Merced County grand jury indicts 3 leaders of Firm Build

Authorities say students were exposed to asbestos during work at Castle.
By VICTOR A. PATTON
vpatton@mercedsun-star.com

Three former Firm Build executives accused of knowingly exposing high school students to cancer-causing asbestos have been indicted on several charges of child endangerment by a Merced County grand jury.

The grand jury indictments in the case against the three men -- Rudy Buendia III, 47, Patrick Bowman, 44, and Joseph Cuellar, 71 -- came Friday afternoon after three weeks of testimony by more than 80 witnesses.

At the time the trio was arrested on the charges in May, five former students allegedly exposed to asbestos between August 2005 and March 2006 had come forward. Since then, that number has increased to nine.

The grand jury also indicted the trio on a host of additional charges, including grand theft, falsifying corporate reports, perjury and forgery, stemming from the district attorney's 2008 financial investigation of Firm Build.

All three men have steadfastly denied the allegations and have pleaded not guilty.

Merced County District Attorney Larry Morse II said his office decided to take the case to a grand jury, rather than a preliminary hearing because of the case's complexity and the number of counts involved.

Deputy District Attorney Walter Wall, prosecutor in the case, said the grand jury added 15 additional counts to the indictment besides the 52 counts sought by prosecutors. "There was overwhelming evidence of guilt. That's why the grand jury added on counts over and above what we recommended," Wall said.

In a preliminary hearing, a judge decides whether enough evidence exists to allow a case to proceed to trial. In California, prosecutors have the option of presenting their evidence to a criminal grand jury, rather than a judge. The county's grand jury is a panel composed of 19 citizens.

The grand jury indicted Buendia and Cuellar on 62 counts, while Bowman was indicted on 52 counts.

The nine victims, who were around 16 and 17 years old at the time, allegedly removed asbestos, without the required safety equipment, on numerous occasions from the Automotive Training Center, at the Castle Commerce Center, under the direction of Firm Build.

The defendants allegedly used the students to remove the asbestos from the building under the guise of involving at-risk students in work experience and job training programs. The students allegedly removed asbestos floor tiles and insulation from pipes inside the old military building, creating an airborne cloud of asbestos fibers they may have inhaled.

At the time, Bowman was Firm Build's board president and coordinator of the Workplace Learning Academy, created at Valley Community School to teach trade skills for at-risk students. Buendia was the nonprofit's project manager, while Cuellar was an administrative manager, according to D.A. investigators.

Morse said the investigation points to "an appalling lack of oversight" and "sweeping negligence" at the highest levels of the Merced County Office of Education, in terms of its relationship with Firm Build and the office's responsibility to students under their care.

Asked to elaborate about the lack of oversight and those involved other than the defendants, Morse said he couldn't comment further because of the ongoing investigation. "There is ample information that the safeguards that should have been in place, or were in place to protect these students, were either ignored or marginalized."

Nathan Quevedo, spokesman for the Merced County Office of Education, said his office has "cooperated with all requests from the district attorney's office."

Quevedo also said an outside investigator, Sacramento attorney Donna Matties, conducted her own six-week investigation into the asbestos allegations. "MCOE hired an outside investigator to ensure the integrity of the investigation and remove any perception of a conflict of interest or bias," Quevedo said.

Quevedo said her report is confidential because it's a personnel matter, but added, "We cannot substantiate the allegations that students who worked at the (Automotive Training Center) were exposed to asbestos."

Bowman is employed as a math and algebra instructor at Valley Community School in Los Banos, Quevedo said.

Defense attorneys in the case say their clients maintain their innocence. Ralph Temple, Bowman's attorney, said his client was a volunteer who was asked to serve on Firm Build's board. "He never was paid a dime," Temple said. "He never got any money out of Firm Build whatsoever."

Temple said his client, as a schoolteacher, would never "harm anybody" or expose students to asbestos. Temple added his client was only an intermediary between MCOE and Firm Build, adding that he's an educator, not an expert in contracting or construction. "If there was a problem (with asbestos), the people who were qualified to take care of it were supposed to do that," Temple said.

