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/
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Saturday, 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
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
Thursday, September 23, 2010
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-
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-
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
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
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
Monday, September 20, 2010
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
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
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
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Marin County finance move boosts safety facility
Nels Johnson
Posted: 09/14/2010 04:06:22 PM PDT
Updated: 09/14/2010 04:06:22 PM PDT
A program that will refinance existing county of Marin debt while adding to it in order to provide money for a public safety building or other public works projects was authorized by county supervisors Tuesday.
Under a "certificates of participation" deal that does not require voter approval because it will be paid for with existing revenue, officials intend to exploit favorable interest rates by refinancing $18 million in certificates already issued, then issue more over a longer time frame, boosting the debt to about $60 million - while remaining within a $3 million annual debt service target required by county fiscal policy.
The moves, after setting aside money for reserves and providing $300,000 to financial and legal consultants, will provide the county with a net $38 million. The money, in addition to $30 million already in the bank, could be used in a lease-back arrangement to pay for the first phase of a $100 million public safety building on a "preferred site" near the Marin Civic Center, although officials stressed the financial arrangement had nothing to do with selecting a specific site for the controversial facility.
County Administrator Matthew Hymel said the money can be used "for any capital improvement" and need not necessarily be allocated for the safety building, wherever it is located. Several alternative sites are under study.
"We are able to take advantage of interest rates," pay off some old certificates while refinancing others maturing in 2023 and issuing more in a package due in 2040, Hymel said. "With the advantage of the highest available credit rating and historically low interest rates, we are refinancing existing debt and issuing new 30-year debt to address our long-term capital needs," he said.
Hymel noted that the county's financial books are in excellent shape, with a recent audit providing a clean bill of health. In addition, the county's "triple A" credit rating was reaffirmed by Standard & Poor's this month, he said.
The financial arrangement included a detailed prospectus giving an overview of the county's fiscal status, noting that revenues of $361 million were predicted by the 2009-10 budget, $44 million less than actually collected, and $2 million less than projected this fiscal year. Total expenses in 2009-10, proposed at $386 million, came in about $13 million above that - and less than the $383 million proposed this year.
County supervisors had little comment on the refinance scheme, which came up for discussion near the end of a long agenda that was delayed by a parade of speakers concerned with a variety of other issues.
Contact Nels Johnson via e-mail at ij.civiccenter@gmail.com
http://www.contracostatimes.com/news/ci_16074693?nclick_check=1
Posted: 09/14/2010 04:06:22 PM PDT
Updated: 09/14/2010 04:06:22 PM PDT
A program that will refinance existing county of Marin debt while adding to it in order to provide money for a public safety building or other public works projects was authorized by county supervisors Tuesday.
Under a "certificates of participation" deal that does not require voter approval because it will be paid for with existing revenue, officials intend to exploit favorable interest rates by refinancing $18 million in certificates already issued, then issue more over a longer time frame, boosting the debt to about $60 million - while remaining within a $3 million annual debt service target required by county fiscal policy.
The moves, after setting aside money for reserves and providing $300,000 to financial and legal consultants, will provide the county with a net $38 million. The money, in addition to $30 million already in the bank, could be used in a lease-back arrangement to pay for the first phase of a $100 million public safety building on a "preferred site" near the Marin Civic Center, although officials stressed the financial arrangement had nothing to do with selecting a specific site for the controversial facility.
County Administrator Matthew Hymel said the money can be used "for any capital improvement" and need not necessarily be allocated for the safety building, wherever it is located. Several alternative sites are under study.
"We are able to take advantage of interest rates," pay off some old certificates while refinancing others maturing in 2023 and issuing more in a package due in 2040, Hymel said. "With the advantage of the highest available credit rating and historically low interest rates, we are refinancing existing debt and issuing new 30-year debt to address our long-term capital needs," he said.
Hymel noted that the county's financial books are in excellent shape, with a recent audit providing a clean bill of health. In addition, the county's "triple A" credit rating was reaffirmed by Standard & Poor's this month, he said.
The financial arrangement included a detailed prospectus giving an overview of the county's fiscal status, noting that revenues of $361 million were predicted by the 2009-10 budget, $44 million less than actually collected, and $2 million less than projected this fiscal year. Total expenses in 2009-10, proposed at $386 million, came in about $13 million above that - and less than the $383 million proposed this year.
