by Nick Veronin, Mountain View Voice -
The Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury is calling for local school districts to adopt self-policing policies that would limit the use of capital appreciation bonds, which the grand jury found can potentially be abused by districts.
While the local high school district formally agreed with the report's findings, district officials said they would not comply with the jury's recommendations to adopt a new policy, as legislation is now pending to limit the potential abuse of capital appreciation bonds.
The local elementary and middle school district formally disagreed with both the grand jury's findings and recommendation to adopt a policy.
With capital appreciation bonds, or CABs, both the principal and interest payments of the bond are deferred -- allowing districts to tell taxpayers that they won't have to worry about repaying the debt for many years. According to the grand jury report, released in May, CABs are often "rationalized with speculative assumptions about rising real estate values."
In reality, the report said, real estate prices do not always rise in accordance with projections, and in some cases, school districts end up kicking the can down the road on repayment for decades, allowing interest to compound to more than four times the amount borrowed.
Although pending legislation, Assembly Bill 182, would place limits on the way districts can use CABs, the grand jury report recommended that districts also adopt policies pledging that they will not issue abusive CABs.
Craig Goldman, superintendent of the Mountain View Whisman School District, acknowledged that CABs have been abused by some districts in the past, but he disagreed with the report's official finding that CABs are "inevitably" damaging.
"We believe that under the right circumstances ... CABS can be used responsibly," Goldman said, adding that his district and the MVLA district have a good track record in using CABs responsibly. The district has not initiated a CAB since he joined it in 1998 and has no plans to use one in the near future, he said.
That said, he concluded, he wouldn't want the district to tie its hands by adopting a policy on limiting its use of CABs, especially when the Legislature appears poised to pass new rules soon. "We would not want to make a decision in advance that under no circumstance would CABs be a possibility," Goldman said.
Joe White, superintendent of business services for the Mountain View-Los Altos Union High School District, said the district agrees with the report's findings that CABs are sometimes abused and ought to be more tightly regulated. However, in a written response, White and MVLA Superintendent Barry Groves said they would not pursue a new policy "because it is not necessary."
The district plans to follow any state regulation that is passed, White explained. And given that AB 182, if passed, would impose the limits on CABs that the grand jury is advocating, he said, there is no need to pass an official district policy.
The report, which the grand jury adopted on May 9, concluded that it is unfair to expect taxpayers to foot the bill for decisions made years prior and asked that county school districts formally respond to the report's single finding -- that CABs "will inevitably compound the burdens school districts face in operating effective schools."
In addition, the jury recommended that "each school district in Santa Clara County adopt a board policy and any necessary administrative regulations indicating its intent to comply with the moratorium called for by the state Treasurer and the state Superintendent of Public Instruction."
Saturday, August 31, 2013
Friday, August 30, 2013
(San Diego) IB COUNCIL ‘RESPECTFULLY’ DISAGREES WITH GRAND JURY REPORT
City ‘respectfully’ says grand jury report on redevelopment finances was flawed
By Allison Sampite-Montecalvo, U-T San Diego -
IMPERIAL BEACH — City Council members approved a response Aug. 24 to a San Diego County civil grand jury report, saying they disagree with the panel’s conclusions earlier this year that questionable spending and other deficiencies occurred in the city related to redevelopment.
In July 2012, Imperial Beach resident Libi Uremovic filed a complaint that made allegations of fraud, a lack of transparency within city records and failure of the city to act in the best interest of citizens.
The alleged financial misbehavior led to the grand jury’s 2013 investigation, and its report was released May 28.
“The very first summary paragraph of this says, the results of this investigation did not uncover any fraud,” Mayor Jim Janney said. “We did not do anything wrong.”
The investigation included a formal audit of city financial records by the San Diego County Office of Audits and Advisory Services, which examined outsourced attorney charges and employee time allocations from 2010 to 2013.
“We believe that a lot of the findings were reflective mostly of the city trying to navigate a process that was changing midstream,” Assistant City Manager Greg Wade said, “We’ve gone through this very detailed and … we had already implemented many of those recommendations at the time of the audit and made that clear to the auditors.”
Wade said the grand jury report includes significant inaccuracies and misleading statements “that should be and are clarified and corrected in the city’s response.”
The grand jury report provided nine findings and recommendations to the council and city staff. It concluded that labor and legal expenses related to the city’s redevelopment activities should have been better recorded and allocated. It made no allegations of fraud.
“The 2012/2013 (civil) grand jury issued 15 reports this year to various local agencies,” City Attorney Jennifer Lyon said. “These are all policy recommendations ... We’re required to respond. But there’s nothing about the law that requires the city adopt their policy recommendations.”
The state dissolved all California redevelopment agencies beginning Feb. 1, 2012, to help reduce the state budget deficit. The Imperial Beach City Council, like councils in most cities, became the redevelopment successor agency, responsible for paying, performing and enforcing existing obligations.
The agency is required to prepare recognized obligation payment schedules every six months of the fiscal year and disclose the amount and funding source.
Wade said the way the legislation was written complicated the process.
“So poorly written was that legislation that during this dissolution process they rewrote the legislation and adopted a new bill in June of 2012, trying to make clear some of the provisions,” Wade said.
Wade said in May he felt the city had been singled out.
“Generally speaking, the audit period covered a time during which if an auditor were asked to audit any agency in this state, I would venture to guess they would have found much the same thing if not worse,” Wade said.
He said the fact that the city has had all of its recognized obligation payments schedules approved and in on time speaks for its success in navigating the process.