Kirk McAllister, Buendia's attorney, said he believes Morse's office chose to pursue the case in front of a grand jury because of the procedural advantages allowed by the prosecution. Unlike a preliminary hearing, defense attorneys cannot cross-examine witnesses or ask questions.

Grand jury hearings, unlike preliminary hearings, are also closed to defense attorneys and the public. "This is a regurgitation of the charges that Mr. Buendia has been fighting for the last two years," McAllister said. "If Mr. Wall's evidence was so overwhelming, why will he only show it behind the closed doors of a grand jury, where everything looks overwhelming in the eyes of a prosecutor, instead of testing it in court as we've been trying to do at a preliminary hearing?"

McAllister said the defense has tried getting the case more than once to a preliminary hearing. "Each time we did, there was some roadblock thrown in front of us by the district attorney, the last being them stepping in front of that open courtroom process by hiding behind the closed doors of the grand jury."

Cuellar's attorney, Douglas Foster, did not return calls placed to his office.

Firm Build was launched in 1998 as a program of the Merced County Housing Authority to modernize its stock of public housing while giving residents marketable skills. The nonprofit contracted with MCOE to provide instructors to teach at-risk students in the Regional Occupational Program (ROP).

MCOE signed a lease for the 2245 Jetstream Drive building in June 2005, with the intent to use vocational students to remodel the facility into an automotive teaching center. The documents revealed that asbestos, lead-based paint, black mold and groundwater contamination were present at the site.

The lease was negotiated by Bowman and his assistant Jack Weaver, who is now deceased, over the course of 18 months, according to D.A.'s office investigators. Firm Build's leaders allegedly lied to its board, the county and state regulators about the nature of the renovation. Firm Build's application for a county building permit listed minimal work, such as painting walls and installing a garage door. Still, D.A. investigators say teens soon started removing the carcinogenic material from the building.

In addition to the state charges, all three defendants face federal charges for allegedly submitting false statements to the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, several violations of the Clean Air Act and knowingly endangering others by releasing asbestos into the air.

Firm Build went bankrupt in mid-2007, leaving bills and loans unpaid with the Housing Authority and subcontractors. That prompted a District Attorney's Office financial investigation that lasted 15 months and culminated in the defendants' arrests on several charges, including embezzlement, diversion of construction funds and grand theft.

In November 2009, the District Attorney's Office launched its investigation into the asbestos allegations after receiving a witness tip from an electrician.

If convicted on the federal charges, the trio faces 15 years in prison. If convicted on the state charges, they face around 30 years in prison.

All three defendants remain free on bail. Their next hearing in Merced County Superior Court is scheduled for Dec. 10.

Reporter Victor A. Patton can be reached at (209) 385-2431 or vpatton@mercedsun-star.com.

http://www.mercedsunstar.com/2010/11/24/1666434/grand-jury-indicts-3-leaders-of.html

Victorville corruption probes continue

Michael J. Sorba, Staff Writer
Posted: 11/14/2010 04:52:38 PM PST
Updated: 11/14/2010 05:02:38 PM PST

VICTORVILLE - Federal and local investigators continue to request stacks of documents from the city as part of ongoing probes into bond sales and financial records.

Requests for information have become so intensive that three full-time workers are dedicated to processing them, said Councilman Ryan McEachron.

"It's more or less an ongoing investigation and no outcomes at this point have been shared with city staff," McEachron said. "I'm not sure how much longer this will go or how long it will take them to come out with any kind of a report."

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission launched its investigation in August, directing city employees to stop deleting e-mails or throw away paper records, including document drafts and Post-it notes, said city spokeswoman Yvonne Hester.

The SEC has declined to comment on the matter. McEachron says the agency is focused on bond sales that took place between 2005 and 2008.

The city has about $464 million in outstanding bond debt, with all but $83 million of it falling under the Redevelopment Agency, said Hester.

The $83 million city bond funded the failed Foxborough power plant. The agency's debt was issued to pay for infrastructure improvements to roads, sewers and hangars at Southern California Logistic Airport, Hester said.

