-City-Police-Patrol-County/Xjxkmk1TLU-4mvz4BsMvEg.cspx
Grand jury: More public scrutiny needed for Placer County supes’ $100,000 donation pot
By Gus Thomson, Journal Staff Writer
Placer County supervisors need to tighten up on the $100,000 they donate every year from county coffers to non-profits and community organizations, the grand jury says.
In a report made public Friday, the Placer County grand jury said it found there is no current system in place for all requests – accepted and denied – to be publicly reviewed.
And there is no follow-up to document how funds that were approved were used, the report said.
At issue is a sometimes-controversial $100,000 funding pot at the disposal of supervisors that provides sums from hundreds of dollars to thousands of dollars for what they consider worthy causes.
Four of the five supervisors – Jim Holmes, Robert Weygandt, Kirk Uhler and Rocky Rockholm – make their own recommendations to the board. The grand jury reports that supervisors’ aides filter the requests and forward only the ones they recommend for approval to their district supervisor. From there, they go to the county executive officer for inclusion on the board agenda.
District 5 Supervisor Jennifer Montgomery inherited a committee system from her predecessor Bruce Kranz, who had opposed the donations because he considered them a campaign “slush fund.”
Event coordinator Linda Robinson of Auburn Family Night Out said the funding her group regularly receives from supervisors has helped in a time when gross revenues have declined because of the economic downturn.
Robinson said Auburn Family Night Out would have no problem providing more information on how the funds were spent.
“We gratefully accept them and they’re well-used,” she said.
The grand jury report said that its investigation found no method in place to track applications that were denied.
And the grand jury said the depth of information in applications was spotty – with some consisting of nothing more than a flier.
Rosemary Frieborn, humane officer with the Humane Society of the Foothills, said the idea of more transparency through public airing of both accepted funding applications and denials is a good idea.
Frieborn, who has clashed with board members over animal care issues, said her group has received funds in the past when supervisors asked her to apply. The money was well-used to help fund the Cat House rescue center and buying a veterinary trailer but Frieborn said hard economic times dictate that the funding program be suspended.
“There are too many other things that are being cut back on,” Frieborn said. “When you’re calling a county department and they’re saying that they can’t help that day because of staff cutbacks then it’s time to put this giveaway on hiatus for awhile.”
While the grand jury report doesn’t address the validity of the fund as a whole, it does state that policies are in place but not being followed as supervisors distribute the $20,000 each of the five is allocated for their districts.
Instead, the board has been “inconsistent and non-compliant” when applying its own criteria for revenue-sharing funding requests, the report states.
Supervisors and CEO Tom Miller are being asked to respond to a series of grand jury recommendations that include:
* All requests for revenue sharing funds, including those being denied, are publicly noticed for review on the board’s agenda
* The board requires all organizations receiving revenue sharing funds submit documentation within 30 days after an event stating the funds were used for the approved request.
* If an organization fails to submit the post-event documentation, they will not be eligible for future funding
* Use of a standard application form for all five districts.
Other issues tackled by the grand jury include city managers’ salaries, the availability of audit information and more businesslike libraries. A more extensive report on other grand jury findings will appear in a future edition.
The Journal’s Gus Thomson can be reached at gust@goldcountrymedia.com.
http://auburnjournal.com/detail/153112.html?content_source=&category_id=&search_filter=&user_id=&event_mode=&event_ts_from=&event_ts_to=&list_type=&order_by=&order_sort=&content_class=1&sub_type=&town_id=
Placer County supervisors need to tighten up on the $100,000 they donate every year from county coffers to non-profits and community organizations, the grand jury says.
In a report made public Friday, the Placer County grand jury said it found there is no current system in place for all requests – accepted and denied – to be publicly reviewed.
And there is no follow-up to document how funds that were approved were used, the report said.
At issue is a sometimes-controversial $100,000 funding pot at the disposal of supervisors that provides sums from hundreds of dollars to thousands of dollars for what they consider worthy causes.
Four of the five supervisors – Jim Holmes, Robert Weygandt, Kirk Uhler and Rocky Rockholm – make their own recommendations to the board. The grand jury reports that supervisors’ aides filter the requests and forward only the ones they recommend for approval to their district supervisor. From there, they go to the county executive officer for inclusion on the board agenda.
District 5 Supervisor Jennifer Montgomery inherited a committee system from her predecessor Bruce Kranz, who had opposed the donations because he considered them a campaign “slush fund.”
Event coordinator Linda Robinson of Auburn Family Night Out said the funding her group regularly receives from supervisors has helped in a time when gross revenues have declined because of the economic downturn.
Robinson said Auburn Family Night Out would have no problem providing more information on how the funds were spent.
“We gratefully accept them and they’re well-used,” she said.
The grand jury report said that its investigation found no method in place to track applications that were denied.
And the grand jury said the depth of information in applications was spotty – with some consisting of nothing more than a flier.
Rosemary Frieborn, humane officer with the Humane Society of the Foothills, said the idea of more transparency through public airing of both accepted funding applications and denials is a good idea.
Frieborn, who has clashed with board members over animal care issues, said her group has received funds in the past when supervisors asked her to apply. The money was well-used to help fund the Cat House rescue center and buying a veterinary trailer but Frieborn said hard economic times dictate that the funding program be suspended.
“There are too many other things that are being cut back on,” Frieborn said. “When you’re calling a county department and they’re saying that they can’t help that day because of staff cutbacks then it’s time to put this giveaway on hiatus for awhile.”