County supervisors had little comment on the refinance scheme, which came up for discussion near the end of a long agenda that was delayed by a parade of speakers concerned with a variety of other issues.
Contact Nels Johnson via e-mail at ij.civiccenter@gmail.com
http://www.contracostatimes.com/news/ci_16074693?nclick_check=1
Monday, September 13, 2010
San Mateo County responds to grand jury over indigent care
September 13, 2010, 03:30 AM By Michelle Durand Daily Journal Staff
The civil grand jury’s recommendations that San Mateo County adjust just how much care it provides indigent patients without a medical need, illegal aliens and those earning more than the federal poverty level received a mixed reaction from county officials who dispute some of its findings and say solutions are underway.
The county is already looking at how it allocates revenue to departments like the Health System, which may decrease the general fund subsidy needed to maintain the current level of service, County Manager David Boesch wrote in a response letter to the grand jury.
The state requires counties to provide care to the poor and uninsured but the guidelines are broad, particularly when it comes to the undocumented population. San Mateo County provides more than the minimum, leaving local funds to make up the difference and creating a larger eligibility pool. Approximately 76,000 patients were treated at least once during 2008 at either the San Mateo Medical Center or its clinics, according to data used in the jury’s report.
The ongoing economic downturn has skyrocketed health care demands, adding to the county’s indigent care rolls. Federal health care reform will expand coverage in 2014 and likely reduce the number of uninsured residents needed the county’s safety net. Until then, though, the grand jury in its June 24 report suggested the county goes above and beyond what is legally mandated. While nice, the extra help is ballooning the county’s structural deficit, the jury concluded. Specifically, the jury recommended the county, prior to the 2011-2012 budget cycle, eliminate those services not mandated or fully funded by the state or federal government, such as aid for undocumented people, treatment of indigent patients without a medical need and those services dropped by Medi-Cal coverage in 2009. The jury also recommended lowering the medically indigent income level from $44,100, which is 200 percent of the federal and state mandated level of $22,050.
Boesch wrote that the county partially agrees with the recommendations and is trying to work with state and federal legislators to maximize funding potential. The county is also identifying non-essential services and those that the county overmatches.
One example of efficiency efforts, according to Boesch, is the medical center’s reduction of the new primary care patient waiting list.
As of June 1, the waiting list was approximately 5,000. As of Aug. 2, efforts to reduce the waiting list have brought it down to 2,216 with an overall wait time of 113 days.
Another example is a two-year grant for the Seamless Care Initiative to increase efficiency in all the hospital’s clinics.
But while Boesch, on behalf of the county, accepted the recommendations, he did disagree with some of the jury’s findings. Although the jury knocked the county for having a medically indigent income level at 200 percent of the poverty level, Boesch argues that there are no specific statewide minimum or maximum levels. Each county sets its own eligibility criteria and San Mateo County must look at its “very high” local cost of living.
San Mateo County is also not among the 16 counties in California that offer medical care to those without a need, he said.
However, the Health Plan San Mateo — a separate entity from the county — determined it was less expensive to continue providing services cut by Medi-Cal to prevent more costly care in the future. For example, podiatry services now may spare a diabetic patient more expensive services at a later date.
Civil grand jury reports carry no legal weight but recipients are required to respond in writing within 60 days. The Board of Supervisors is scheduled to accept the response at is Tuesday morning meeting.
The Board of Supervisors meets 9 a.m. Tuesday, Sept. 14 in Board Chambers, 400 County Government Center, Redwood City.
Michelle Durand can be reached by e-mail: michelle@smdailyjournal.com or by phone: (650) 344-5200 ext. 102.
http://www.smdailyjournal.com/article_preview.php?id=140948&title=County%20responds%20to%20grand%20jury%20over%20indigent%20care
The civil grand jury’s recommendations that San Mateo County adjust just how much care it provides indigent patients without a medical need, illegal aliens and those earning more than the federal poverty level received a mixed reaction from county officials who dispute some of its findings and say solutions are underway.
The county is already looking at how it allocates revenue to departments like the Health System, which may decrease the general fund subsidy needed to maintain the current level of service, County Manager David Boesch wrote in a response letter to the grand jury.
The state requires counties to provide care to the poor and uninsured but the guidelines are broad, particularly when it comes to the undocumented population. San Mateo County provides more than the minimum, leaving local funds to make up the difference and creating a larger eligibility pool. Approximately 76,000 patients were treated at least once during 2008 at either the San Mateo Medical Center or its clinics, according to data used in the jury’s report.