In April 2009, the San Bernardino County Grand Jury began investigating handshake agreements allegedly made between former City Manager Jon B. Roberts and developers without council approval, McEachron said. Roberts is now city manager in Steamboat Springs, Co.

When last year's Grand Jury disbanded in June, a special Grand Jury panel was formed to pick up where the previous one left off.

For legal reasons, McEachron said he couldn't comment on specific deals, but generally speaking, Roberts allowed certain developers to forgo paying the cost of infrastructure improvements they're usually required to pay for, such as traffic signals or street improvements.

Instead the city footed the bill, he said.

"I think that, without a doubt, there is a focus of the Grand Jury into some of the things that were done while (Roberts) was in charge," McEachron said. "Whether or not it's him specifically or someone else, it's yet to be seen. We don't know if they're focusing on any one person or people."

When contacted by phone Friday, Roberts only said, "I'm not familiar with what (McEachron's) referring to."

McEachron said he found it odd Roberts shifted payroll responsibilities from its typical place in the Finance Department to the Information Technology Department. The councilman also said he disagreed with a decision made by the council prior to his 2008 election that increased the amount of money Roberts could spend - $25,000 to $125,000 - without council approval.

In response to increasing allegations of corruption from residents, McEachron in December asked the council to commission a forensic audit of the city's finances to root out possible malfeasance.

The council voted 4-1, with Councilman Mike Rothschild dissenting, to go forward with it. The council lobbied the county's Board of Supervisors to pay $195,000 to hire an outside auditor. The audit has been under way for over six months with the Grand Jury providing oversight, schild said.

Although it's possible some bad management decisions were made under Roberts, said Rothschild, he doesn't believe any illegal activity occurred.

Aside from county taxpayer money used to pay for the audit, complying with the volume of information requests related to it and the SEC investigation have racked up $120,000 in internal costs to the city, Rothschild said.

"It's a complete waste of taxpayer money. We can't afford to pay $120,000, but we still have to pay it," Rothschild said. "It's an enormous pressure and I haven't got a clue as to what they're looking for. There's nothing there to the best of my knowledge. If there was, I'd be one of the first to jump in and point fingers."

McEachron said he hopes the audit will provide the city with answers.

"If someone did do something wrong, then they should be held accountable for it," McEachron said.

http://www.contracostatimes.com/california/ci_16612886?nclick_check=1

San Diego Superior court seeking 19 new members for grand jury

SAN DIEGO (CNS) - The San Diego Superior Court is looking for 19 area residents to serve on the 2011-12 grand jury, it was announced Friday.

The panel investigates citizen complaints and serves as a watchdog over public agencies.

Prospective grand jurors must be at least 18 years old and a U.S. citizen who has lived in San Diego County for at least one year and be proficient in the English language. Candidates will go through a criminal background check.

Grand jurors will work six hours per day, four days per week, from July 1, 2011, to June 30, 2012. They will receive a small daily stipend, and the county will pay for mileage and parking.

Applications are available in the business office of all courthouses, by telephone at (619) 450-7272, or download the form at sdcourt.ca.gov or sdcounty.ca.gov/grandjury.

The applications are due by Jan. 14.

http://www.760kfmb.com/Global/story.asp?S=13539580

Grand jury subpoenas Riverside County Supervisor John Benoit

Riverside County Supervisor John Benoit will testify before the Riverside County grand jury on Friday, but has not been told what they're investigating. Benoit will be questioned at 8:30 a.m. Friday in Riverside.

The subpoena, which arrived last week, did not provide insight into the grand jury's probe.

But Benoit's chief of staff, Michelle DeArmond, said the supervisor “has no reason to believe he's a target for anything.”

“There's nothing that gives him any concern,” DeArmond said Wednesday. “He's simply responding to the subpoena.”

Riverside County district attorney spokesman Michael Jeandron said it was office policy not to confirm or deny such questioning because of the “confidential nature of any ongoing grand jury.”

It was not clear Wednesday evening whether Benoit was appearing before a civil or a criminal grand jury.