While the grand jury report doesn’t address the validity of the fund as a whole, it does state that policies are in place but not being followed as supervisors distribute the $20,000 each of the five is allocated for their districts.
Instead, the board has been “inconsistent and non-compliant” when applying its own criteria for revenue-sharing funding requests, the report states.
Supervisors and CEO Tom Miller are being asked to respond to a series of grand jury recommendations that include:
* All requests for revenue sharing funds, including those being denied, are publicly noticed for review on the board’s agenda
* The board requires all organizations receiving revenue sharing funds submit documentation within 30 days after an event stating the funds were used for the approved request.
* If an organization fails to submit the post-event documentation, they will not be eligible for future funding
* Use of a standard application form for all five districts.
Other issues tackled by the grand jury include city managers’ salaries, the availability of audit information and more businesslike libraries. A more extensive report on other grand jury findings will appear in a future edition.
The Journal’s Gus Thomson can be reached at gust@goldcountrymedia.com.
http://auburnjournal.com/detail/153112.html?content_source=&category_id=&search_filter=&user_id=&event_mode=&event_ts_from=&event_ts_to=&list_type=&order_by=&order_sort=&content_class=1&sub_type=&town_id=
San Mateo County can't afford to offer extra health services for the poor and uninsured, grand jury says
by BY BONNIE ESLINGER
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Posted: 06/25/2010 07:54:44 PM PDT
Updated: 06/25/2010 07:55:16 PM PDT
San Mateo County Medical Center should stop treating poor and uninsured patients through programs that aren't mandated or funded by the state and federal governments because it relies too heavily on growing county subsidies to operate, a new civil grand jury report recommends.
On the chopping block should be long-term care to indigent elderly patients, full health-care services to undocumented adults and to individuals and families with incomes between 100 to 200 percent of the federal poverty level, and optional Medi-Cal services such as acupuncture and podiatry, according to the San Mateo County civil grand jury.
Concern about the medical center draining the county's coffers is not new: Within the past six years, the board of supervisors has launched several studies, a work group and a task force to assess the disparities between what health services are mandated, needed and offered.
The grand jury found that San Mateo County offers more health services than is legally required and offered by other California counties.
San Mateo is one of nine counties among the 58 in California that provide full health care services to illegal immigrants.
Also, like other Bay Area counties, San Mateo County allows individuals and families with incomes higher than the federal poverty level to receive health services mandated by the state for the "medically indigent." Instead of 100 percent, San Mateo allows incomes up to 200 percent. San Francisco has set its ceiling at 500 percent.
And while some California counties, including Alameda and Fresno, eliminated optional Medi-Cal services — such as podiatry, optometry, acupuncture and chiropractic — after the state stopped covering them last year, San Mateo County has not, according to the grand jury report.
"The county should consider eliminating programs that are not mandated by, or fully funded by, federal or state monies," the grand jury recommends.
Supervisor Carole Groom said she disagrees with the report's conclusion.
"We're a civilized community and a civilized country and we have to take care of people," Groom said. "It's not just the right and decent thing to do, it's a public health issue. You can't have people ill out on the street."
As required, the county will draft a formal response to the grand jury report, said spokesman Marshall Wilson. He noted that the health-care services also serve a preventative role that "ultimately saves money by reducing costly visits to the emergency room."
Bill Blodgett, the grand jury's foreman, said he understands that supervisors frequently reflect the socially progressive values of their county. In difficult financial times, however, the county just can't afford to be as generous.
"We'd love to do everything for all people, but the fact is the revenues aren't there," Blodgett said. "It's not easy, but our elected officials need to make the call on how far we are going to go to serve the indigent."
On Wednesday, the board adopted a $1.7 billion budget for the coming fiscal year. To offset a deficit of $126 million, the county plans to take $90 million from its dwindling reserves and cut $36 million from programs. But the deficit could increase by up to $100 million, depending on state budget decisions, according to County Manager David Boesch.
The $242.1 million medical center operation received a $66.6 million subsidy from the county this fiscal year. Almost 7 percent of San Mateo County's estimated 718,989 residents are living below the poverty level, according to the grand jury report, and 7.6 percent are uninsured.
http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_15371543?nclick_check=1
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Posted: 06/25/2010 07:54:44 PM PDT
Updated: 06/25/2010 07:55:16 PM PDT
San Mateo County Medical Center should stop treating poor and uninsured patients through programs that aren't mandated or funded by the state and federal governments because it relies too heavily on growing county subsidies to operate, a new civil grand jury report recommends.
On the chopping block should be long-term care to indigent elderly patients, full health-care services to undocumented adults and to individuals and families with incomes between 100 to 200 percent of the federal poverty level, and optional Medi-Cal services such as acupuncture and podiatry, according to the San Mateo County civil grand jury.
Concern about the medical center draining the county's coffers is not new: Within the past six years, the board of supervisors has launched several studies, a work group and a task force to assess the disparities between what health services are mandated, needed and offered.
The grand jury found that San Mateo County offers more health services than is legally required and offered by other California counties.
San Mateo is one of nine counties among the 58 in California that provide full health care services to illegal immigrants.
Also, like other Bay Area counties, San Mateo County allows individuals and families with incomes higher than the federal poverty level to receive health services mandated by the state for the "medically indigent." Instead of 100 percent, San Mateo allows incomes up to 200 percent. San Francisco has set its ceiling at 500 percent.