The ongoing economic downturn has skyrocketed health care demands, adding to the county’s indigent care rolls. Federal health care reform will expand coverage in 2014 and likely reduce the number of uninsured residents needed the county’s safety net. Until then, though, the grand jury in its June 24 report suggested the county goes above and beyond what is legally mandated. While nice, the extra help is ballooning the county’s structural deficit, the jury concluded. Specifically, the jury recommended the county, prior to the 2011-2012 budget cycle, eliminate those services not mandated or fully funded by the state or federal government, such as aid for undocumented people, treatment of indigent patients without a medical need and those services dropped by Medi-Cal coverage in 2009. The jury also recommended lowering the medically indigent income level from $44,100, which is 200 percent of the federal and state mandated level of $22,050.
Boesch wrote that the county partially agrees with the recommendations and is trying to work with state and federal legislators to maximize funding potential. The county is also identifying non-essential services and those that the county overmatches.
One example of efficiency efforts, according to Boesch, is the medical center’s reduction of the new primary care patient waiting list.
As of June 1, the waiting list was approximately 5,000. As of Aug. 2, efforts to reduce the waiting list have brought it down to 2,216 with an overall wait time of 113 days.
Another example is a two-year grant for the Seamless Care Initiative to increase efficiency in all the hospital’s clinics.
But while Boesch, on behalf of the county, accepted the recommendations, he did disagree with some of the jury’s findings. Although the jury knocked the county for having a medically indigent income level at 200 percent of the poverty level, Boesch argues that there are no specific statewide minimum or maximum levels. Each county sets its own eligibility criteria and San Mateo County must look at its “very high” local cost of living.
San Mateo County is also not among the 16 counties in California that offer medical care to those without a need, he said.
However, the Health Plan San Mateo — a separate entity from the county — determined it was less expensive to continue providing services cut by Medi-Cal to prevent more costly care in the future. For example, podiatry services now may spare a diabetic patient more expensive services at a later date.
Civil grand jury reports carry no legal weight but recipients are required to respond in writing within 60 days. The Board of Supervisors is scheduled to accept the response at is Tuesday morning meeting.
The Board of Supervisors meets 9 a.m. Tuesday, Sept. 14 in Board Chambers, 400 County Government Center, Redwood City.
Michelle Durand can be reached by e-mail: michelle@smdailyjournal.com or by phone: (650) 344-5200 ext. 102.
http://www.smdailyjournal.com/article_preview.php?id=140948&title=County%20responds%20to%20grand%20jury%20over%20indigent%20care
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Grand Jury Suggests Changes for Tulare Co. Jail
By: Ashley Ritchie
The 2010 Tulare County Grand Jury report is pointing fingers at the Tulare County Jail.
"We're not perfect in any way. We do make mistakes. So if they find issues and we can correct them, we will correct them," Lieutenant Wayne White, Tulare County Sheriff's Department, said.
And that's exactly what White says the jail intends to do after the Grand Jury found three areas that need improvement including privacy for por per inmates, or inmates who represent themselves legally, adequate access to healthcare and allowing inmates to share jackets and possibly infect one another.
"We did not have an infestation of disease. But there were some health concerns that if there was lice or something a disease could be spread," White said.
The report claims sick inmates aren't treated soon enough and medications aren't monitored properly.
"We have addressed that and only a supervising sergeant can go into a medical room and release the meds," White said.
"It's really going to depend on health and human services agency and what type of doctors they may be able to have available to these inmates," Sergeant Chris Douglass, Tulare County Sheriff's Department, said.
Another complaint the jury made is inmates don't have enough privacy in the law library.
"Right now the issue is while they're on the telephone; if they speak too loudly people might be able to hear," Douglass said.
Jail officials say they're working to reconstruct the room and make it more private.
But it is tough to keep up with all the rights inmates have.
"It's a compliance issue for us, things that we have to provide and it's a variety of different things that range from phone calls and yard time and food and clothing and temperatures of foods and things of that nature," Douglass said.
And they say the criticism is constructive.
"It's actually a good way of checks and balances. If we are out of compliance we need to know about it," Douglass said.
Jail officials say one thing they're looking at is reaching out to the public to find specialized doctors so inmates can have better health care.