Benoit represents the Riverside County's fourth district, which includes most of the Coachella Valley.

http://www.mydesert.com/article/20101118/NEWS01/11180321/Grand+jury+subpoenas+Riverside+County+Supervisor+John+Benoit

Humboldt County Grand Jury Faults DA Office, Gallegos Responds

Saturday, October 2, 2010

Daniel Mintz

Eye Correspondent

HUMBOLDT – The county’s Grand Jury has found that problems continue to “plague” the District Attorney’s Office, including poor management, failure to claim grant reimbursements and nepotism.

District Attorney Paul Gallegos has responded extensively to the findings, asserting that management of his office has actually improved and that members of the Grand Jury do not understand how grant reimbursements work.

Responses to the latest installment of the Grand Jury report were recently filed and among them are Gallegos’ retorts to another critical investigation of his office.

The Grand Jury found that “poor office management practices and communication continue to plague the District Attorney’s Office, after first being noted in the 2004-05 Grand Jury report” and that “these ongoing problems have been corroborated by the testimony of several witnesses.”

The witness testimony described “job-related frustrations,” including “needing to re-do tasks previously completed,” “delays in the timely completion of routine tasks” and “failures in communications between office staff.”

District Attorney’s Office staff also complained about “nepotism and favoritism toward relatives of supervisors,” according to the report, which described nepotism as a “problem” in the DA’s Office.

“Current county policy that nepotism occurs only when there exists a direct line of supervision is ineffective,” the report states. It adds that “favoritism can transcend multiple levels of supervision” and nepotism “creates tension” and “becomes a source of morale and retention issues.”

The Grand Jury also found that the DA’s Office failed to file for at least two quarters of grant fund reimbursements for the Victim-Witness program in the 2006-07 fiscal year, resulting in “substantial funds being reverted to the state.” Problems with timely submission of grant reimbursement claims “resulted in the loss of revenue for the county,” which had to cover the program’s expenses with General Fund money, according to the report.

It also states that personnel evaluations of DA’s Office staff are “not being done routinely” as required. Interviews with DA’s Office staff revealed that “evaluations were either done sporadically or not at all.”

The report also points out that this year’s investigation picked up unfinished work from the previous Grand Jury. “That Grand jury could not bring the case to a conclusion before its term expired, largely because the principals from the District Attorney’s Office delayed responding to the Grand Jury requests for information,” the report states.

The Grand Jury’s recommendations to fix the alleged problems include creating a grant management committee, implementing revision of the county’s nepotism policy, establishing an ordinance that sets a definite schedule for employee evaluations and demanding that Gallegos “recognize the ongoing responsibility of his department to abide by the administrative, finance and personnel policies of the county.”

DA: ‘Effective leadership’

Gallegos disagrees with most of the findings. He states that the alleged delays in getting responses to Grand Jury inquiries are due to their being simultaneously submitted to the County Counsel’s Office. Another problem, Gallegos continues, is that the inquiries were submitted to DA’s staff instead of Gallegos himself.

On the finding of poor office management – an allegation that has persisted throughout Gallegos’ two-term tenure – the DA states that the opposite is true. Management of the office has “improved substantially,” he responds, due to his “effective leadership.”

Gallegos describes the improvements he refers to. “The District Attorney has strived to bring the current office into the 21st century, has established departmental policy and procedures that had been lacking, revamped the criminal division by establishing felony/misdemeanor mentorship, developed more efficient and effective procedures for getting work accomplished within budget constraints and developed partnerships with local organizations to maximize our services to the people in our community,” he states.

According to Gallegos’ response, his office reviewed over 11,000 new incident reports each year and over 67 percent have resulted in criminal charges. But Gallegos allows that “as with all organizations, there are occasions when work must be redone due to the receipt of new information.” Delays in completing routine tasks are “caused by increases in the work flow.” He adds, “There are also times when there are failures in communications between office staff.”