And while some California counties, including Alameda and Fresno, eliminated optional Medi-Cal services — such as podiatry, optometry, acupuncture and chiropractic — after the state stopped covering them last year, San Mateo County has not, according to the grand jury report.
"The county should consider eliminating programs that are not mandated by, or fully funded by, federal or state monies," the grand jury recommends.
Supervisor Carole Groom said she disagrees with the report's conclusion.
"We're a civilized community and a civilized country and we have to take care of people," Groom said. "It's not just the right and decent thing to do, it's a public health issue. You can't have people ill out on the street."
As required, the county will draft a formal response to the grand jury report, said spokesman Marshall Wilson. He noted that the health-care services also serve a preventative role that "ultimately saves money by reducing costly visits to the emergency room."
Bill Blodgett, the grand jury's foreman, said he understands that supervisors frequently reflect the socially progressive values of their county. In difficult financial times, however, the county just can't afford to be as generous.
"We'd love to do everything for all people, but the fact is the revenues aren't there," Blodgett said. "It's not easy, but our elected officials need to make the call on how far we are going to go to serve the indigent."
On Wednesday, the board adopted a $1.7 billion budget for the coming fiscal year. To offset a deficit of $126 million, the county plans to take $90 million from its dwindling reserves and cut $36 million from programs. But the deficit could increase by up to $100 million, depending on state budget decisions, according to County Manager David Boesch.
The $242.1 million medical center operation received a $66.6 million subsidy from the county this fiscal year. Almost 7 percent of San Mateo County's estimated 718,989 residents are living below the poverty level, according to the grand jury report, and 7.6 percent are uninsured.
http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_15371543?nclick_check=1
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Grand jury questions Hercules affordable housing, business loan programs
By Tom Lochner
Contra Costa Times
Posted: 06/19/2010 08:41:25 PM PDT
Updated: 06/20/2010 05:24:47 PM PDT
By Tom Lochner
tlochner@bayareanewsgroup.com
The Contra Costa civil grand jury is accusing Hercules of questionable practices and a lack of transparency in its affordable housing and business loan programs.
In a report titled "The Crumbling Pillars of Hercules -- Casting a Shadow of Impropriety," the grand jury examines the city's relationship with NEO Consulting Inc./Affordable Housing Solutions Group. The company, once owned by City Manager Nelson Oliva, did $950,000 worth of business with the city this fiscal year and last, running a half-dozen programs ranging from affordable housing to "general administration support."
NEO's business with Hercules is poised to grow to more than $1.1 million in fiscal year 2010-11, part of a list of city contract renewals totaling about $6.6 million that is on Tuesday's City Council consent calendar.
"Hercules officials routinely award public service agreements to NEO ... bypassing any competitive bidding process," reads a segment of the grand jury report's summary.
Oliva divested himself of his financial stake in NEO -- the initials stand for Nelson E. Oliva -- a few months before he became city manager in April 2007, ceding ownership of the company to two of his daughters, Hercules officials have said.
Hercules Mayor Kris Valstad said last week the city is taking the grand jury report seriously and that some of the points it raises, including what he characterized as "the nepotism issue," have already been addressed. For several months now, members of Oliva's family have not owned any interest in NEO, said City Attorney Mick Cabral.
Two Oliva daughters -- Taylor Oliva, a December college graduate, and Adrianna Oliva, a 2009 high school graduate -- were CEO and Chief Financial Officer of NEO Consulting Inc. according to a Statement of Information filed with the California Secretary of State in July 2009. The two also were directors of the company, along with another sister, Gabrielle Oliva. NEO general manager Walter McKinney and Nelson Oliva's administrative assistant at City Hall, Eguzki Olano, are the other directors listed on the July 2009 statement.
The company filed an updated Statement of Information in February showing McKinney and Olano as the only two directors and McKinney as the sole officer. The company's "principal executive office," according to the February statement, continues to be at the same address in Southern California as in the company's initial, 2005 statement filed by Nelson E. Oliva.
The company's Web site, www.affordablehousingsolutionsgroup.com, as of Friday, described Taylor Oliva as the company's president and "guiding force," part of a four-person leadership team that also includes McKinney, former City Manager Mike Sakamoto, and his son, Jonathen Sakamoto.
The Web site notes the company's current involvement in construction management and its success in landing $7.8 million in state grants for the $50 million-plus, Hercules Redevelopment Agency-sponsored, mixed-use Sycamore North project, to include 96 affordable housing units.
Taylor Oliva could not be reached Thursday at the affordable housing office, located in a portable next to Hercules City Hall. On Friday, Jonathen Sakamoto, who answered the phone, said she was in a meeting.
The grand jury report also chastises the city for not recording and not keeping minutes of council subcommittee meetings; for making deals involving agency-owned or agency-financed residential properties away from public view; for failing to advertise agency-owned residential properties for sale to the general public; and for providing loans to city officials or family members.
Cabral questioned the accuracy of the grand jury report.
"There are many factual errors that need to be corrected, beginning with the outrageous title that has no relationship to the substance of the report," Cabral said. He did not specify the putative errors and said the city will provide a detailed response within the time allowed.
The city has until Aug. 2 to respond to the grand jury's findings and recommendations, which include calls for more ethics and conflict of interest training and more transparency.
The NEO list of contract renewals for 2010-11 on Tuesday's consent calendar include: Affordable Housing Program, $408,500; Sycamore North management, $240,000; Community Beautification Program, $150,000; Portfolio Administration and Compliance, $60,000; General Administration Support, $120,000; and Business Development Loan Program, $50,000. The list also includes a program that was not on the previous year's list: Wastewater Treatment Plant Development services, $90,000.