But county supervisors say it's not because they haven't tried, but because it's hard to find doctors willing to work with the inmate population.
Jail officials say there is an "inmate welfare fund" they use to pay for anything that benefits inmates.
But they did not use that money to pay for new sweatshirts.
http://www.kmph.com/Global/story.asp?S=13136180
The 2010 Tulare County Grand Jury report is pointing fingers at the Tulare County Jail.
"We're not perfect in any way. We do make mistakes. So if they find issues and we can correct them, we will correct them," Lieutenant Wayne White, Tulare County Sheriff's Department, said.
And that's exactly what White says the jail intends to do after the Grand Jury found three areas that need improvement including privacy for por per inmates, or inmates who represent themselves legally, adequate access to healthcare and allowing inmates to share jackets and possibly infect one another.
"We did not have an infestation of disease. But there were some health concerns that if there was lice or something a disease could be spread," White said.
The report claims sick inmates aren't treated soon enough and medications aren't monitored properly.
"We have addressed that and only a supervising sergeant can go into a medical room and release the meds," White said.
"It's really going to depend on health and human services agency and what type of doctors they may be able to have available to these inmates," Sergeant Chris Douglass, Tulare County Sheriff's Department, said.
Another complaint the jury made is inmates don't have enough privacy in the law library.
"Right now the issue is while they're on the telephone; if they speak too loudly people might be able to hear," Douglass said.
Jail officials say they're working to reconstruct the room and make it more private.
But it is tough to keep up with all the rights inmates have.
"It's a compliance issue for us, things that we have to provide and it's a variety of different things that range from phone calls and yard time and food and clothing and temperatures of foods and things of that nature," Douglass said.
And they say the criticism is constructive.
"It's actually a good way of checks and balances. If we are out of compliance we need to know about it," Douglass said.
Jail officials say one thing they're looking at is reaching out to the public to find specialized doctors so inmates can have better health care.
But county supervisors say it's not because they haven't tried, but because it's hard to find doctors willing to work with the inmate population.
Jail officials say there is an "inmate welfare fund" they use to pay for anything that benefits inmates.
But they did not use that money to pay for new sweatshirts.
http://www.kmph.com/Global/story.asp?S=13136180
Lake County Grand Jury oversees organizations
By Glenn Trumble
Updated: 09/10/2010 07:27:07 PM PDT
Why does Frank Rivero want civilian oversight of the sheriff's department?
We presently have a group of 19 concerned citizens who literally volunteer their time and effort in overseeing the various groups, departments and organizations that serve Lake County and its residents.
This group investigates the sheriff's department, county jail, juvenile detention center, Lakeport police, Clearlake police, all the county's fire departments, the water departments throughout the county, Cache Creek dam, the senior centers, as well as all county human service departments.
This group keeps records of oversights from year-to-year so a malpractice is not apt to continue in any department investigated. There is always a follow-up investigation.
This group takes confidential complaints from concerned citizens as well as public employees that witness acts of malfeasance and misbehavior or suspect the same.
This group is known as The Lake County Civil Grand Jury.
Frank Rivero's implication is that the grand jury is not doing its job.
The yearly Grand Jury reports are on file. Take a look and you will see a very diligent investigative group, not one that's looking to white-wash any explicit facts.
http://www.record-bee.com/ci_16045999
Updated: 09/10/2010 07:27:07 PM PDT
Why does Frank Rivero want civilian oversight of the sheriff's department?
We presently have a group of 19 concerned citizens who literally volunteer their time and effort in overseeing the various groups, departments and organizations that serve Lake County and its residents.
This group investigates the sheriff's department, county jail, juvenile detention center, Lakeport police, Clearlake police, all the county's fire departments, the water departments throughout the county, Cache Creek dam, the senior centers, as well as all county human service departments.
This group keeps records of oversights from year-to-year so a malpractice is not apt to continue in any department investigated. There is always a follow-up investigation.
This group takes confidential complaints from concerned citizens as well as public employees that witness acts of malfeasance and misbehavior or suspect the same.
This group is known as The Lake County Civil Grand Jury.
Frank Rivero's implication is that the grand jury is not doing its job.
The yearly Grand Jury reports are on file. Take a look and you will see a very diligent investigative group, not one that's looking to white-wash any explicit facts.
http://www.record-bee.com/ci_16045999
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)