On the allegation of failing to capture Victim-Witness program reimbursements, Gallegos says that the Grand Jury has got it wrong. “All quarters were submitted,” he states, adding that documentation was provided to Grand Jury on June 2, 2009, along with copies of cancelled checks from the state and revenue deposits into the Victim-Witness account.

He does agree with the recommendation to establish a county grant management committee, however.

On the nepotism finding, Gallegos describes the situations he believes the Grand Jury is referring to. Drew Duncan, the DA’s archives clerk, is the son of Jeannie Duncan, the office’s legal business manager. But Gallegos states that Duncan works under another supervisor and not his mother.

Jim Dawson, an Auto Insurance Fraud Investigator for the office, is supervised by his son-in-law, Chief Investigator Mike Hislop. But he “takes most of his direction from the State Insurance Fund, since the agency sends him their investigations,” Gallegos states. “While he is not a ‘relative’ as defined by county policy, his employment and assignment was approved by the personnel director in compliance with county policy.”

The county’s nepotism policy does not include in-laws in its definition of “relatives.” It also allows exceptions, as approved by the personnel director, if a position requires extraordinary qualifications.

Dawson is paid through an annual $50,000 State Auto Fraud Grant and works three days a week. Gallegos emphasizes Dawson’s “40 years of experience as a law enforcement officer,” including 10 years of work as a chief investigator in the DA’s Office.

“Neither position is a permanent position,” Gallegos states. “Neither of them is seeking permanent employment or advancement. Neither is afforded favoritism.”

The DA “agrees, in part” with the finding on personnel evaluations, however. Personnel evaluations have not been done “consistently and systematically” since 1991, he states. Evaluations of administrative and Victim-Witness staffers was done in 2009, but “there have been gaps between 1991 and present and some employees did not receive consistent employee evaluations or there is not record in the employee file to differ,” Gallegos adds.

He points out that verbal evaluations are given, and “attorneys get regular feedback.”

The County Administrative Office responded to some of the recommendations, stating that a grant management committee can’t be implemented because it would require additional staffing, and that the revision of the nepotism policy and establishment of a personnel evaluation ordinance are not necessary because current policies suffice.

http://www.arcataeye.com/2010/10/grand-jury-faults-da-office-gallegos-responds-%E2%80%93-october-2-2010/

Lake County Grand Jury mulls recommendations

By Denise Rockenstein -- Staff reporter
Updated: 09/29/2010 10:49:17 PM PDT

CLEARLAKE -- Responses to the Grand Jury pertaining to operations within the jurisdiction of the City of Clearlake were recently prepared and accepted by the Clearlake City Council. City Administrator Dale Neiman addressed 19 recommendations, several that relate to the operation of the PEG Channel.

The Grand Jury recommends that a professional fair market evaluation be performed on the space that the city provides for operation of PEG TV8 in lieu of the city's $5,000 cash obligation in fiscal years 2008/09 and 2009/10 and any shortfall be met retroactively and that PEG TV8 pay rent based on the fair market value evaluation and that payment be met retroactively for the same years. In his response, Neiman said that the city owns and operates PEG TV8 and the council decides annually how and to what extent the station is to be funded during adoption of the city's budget.

The Grand Jury recommends that the city not pay any bill without documented approval of the PEG Board. Neiman states that no bills are paid unless approved by Councilmember Joyce Overton, who is the city's member on the PEG Board. Payment also requires Neiman's signature.

The Grand Jury recommends audits on PEG TV8 every second year. Neiman states that audits are included in the city's annual audit process. The panel also recommends that a variety of insurance coverage be extended to PEG TV8 staff and volunteers so that they are covered within and outside of the PEG station while traveling to and from and while taping community events. Neiman states that the station is operated by volunteers who are signed-up with the city as such and are covered by the city's workers' comp insurance. He said the city does not plan to acquire liability insurance or automobile insurance for when volunteers are not at the station. He said the city attorney has prepared an agreement that each volunteer will have to sign that states only workers' comp insurance will be provided in the station and not outside City Hall.