Details of the contracts were not included with Tuesday's agenda packet. There was no discussion of the contracts when the list went before the council Finance Subcommittee last week.
# if you go What: City Council meeting
# Where: Hercules City Hall, 111 Civic Drive
# When: 7 p.m. Tuesday
# Grand jury report: http://www.cc-courts.org/_data/n_0038/resources/live/rpt1013.pdf
http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_15335872?nclick_check=1
Contra Costa Times
Posted: 06/19/2010 08:41:25 PM PDT
Updated: 06/20/2010 05:24:47 PM PDT
By Tom Lochner
tlochner@bayareanewsgroup.com
The Contra Costa civil grand jury is accusing Hercules of questionable practices and a lack of transparency in its affordable housing and business loan programs.
In a report titled "The Crumbling Pillars of Hercules -- Casting a Shadow of Impropriety," the grand jury examines the city's relationship with NEO Consulting Inc./Affordable Housing Solutions Group. The company, once owned by City Manager Nelson Oliva, did $950,000 worth of business with the city this fiscal year and last, running a half-dozen programs ranging from affordable housing to "general administration support."
NEO's business with Hercules is poised to grow to more than $1.1 million in fiscal year 2010-11, part of a list of city contract renewals totaling about $6.6 million that is on Tuesday's City Council consent calendar.
"Hercules officials routinely award public service agreements to NEO ... bypassing any competitive bidding process," reads a segment of the grand jury report's summary.
Oliva divested himself of his financial stake in NEO -- the initials stand for Nelson E. Oliva -- a few months before he became city manager in April 2007, ceding ownership of the company to two of his daughters, Hercules officials have said.
Hercules Mayor Kris Valstad said last week the city is taking the grand jury report seriously and that some of the points it raises, including what he characterized as "the nepotism issue," have already been addressed. For several months now, members of Oliva's family have not owned any interest in NEO, said City Attorney Mick Cabral.
Two Oliva daughters -- Taylor Oliva, a December college graduate, and Adrianna Oliva, a 2009 high school graduate -- were CEO and Chief Financial Officer of NEO Consulting Inc. according to a Statement of Information filed with the California Secretary of State in July 2009. The two also were directors of the company, along with another sister, Gabrielle Oliva. NEO general manager Walter McKinney and Nelson Oliva's administrative assistant at City Hall, Eguzki Olano, are the other directors listed on the July 2009 statement.
The company filed an updated Statement of Information in February showing McKinney and Olano as the only two directors and McKinney as the sole officer. The company's "principal executive office," according to the February statement, continues to be at the same address in Southern California as in the company's initial, 2005 statement filed by Nelson E. Oliva.
The company's Web site, www.affordablehousingsolutionsgroup.com, as of Friday, described Taylor Oliva as the company's president and "guiding force," part of a four-person leadership team that also includes McKinney, former City Manager Mike Sakamoto, and his son, Jonathen Sakamoto.
The Web site notes the company's current involvement in construction management and its success in landing $7.8 million in state grants for the $50 million-plus, Hercules Redevelopment Agency-sponsored, mixed-use Sycamore North project, to include 96 affordable housing units.
Taylor Oliva could not be reached Thursday at the affordable housing office, located in a portable next to Hercules City Hall. On Friday, Jonathen Sakamoto, who answered the phone, said she was in a meeting.
The grand jury report also chastises the city for not recording and not keeping minutes of council subcommittee meetings; for making deals involving agency-owned or agency-financed residential properties away from public view; for failing to advertise agency-owned residential properties for sale to the general public; and for providing loans to city officials or family members.
Cabral questioned the accuracy of the grand jury report.
"There are many factual errors that need to be corrected, beginning with the outrageous title that has no relationship to the substance of the report," Cabral said. He did not specify the putative errors and said the city will provide a detailed response within the time allowed.
The city has until Aug. 2 to respond to the grand jury's findings and recommendations, which include calls for more ethics and conflict of interest training and more transparency.
The NEO list of contract renewals for 2010-11 on Tuesday's consent calendar include: Affordable Housing Program, $408,500; Sycamore North management, $240,000; Community Beautification Program, $150,000; Portfolio Administration and Compliance, $60,000; General Administration Support, $120,000; and Business Development Loan Program, $50,000. The list also includes a program that was not on the previous year's list: Wastewater Treatment Plant Development services, $90,000.
Details of the contracts were not included with Tuesday's agenda packet. There was no discussion of the contracts when the list went before the council Finance Subcommittee last week.
# if you go What: City Council meeting
# Where: Hercules City Hall, 111 Civic Drive
# When: 7 p.m. Tuesday
# Grand jury report: http://www.cc-courts.org/_data/n_0038/resources/live/rpt1013.pdf
http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_15335872?nclick_check=1
Mendocino County Grand jury calls for 100% mail-in voting
Ukiah Daily Journal Staff
Updated: 06/24/2010 12:00:15 AM PDT
Better proof-reading, replacing polls with mail-in ballots countywide and more use of the county website are among the 2010 grand jury's recommendations for the Mendocino County Registrar of Voters Office.
The GJ on Monday released the report, "And the Vote Goes to...: 2009-2010 Mendocino County Election Report" after observing ballot collection and transfer to county elections staff during the November 2009 general election and the June 2010 primary election.
The GJ noted there were problems with the official ballots given out during the June primary, and the public reported "numerous typographical errors, spacing anomalies and content omissions" on the pre-election sample ballots for the same election.
The registrar has contracted with the same private vendor for the past eight years to translate, press-check, print and mail the primary election sample ballots, according to the report.
"All 24 different sample ballot pamphlets were mailed directly by the vendor with only a cursory county press-check," the report states, noting that county staff proof-read the PDF files before sending them to the vendor.
The Registrar's Office responded via radio and press releases immediately, but "there was no immediate posting on the county website," according to the report.
One corrected sample ballot was sent to each household. The reprinting "may result in mail-in ballots being received before accurate sample ballot pamphlets," according to the report.
In addition, some voters got the wrong party affiliation on their official ballots, "resulting in their receiving an incorrect primary election ballot and having to take corrective action," the GJ report states.
The GJ recommended "in the future, the sample ballot pamphlets and official ballots be thoroughly press checked by the registrar of voters' staff prior to mailing."
Looking into the process of placing candidate statements on the sample ballots in the November election, the GJ also found that the cost of printing, handling and translating candidates' statements sometimes exceeds the deposit the county charges candidates.
"The county has not always collected the actual costs from candidates," the report states.
The GJ recommends that the registrar collect unpaid candidates' fees within six months of an election and publish a list of uncollected fees in local media outlets "in the same manner as tax-default notices."
The GJ also recommends that candidates' statements be posted on the county website.
The GJ found that establishing a polling place "far exceeds the cost of mail-in ballots," and recommended that the Board of Supervisors petition the California Secretary of State to use vote-by-mail ballots for all of Mendocino County.
"Considering the high percentage of mail-in ballots being used now, it would be cost-effective to move the county to a total mail-in ballot system," the report states. "While the GJ understands that many people enjoy the social aspects of the local polling stations, the harsh reality is that the county budget is in dire straits."
The GJ notes there are 247 voting precincts, and only 25 polling places, and that moving to an all mail-in ballot system would reduce payroll cost, rent and equipment transportation and maintenance.
http://www.ukiahdailyjournal.com/ci_15364954
Updated: 06/24/2010 12:00:15 AM PDT
Better proof-reading, replacing polls with mail-in ballots countywide and more use of the county website are among the 2010 grand jury's recommendations for the Mendocino County Registrar of Voters Office.
The GJ on Monday released the report, "And the Vote Goes to...: 2009-2010 Mendocino County Election Report" after observing ballot collection and transfer to county elections staff during the November 2009 general election and the June 2010 primary election.
The GJ noted there were problems with the official ballots given out during the June primary, and the public reported "numerous typographical errors, spacing anomalies and content omissions" on the pre-election sample ballots for the same election.
The registrar has contracted with the same private vendor for the past eight years to translate, press-check, print and mail the primary election sample ballots, according to the report.
"All 24 different sample ballot pamphlets were mailed directly by the vendor with only a cursory county press-check," the report states, noting that county staff proof-read the PDF files before sending them to the vendor.
The Registrar's Office responded via radio and press releases immediately, but "there was no immediate posting on the county website," according to the report.
One corrected sample ballot was sent to each household. The reprinting "may result in mail-in ballots being received before accurate sample ballot pamphlets," according to the report.
In addition, some voters got the wrong party affiliation on their official ballots, "resulting in their receiving an incorrect primary election ballot and having to take corrective action," the GJ report states.
The GJ recommended "in the future, the sample ballot pamphlets and official ballots be thoroughly press checked by the registrar of voters' staff prior to mailing."
Looking into the process of placing candidate statements on the sample ballots in the November election, the GJ also found that the cost of printing, handling and translating candidates' statements sometimes exceeds the deposit the county charges candidates.
"The county has not always collected the actual costs from candidates," the report states.
The GJ recommends that the registrar collect unpaid candidates' fees within six months of an election and publish a list of uncollected fees in local media outlets "in the same manner as tax-default notices."
The GJ also recommends that candidates' statements be posted on the county website.
The GJ found that establishing a polling place "far exceeds the cost of mail-in ballots," and recommended that the Board of Supervisors petition the California Secretary of State to use vote-by-mail ballots for all of Mendocino County.
"Considering the high percentage of mail-in ballots being used now, it would be cost-effective to move the county to a total mail-in ballot system," the report states. "While the GJ understands that many people enjoy the social aspects of the local polling stations, the harsh reality is that the county budget is in dire straits."
The GJ notes there are 247 voting precincts, and only 25 polling places, and that moving to an all mail-in ballot system would reduce payroll cost, rent and equipment transportation and maintenance.
http://www.ukiahdailyjournal.com/ci_15364954
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Civil grand jury accuses chairman of Santa Clara Valley Water District of flouting state ethics laws
By Brandon Bailey
bbailey@mercurynews.com
Posted: 06/20/2010 02:58:35 PM PDT
Updated: 06/21/2010 10:11:17 AM PDT
Santa Clara County's civil grand jury has accused the chairman of the countywide water district of flouting state ethics laws by promoting a series of district projects likely to increase the value of his family's land holdings in Alviso.
A report by the grand jury says Richard Santos blurred the lines between his personal interests and his duties as a public official, most notably in pushing the Santa Clara Valley Water District to build a $1.3 million educational center — which critics describe as unnecessary and overpriced — on land next to a mobile home park Santos inherited from his father.
Santos, a retired San Jose fire captain and longtime Alviso resident, disputed the criticism and denied acting for personal gain. In an interview, he insisted he has followed legal advice while fighting for projects that would benefit all of Alviso, a community that has long complained of neglect by local government agencies.