The Grand Jury claims that the 2007 Agreement has been long ignored by the PEG Board. It recommends immediately implementing the Public Utilities Code Section 5870(n) franchise fee available to PEG TV8 for the specific purpose of funding support and allowable expenses for operation of the channel. The Grand Jury recommends until this accomplished, that part of the $400,000 in franchise fees be obtained from each public agency that is a member of the 2007 Agreement. It also recommends that one of the parties of the 2007 Agreement procure legal counsel fully familiar with Public Access Television rules. Neiman said the city will work with the county to determine if the fee should imposed on the rate payers and states that the city's legal firm has expertise to provide the services recommended by the panel.

The Grand Jury recommends that the Redevelopment Agency establish priorities to fix and upgrade the current roads before attracting new business. It also recommends that the city budget money to improve grant writing and management of the Public Works department to attract funds and personnel for maintaining the streets.

"The city has been focusing on upgrading the arterial and collector streets because these are the streets that carry the majority of traffic in the city. The city has been able to obtain $4.9 million in grants in the last three years. This money was used to rehab 11 miles of streets," Neiman states in his response. "Further, the city has had to eliminate approximately 43 percent of the staff since 2007.

The Redevelopment Agency should use its money to generate income for the city so that the resident can be provided better services."

Neiman responded to a number of other recommendations including one that suggests the city should renegotiate with the county to provide animal control services. Neiman said the city has saved $74,424 by way of assuming the responsibilities of animal control. He said costs are expected to decrease in coming years as well.

Contact South County reporter Denise Rockenstein at drockenstein@clearlakeobserver.com or call her directly at 994-6444, ext. 11.

http://www.record-bee.com/ci_16212642?IADID

Sonoma County libraries won't install filters to block porn

By SAM SCOTT
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT

Published: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 at 3:00 a.m.
Last Modified: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 at 10:59 p.m.

For Ellie Muelrath, the case for putting Internet filters in Sonoma County's libraries was made vivid last December.

With three children in tow, she was looking for Upton Sinclair's “The Jungle” when her stepdaughter, then 12, glimpsed one of the public computer screens at the main library in downtown Santa Rosa.

“She whispered, ‘Oh my God, that guy was looking at porn,' ” Muelrath said.

Such experiences inspired the Sonoma County grand jury to again push the library to use Internet filters in its annual report released this summer. The grand jury also recommended reorganizing the layout of the computers to make them less visible to passersby in the downtown branch.

But both the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors and the Sonoma County Library Commission are declining to follow the grand jury's recommendations.

On Wednesday, supervisors sidestepped the issue, saying that library policy is governed by a seven-member library commission.

Last month, the commission wrote a lengthy response outlining practical and philosophical flaws with using software to limit where people may go online and with rearranging computers.

No library patron should be subjected to objectionable material, the response said. But it also said no one viewing things on the Internet should be subject to the censorship from a computer program that decides what is appropriate.

Software filters are costly, ineffective and rife with troubling questions about where the line gets drawn, the statement said. Sexual images offend many, but what about violence or even extreme political views, asked Julia Freis, a local attorney and a member of the commission.

“When you start censoring, it is a slippery slope,” she said. “We don't really want to be in the position of censoring. It's against the library's mission.”

The library said it prefers to respond to the people who cause problems.

Library officials said they are vigilant against violations of the computer user agreement that calls on patrons to “avoid viewing material that might be considered objectionable to other library users.”

If someone complains, a librarian shows the suspected offender the terms of the agreement and reminds them they are in a public place.

Another infraction can result in a day-long suspension. Typically, though, many are so embarrassed they quickly leave.

“Very rarely do they ever come back,” said library director Sandy Cooper.

Since starting a log last September, the library system has recorded 45 incidents of patrons suspected of viewing pornography on library computers. Muelrath, of Santa Rosa, was one of those filing a complaint.

The Petaluma branch recorded the most problems, with 15, followed by central Santa Rosa with 12 incidents and Sebastopol with four.

Those are low numbers considering that more than 150 computers spread over 11 branches are probably in use for 90 percent of the time that the libraries are open, said Doug Cisney, interim branch manager of the downtown library.