"I did my job like I'm supposed to, and I'm going to continue to do it," said Santos, 66.
The civil grand jury acts as a local government watchdog; it can make recommendations but cannot impose penalties or issue criminal indictments. The latest report, released Friday and signed by forewoman Angie M. Cardoza, marks the third time in five years that a civil grand jury has accused the water district of mismanagement and overspending.
"He has failed to uphold his ethical obligations," the report said of Santos, adding: "It is difficult to determine when he is participating as a private citizen promoting his own interests and when he is participating as a public official."
Water district CEO Beau Goldie responded with a statement defending the board's ethical practices, adding that the jurors "unfortunately made some findings and recommendations that may not be accurate."
A spokeswoman said the district, which is responsible for water-supply and flood-control projects across the county, would not comment on specifics.
But one board member called the report "well-documented." Larry Wilson, who voted against the controversial education center in 2008 and has often sparred with Santos, said he believes the report should be reviewed by the state's Fair Political Practices Commission, which can levy fines for violations of California's political ethics law.
The grand jury's months-long investigation focused on Santos' efforts to promote district projects in the mostly blue-collar community of Alviso, where the southern waters of San Francisco Bay lap at the northern edge of San Jose. Though once an independent city, Alviso was annexed by San Jose in 1968.
Santos, the son of a former Alviso mayor, has an ownership interest in 23 properties in Alviso, including the Summerset Mobile Home Park off Gold Street. While he represents a large swath of the county on the water district board, the grand jury characterized Santos as being overly focused on Alviso.
Jurors particularly criticized Santos' efforts to promote construction of the education center, consisting of a large gazebo, interpretive displays and public restrooms, on state-owned land near Gold Street. While questioning the project's expense, the jury report said it would provide a "park-like setting at the entrance to the Summerset Mobile Home Park."
The jury also criticized Santos for pushing a separate restoration plan for the nearby Alviso Slough. The plan calls for clearing vegetation and deepening the channel to allow boating, water-skiing and other recreation, which the jury concluded would raise the value of land in Alviso, including Santos's holdings.
Both the educational center and slough restoration were approved by a majority of the water board.
In a third case, the jury said Santos unsuccessfully urged the district to pay for modifications to the Alviso clubhouse of the South Bay Yacht Club, to which he belongs.
Santos insisted he won't profit personally from any of the Alviso projects. He said the education center would be an attractive feature and "gateway to the community," but denied it would affect the value of the mobile home property.
He said the slough restoration was important for flood control in an area that suffered repeated and devastating floods during the last century, although district officials have said the restoration goes beyond flood-protection efforts.
Santos abstained from voting on both projects in recent years, on the advice of the district's legal counsel. The grand jury, however, criticized him for taking part in board discussions about the projects and found Santos cast two votes related to the projects, after abstaining from earlier votes.
Santos said the jurors are "good volunteer people" who were misled by his political opponents, whom he declined to name. "I've been fighting to protect my community," he added, "after Alviso's been neglected for 42 years."
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_15338980?source=most_emailed
bbailey@mercurynews.com
Posted: 06/20/2010 02:58:35 PM PDT
Updated: 06/21/2010 10:11:17 AM PDT
Santa Clara County's civil grand jury has accused the chairman of the countywide water district of flouting state ethics laws by promoting a series of district projects likely to increase the value of his family's land holdings in Alviso.
A report by the grand jury says Richard Santos blurred the lines between his personal interests and his duties as a public official, most notably in pushing the Santa Clara Valley Water District to build a $1.3 million educational center — which critics describe as unnecessary and overpriced — on land next to a mobile home park Santos inherited from his father.
Santos, a retired San Jose fire captain and longtime Alviso resident, disputed the criticism and denied acting for personal gain. In an interview, he insisted he has followed legal advice while fighting for projects that would benefit all of Alviso, a community that has long complained of neglect by local government agencies.
"I did my job like I'm supposed to, and I'm going to continue to do it," said Santos, 66.
The civil grand jury acts as a local government watchdog; it can make recommendations but cannot impose penalties or issue criminal indictments. The latest report, released Friday and signed by forewoman Angie M. Cardoza, marks the third time in five years that a civil grand jury has accused the water district of mismanagement and overspending.
"He has failed to uphold his ethical obligations," the report said of Santos, adding: "It is difficult to determine when he is participating as a private citizen promoting his own interests and when he is participating as a public official."
Water district CEO Beau Goldie responded with a statement defending the board's ethical practices, adding that the jurors "unfortunately made some findings and recommendations that may not be accurate."
A spokeswoman said the district, which is responsible for water-supply and flood-control projects across the county, would not comment on specifics.
But one board member called the report "well-documented." Larry Wilson, who voted against the controversial education center in 2008 and has often sparred with Santos, said he believes the report should be reviewed by the state's Fair Political Practices Commission, which can levy fines for violations of California's political ethics law.
The grand jury's months-long investigation focused on Santos' efforts to promote district projects in the mostly blue-collar community of Alviso, where the southern waters of San Francisco Bay lap at the northern edge of San Jose. Though once an independent city, Alviso was annexed by San Jose in 1968.
Santos, the son of a former Alviso mayor, has an ownership interest in 23 properties in Alviso, including the Summerset Mobile Home Park off Gold Street. While he represents a large swath of the county on the water district board, the grand jury characterized Santos as being overly focused on Alviso.
Jurors particularly criticized Santos' efforts to promote construction of the education center, consisting of a large gazebo, interpretive displays and public restrooms, on state-owned land near Gold Street. While questioning the project's expense, the jury report said it would provide a "park-like setting at the entrance to the Summerset Mobile Home Park."
The jury also criticized Santos for pushing a separate restoration plan for the nearby Alviso Slough. The plan calls for clearing vegetation and deepening the channel to allow boating, water-skiing and other recreation, which the jury concluded would raise the value of land in Alviso, including Santos's holdings.
Both the educational center and slough restoration were approved by a majority of the water board.
In a third case, the jury said Santos unsuccessfully urged the district to pay for modifications to the Alviso clubhouse of the South Bay Yacht Club, to which he belongs.
Santos insisted he won't profit personally from any of the Alviso projects. He said the education center would be an attractive feature and "gateway to the community," but denied it would affect the value of the mobile home property.
He said the slough restoration was important for flood control in an area that suffered repeated and devastating floods during the last century, although district officials have said the restoration goes beyond flood-protection efforts.
Santos abstained from voting on both projects in recent years, on the advice of the district's legal counsel. The grand jury, however, criticized him for taking part in board discussions about the projects and found Santos cast two votes related to the projects, after abstaining from earlier votes.
Santos said the jurors are "good volunteer people" who were misled by his political opponents, whom he declined to name. "I've been fighting to protect my community," he added, "after Alviso's been neglected for 42 years."
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_15338980?source=most_emailed
Humboldt County Board of Supervisors approves budget, grand jury report response
Donna Tam/The Times-Standard
Posted: 06/23/2010 01:30:09 AM PDT
The Humboldt County Board of Supervisors approved the county's budget for the next fiscal year Tuesday and instructed staff to further explore the impacts of proposed state and federal budgets.
At Tuesday's meeting, the board considered support for a state budget titled “California Jobs Budget,” proposed by Assembly Speaker John Perez, D-Los Angeles, which borrows from the state's Beverage Container Recycling Fund and repays debt through a new tax on oil severance.
The supervisors instructed staff to create a response that would weigh in on parts of the bill rather than support or oppose it.
Third District Supervisor Mark Lovelace said this may be an opportunity for local government to provide input to its representatives.
”I'm seeing this as an opportunity to provide some feedback on specific elements of this proposal rather than a thumbs up or a thumbs down,” he said.
According to staff, the additional revenue could save the CalWORKs program slated for elimination by the governor, provide repayment for mandated reimbursements owed to local governments and fund community mental health services that were expected to be reduced under the governor's plan.
But the staff also cautioned that the proposed budget would create a bigger gap in the following fiscal year, and it would result in a shift of responsibility to counties, including a transfer of state prisoners to county jails for state prisoners sentenced to terms of less than three years.
Department of Health and Human Services Director Phil Crandall, who has been meeting with the California State Association of Counties in Sacramento regarding the budget, said he is concerned over the shift in responsibility. He supported the county taking its time to see how the proposed budgets develop.
”This is a very dangerous time, and from my perspective, slower is better,” Crandall said.
State and federal sources account for more than two-thirds of all revenues included in the county's adopted 2010-2011 budget.
The roughly $303 million budget includes 15 percent cuts for most departments and a reduction in the contingency reserve to restore proposed cuts to the UC Cooperative Extension, the Office of Emergency Services and the grand jury. The contingency reserve will be set at $893,785.
The general fund's expenditures total more than $91 million, and the overall budget and the general fund each grew by less than 1 percent from the previous year.
Other cuts included may result in fewer hours at the animal shelter and reduced maintenance for groundskeeping, trash collection and upkeep of floors and public areas.
In other matters, the supervisors approved the county's response to the grand jury's recommendation for an overhaul of the governmental structure at the county level.
The grand jury released a report in May saying that Humboldt County needs a stronger chief administrator and a part-time Board of Supervisors to be more efficient.
The response disagreed with several of the grand jury's recommendations and indicated that some were “unwarranted” and others “not reasonable and potentially in violation of state law.”
____________________________
At A Glance:
$303 million total
$91 million general fund
$893,785 contingency reserve
15 percent cuts across the board for most departments
http://www.times-standard.com/localnews/ci_15356694
Posted: 06/23/2010 01:30:09 AM PDT
The Humboldt County Board of Supervisors approved the county's budget for the next fiscal year Tuesday and instructed staff to further explore the impacts of proposed state and federal budgets.
At Tuesday's meeting, the board considered support for a state budget titled “California Jobs Budget,” proposed by Assembly Speaker John Perez, D-Los Angeles, which borrows from the state's Beverage Container Recycling Fund and repays debt through a new tax on oil severance.
The supervisors instructed staff to create a response that would weigh in on parts of the bill rather than support or oppose it.
Third District Supervisor Mark Lovelace said this may be an opportunity for local government to provide input to its representatives.
”I'm seeing this as an opportunity to provide some feedback on specific elements of this proposal rather than a thumbs up or a thumbs down,” he said.
According to staff, the additional revenue could save the CalWORKs program slated for elimination by the governor, provide repayment for mandated reimbursements owed to local governments and fund community mental health services that were expected to be reduced under the governor's plan.
But the staff also cautioned that the proposed budget would create a bigger gap in the following fiscal year, and it would result in a shift of responsibility to counties, including a transfer of state prisoners to county jails for state prisoners sentenced to terms of less than three years.
Department of Health and Human Services Director Phil Crandall, who has been meeting with the California State Association of Counties in Sacramento regarding the budget, said he is concerned over the shift in responsibility. He supported the county taking its time to see how the proposed budgets develop.