Members of the grand jury could not be reached Wednesday. In their report, they said that the library is rightly concerned about First Amendment issues, but is putting those worries above even more pressing matters.

Library policymakers “seem to be more concerned with preserving the right to access these images by consenting adults than protecting our minor children,” the report said.

In one incident in March, an adult was found looking at pornography on a computer reserved for children at the Cloverdale branch.

Cooper said the man was stopped from continuing. There was no report of children accessing pornography.

The library also declined to rearrange computers to make them less visible to others. Not only would that entail great expense, it would make it easier for people to view pornography, the commission wrote.

Freis said she didn't expect any further action by the library commission, but the issue may return again. The 2008-09 grand jury also delved into the matter of library filters.

Muelrath, for one, would be happy for the issue to get more attention. An avid reader, she now reserves books online to avoid exposing her three daughters to a repeat performance. Pornography should be filtered at the library, she said.

“It should not be somewhere where children can view it,” she said. “It's a public place.”

You can contact Staff Writer Sam Scott at 521-5431 or at sam.scott@pressdemocrat.com.


http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20100922/ARTICLES/100929782/1349?Title=Porn-filters-nixed-at-libraries-

S.B. County responds to grand jury criticism

10:00 PM PDT on Monday, September 20, 2010

By DUANE W. GANG
The Press-Enterprise

A San Bernardino County grand jury mischaracterized many of the budget numbers used in a June report detailing the growth in Board of Supervisors staff, according to the county's official response released last week.

The 2009-2010 grand jury reported that the supervisors' staffs have grown significantly in recent years and three-quarters of the money from the board's priority needs budget has gone toward salaries and not special projects.

The county is required by law to provide an official response to the annual grand jury report. In comments approved last week, the county disagreed with half of the grand jury's 12 findings on the board's discretionary budget.

"I think there was probably some disappointment that there was some misunderstanding on the grand jury's part," county spokesman David Wert said Monday.

Most of the findings the county disagreed with were because of how the grand jury characterized budget numbers, Wert said.

For example, the grand jury found that the board transferred $2.67 million from their priority needs budgets to fund additional staffing.

The priority needs budgets are accounts that individual supervisors -- with board approval -- can tap for projects within their respective districts.

But the county partially disagreed, saying that was the total budgeted for a transfer and not the actual amount spent on salaries. The actual amount was 11 percent less, the county said in its response.

"This was the result of salary savings attributable to positions that the Board left vacant in order to reduce costs," the county said.

The grand jury recommended transferring the remaining balance from the board's priority needs budget to the general fund to help offset a financial shortfall. In its response, the county said that the money was transferred prior to the release of the final grand jury report.

In another finding, the grand jury said the number of staff for the supervisors increased 63.5 percent between fiscal 2003-2004 and 2009-2010.

The county said the board's staff did increase but only by 40 percent.

Reach Duane W. Gang at 951-368-9547 or dgang@PE.com

http://www.pe.com/localnews/politics/stories/PE_News_Local_D_ngrand21.2e5ddba.html

Sonoma County Counsel: Court order needed to dock Smith's pay

Fourth District Supervisor Kendall Smith's travel overpayments can't be deducted from her payroll checks without a court order, according to a legal opinion from the Sonoma County Counsel's Office.

The Mendocino County grand jury questioned the overpayments again this year after Smith called the since-changed county policy on travel reimbursement confusing and denied she was overpaid for business travel between Fort Bragg and Ukiah in responses to two prior grand jury reports.

"The gist is that I do not have the legal authority to withhold payroll from someone's payroll check without a judgment of some kind," Mendocino County Auditor-Controller Meredith Ford said of the Sonoma County legal opinion.

Ford asked for a legal opinion after District Attorney Meredith Lintott ordered her to deduct the $3,087 Ford's office determined Smith was overpaid for travel reimbursements between January 2005 and November 2006.

Smith allegedly claimed reimbursement for business trips between her Fort Bragg home and Ukiah during that time, "when there was no actual travel and when her cost of overnight lodging was little or nothing because she either stayed with friends or in a room which she rented for $100 per month (in Ukiah)," according to a letter Lintott wrote in 2008 to Smith's former attorney in the matter.