”This is a very dangerous time, and from my perspective, slower is better,” Crandall said.
State and federal sources account for more than two-thirds of all revenues included in the county's adopted 2010-2011 budget.
The roughly $303 million budget includes 15 percent cuts for most departments and a reduction in the contingency reserve to restore proposed cuts to the UC Cooperative Extension, the Office of Emergency Services and the grand jury. The contingency reserve will be set at $893,785.
The general fund's expenditures total more than $91 million, and the overall budget and the general fund each grew by less than 1 percent from the previous year.
Other cuts included may result in fewer hours at the animal shelter and reduced maintenance for groundskeeping, trash collection and upkeep of floors and public areas.
In other matters, the supervisors approved the county's response to the grand jury's recommendation for an overhaul of the governmental structure at the county level.
The grand jury released a report in May saying that Humboldt County needs a stronger chief administrator and a part-time Board of Supervisors to be more efficient.
The response disagreed with several of the grand jury's recommendations and indicated that some were “unwarranted” and others “not reasonable and potentially in violation of state law.”
____________________________
At A Glance:
$303 million total
$91 million general fund
$893,785 contingency reserve
15 percent cuts across the board for most departments
http://www.times-standard.com/localnews/ci_15356694
SLO Grand jury criticizes cities’ vehicle systems
Government vehicles driven and taken home by employees need better regulation, report finds
By Cynthia Lambert | clambert@thetribunenews.com
Several cities in San Luis Obispo County need to tighten policies on city vehicles that are taken home by employees and keep better track of drivers’ safety records, according to a grand jury report.
The county’s seven cities have a total of 444 vehicles, 62 of which are allowed to be taken home.
The civil grand jury found that Morro Bay does not have a policy addressing take-home vehicles for city employees, even though four of its 52 vehicles can be driven to an employee’s residence.
City Manager Andrea Lueker said the city’s current resolution, created in 1994, deals with employee reimbursement for expenses when using vehicles for city business.
The policy will be revised to include specific information, such as which employees could take a vehicle home, she said.
The report found that only Arroyo Grande, Atascadero and Pismo Beach enroll their employees who use city cars in a state Department of Motor Vehicles program, which alerts the city when a driver is ticketed or involved in an accident.
The grand jury recommended that the remaining cities enter their employees in the program.
It also recommended that Grover Beach, Morro Bay, Paso Robles, Pismo Beach and San Luis Obispo either develop or strengthen their policies.
Grover Beach’s policy, for example, does not make any reference to employees having a valid California driver’s license, nor does it document that employees have received and read the policy.
City Manager Bob Perrault said the City Council would likely look at bolstering the policies as the report recommended.
Paso Robles’ policy states that employees must have a valid California driver’s license but does not specify how or if the employee’s license or driving record is checked.
Paso Robles City Manager Jim App said officials are still reviewing the grand jury’s findings.
The grand jury also noted that Pismo Beach employees took home the highest percentage of vehicles, with 11 of 43 vehicles taken home, or 25 percent.
City officials there told the grand jury that Public Works Department staff members need them to respond to emergencies at the city-operated sewage treatment plant.
Reach Cynthia Lambert at 781-7929. Stay updated on Twitter by following @SouthCountyBeat.
Read more: http://www.sanluisobispo.com/2010/06/22/1187649/grand-jury-criticizes-cities-vehicle.html#ixzz0rhx7C11w
By Cynthia Lambert | clambert@thetribunenews.com
Several cities in San Luis Obispo County need to tighten policies on city vehicles that are taken home by employees and keep better track of drivers’ safety records, according to a grand jury report.
The county’s seven cities have a total of 444 vehicles, 62 of which are allowed to be taken home.
The civil grand jury found that Morro Bay does not have a policy addressing take-home vehicles for city employees, even though four of its 52 vehicles can be driven to an employee’s residence.
City Manager Andrea Lueker said the city’s current resolution, created in 1994, deals with employee reimbursement for expenses when using vehicles for city business.
The policy will be revised to include specific information, such as which employees could take a vehicle home, she said.
The report found that only Arroyo Grande, Atascadero and Pismo Beach enroll their employees who use city cars in a state Department of Motor Vehicles program, which alerts the city when a driver is ticketed or involved in an accident.
The grand jury recommended that the remaining cities enter their employees in the program.
It also recommended that Grover Beach, Morro Bay, Paso Robles, Pismo Beach and San Luis Obispo either develop or strengthen their policies.
Grover Beach’s policy, for example, does not make any reference to employees having a valid California driver’s license, nor does it document that employees have received and read the policy.
City Manager Bob Perrault said the City Council would likely look at bolstering the policies as the report recommended.
Paso Robles’ policy states that employees must have a valid California driver’s license but does not specify how or if the employee’s license or driving record is checked.
Paso Robles City Manager Jim App said officials are still reviewing the grand jury’s findings.
The grand jury also noted that Pismo Beach employees took home the highest percentage of vehicles, with 11 of 43 vehicles taken home, or 25 percent.
City officials there told the grand jury that Public Works Department staff members need them to respond to emergencies at the city-operated sewage treatment plant.
Reach Cynthia Lambert at 781-7929. Stay updated on Twitter by following @SouthCountyBeat.
Read more: http://www.sanluisobispo.com/2010/06/22/1187649/grand-jury-criticizes-cities-vehicle.html#ixzz0rhx7C11w
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)