Proposing a way to recover the money without going to court, Lintott ordered Ford Aug. 6 to dock the amount from Smith's pay. Ford said she wasn't sure she had the authority to do that and asked Mendocino County Counsel Jeanine Nadel for an opinion.

Citing a conflict of interest, Nadel forwarded the request to Sonoma County.

The legal opinion, penned by Sonoma Chief Deputy County Counsel Sheryl L. Bratton, says neither the current Mendocino County travel reimbursement policy nor the state law Lintott cites as authority to dock Smith's pay allow the "unilateral imposition of a penalty through the offsetting of wages that are otherwise due to a board member.

"As a result, it would be necessary to initiate some type of administrative proceeding or hearing (e.g. court order) prior to taking such action."

Bratton writes that she also found no authority for Ford to "unilaterally make payroll deductions," or for Lintott to order Ford to do so without Smith's permission.

Lintott said the state law section she cited as authority, Assembly Bill 1234, became law in January 2006, when Smith was claiming the travel reimbursements based on a "per diem" calculation.

The law was supposed to "prevent abuse of travel policies," according to Lintott.

There have been no lawsuits filed and no case judgments to interpret the law and guide its application since then, according to Lintott, making ambiguous the definition and means of collecting "restitution" - cited as a remedy for falsifying expense reports under the law.

Lintott maintains there is no evidence that Smith meant to defraud the county, but wrote in a Thursday press statement, "Smith's conduct occurred at the same time the legislature was working to prevent such abuses."

Lintott also notes former District Attorney Norm Vroman knew about the overpayments but took no action.

She said the grand jury can sue Smith for the money, as can the county, but "this is not something we can take to court and win."

Lintott added, "Clearly this is an outrage to citizens because there is a sense that she (Smith) took advantage of a policy that was not written well."

Tiffany Revelle can be reached at udjtr@pacific.net, or at 468-3523.

http://www.ukiahdailyjournal.com/ci_16116809

Humboldt Supes to look at grand jury responses to accounting standards report

Donna Tam/The Times-Standard
Posted: 09/19/2010 01:23:56 AM PDT

With the bleak fiscal situation that has hit municipalities throughout the state in recent years, the Humboldt County grand jury is questioning whether the county's accounting practices are contributing to this county's budget woes.

The Humboldt County Board of Supervisors will discuss the county's official response to the grand jury report regarding the matter Tuesday. The report, included in a final report released at the end of June, scrutinizes a few of the county's bigger departments, but also said the county needs to change its accounting practices systemwide.

”There exists a deteriorating trend in the county's financial situation, affecting the general fund and the budgets of all departments, and causing or threatening to cause reductions in services to the public,” the report said.

The county has compiled responses from each of its appointed department heads, including the Department of Health and Human Services, the Humboldt County Sheriff's Office, the Humboldt County District Attorney's Office and the Humboldt County Probation Department.

According to the staff report from the County Administrative Office, the office will implement any new standards the board of supervisors deems appropriate. For the other recommendations, the staff report said some have been partially implemented and others could not be implemented “at this time because it is not warranted.”

Recommendations from the report also included forming an audit committee that would track grant awards, expenditures and claims and revenues and hire an independent auditor to monitor the progress of recommendations.

A second set of responses addressed another report regarding the Victim-Witness Program.

In other matters, the board will also receive an annual report from the Humboldt County Human Rights Commission, and is set to approve two matters related to airport construction projects, and the purchase of equipment related to the emergency Tsunami sirens.

To read the full grand jury report, visit www.co.humboldt.ca.us/grandjury/. For the complete meeting agenda and supporting documents, visit www.co.humboldt.ca.us.

_______________

IF YOU GO:

What: Humboldt County Board of Supervisors meeting

Where: Supervisors Chamber, first floor, Humboldt County Courthouse, 825 Fifth St.

When: 9 a.m. Tuesday

http://www.times-standard.com/localnews/ci_16117211