“We’ve met every obligation of the dissolution act,” Wade said. “We have navigated this process better than most agencies in the state of California. Transitioning into dissolution and moving forward, we have weaned ourselves off reliance of those dollars.”
Councilman Ed Spriggs said the allegations have impugned the city and all of its elected officials.
“It isn’t often that a grand jury goes to this length with so many allegations about the conduct of city business,” he said.
Despite the harm, Spriggs asked Lyon to include “respectfully” before each time the response states the word disagrees.
Wade said that, given the challenges of the dissolution process, he acknowledged the city can always do better.
“At the very least, this grand jury audit forced us to do that,” he said.
Mayor Pro Tem Lorie Bragg thanked Wade for the report.
“The last two years of unwinding the RDA were strenuous, rigorous and gut-wrenching, and we survived it,” Bragg said. “It was unchartered waters and those waters changed on a daily basis. I’m proud of the outcome of this. I think that as a small city … we have nothing to be ashamed of.”
By Allison Sampite-Montecalvo, U-T San Diego -
IMPERIAL BEACH — City Council members approved a response Aug. 24 to a San Diego County civil grand jury report, saying they disagree with the panel’s conclusions earlier this year that questionable spending and other deficiencies occurred in the city related to redevelopment.
In July 2012, Imperial Beach resident Libi Uremovic filed a complaint that made allegations of fraud, a lack of transparency within city records and failure of the city to act in the best interest of citizens.
The alleged financial misbehavior led to the grand jury’s 2013 investigation, and its report was released May 28.
“The very first summary paragraph of this says, the results of this investigation did not uncover any fraud,” Mayor Jim Janney said. “We did not do anything wrong.”
The investigation included a formal audit of city financial records by the San Diego County Office of Audits and Advisory Services, which examined outsourced attorney charges and employee time allocations from 2010 to 2013.
“We believe that a lot of the findings were reflective mostly of the city trying to navigate a process that was changing midstream,” Assistant City Manager Greg Wade said, “We’ve gone through this very detailed and … we had already implemented many of those recommendations at the time of the audit and made that clear to the auditors.”
Wade said the grand jury report includes significant inaccuracies and misleading statements “that should be and are clarified and corrected in the city’s response.”
The grand jury report provided nine findings and recommendations to the council and city staff. It concluded that labor and legal expenses related to the city’s redevelopment activities should have been better recorded and allocated. It made no allegations of fraud.
“The 2012/2013 (civil) grand jury issued 15 reports this year to various local agencies,” City Attorney Jennifer Lyon said. “These are all policy recommendations ... We’re required to respond. But there’s nothing about the law that requires the city adopt their policy recommendations.”
The state dissolved all California redevelopment agencies beginning Feb. 1, 2012, to help reduce the state budget deficit. The Imperial Beach City Council, like councils in most cities, became the redevelopment successor agency, responsible for paying, performing and enforcing existing obligations.
The agency is required to prepare recognized obligation payment schedules every six months of the fiscal year and disclose the amount and funding source.
Wade said the way the legislation was written complicated the process.
“So poorly written was that legislation that during this dissolution process they rewrote the legislation and adopted a new bill in June of 2012, trying to make clear some of the provisions,” Wade said.
Wade said in May he felt the city had been singled out.
“Generally speaking, the audit period covered a time during which if an auditor were asked to audit any agency in this state, I would venture to guess they would have found much the same thing if not worse,” Wade said.
He said the fact that the city has had all of its recognized obligation payments schedules approved and in on time speaks for its success in navigating the process.
“We’ve met every obligation of the dissolution act,” Wade said. “We have navigated this process better than most agencies in the state of California. Transitioning into dissolution and moving forward, we have weaned ourselves off reliance of those dollars.”
Councilman Ed Spriggs said the allegations have impugned the city and all of its elected officials.
“It isn’t often that a grand jury goes to this length with so many allegations about the conduct of city business,” he said.
Despite the harm, Spriggs asked Lyon to include “respectfully” before each time the response states the word disagrees.
Wade said that, given the challenges of the dissolution process, he acknowledged the city can always do better.
“At the very least, this grand jury audit forced us to do that,” he said.
Mayor Pro Tem Lorie Bragg thanked Wade for the report.
“The last two years of unwinding the RDA were strenuous, rigorous and gut-wrenching, and we survived it,” Bragg said. “It was unchartered waters and those waters changed on a daily basis. I’m proud of the outcome of this. I think that as a small city … we have nothing to be ashamed of.”
Wednesday, August 28, 2013
(San Diego) WATER AUTHORITY STRATEGIES ALIGN WITH GRAND JURY RECOMMENDATIONS
East County Magazine -
The San Diego County Water Authority’s Board of Directors on Thursday said the agency is advancing plans that align with recommendations issued by the San Diego County Grand Jury in its May report, “Reduce Dependence on Imported Water.”
The Water Authority and its 24 member agencies “will continue to implement programs and projects that encourage efficient water use through conservation and water recycling,” the Water Authority’s official response said. “Additional supply options are being pursued to address the multiple challenges to providing future water supply reliability.” The letter was submitted August 1 to comply with the Grand Jury’s deadline, and then ratified on Thursday by the Water Authority’s Board.
“The Grand Jury’s articulate assessment of water issues benefits the entire region,” said Thomas V. Wornham, chair of the Water Authority’s Board. “It’s encouraging to have this kind of support for our mission as we craft water supply plans through 2035. We will continue diligently looking for cost-effective ways to enhance the county’s water supply portfolio and emergency safety net.”
In May, the Grand Jury said the Water Authority “has made substantial progress in diversifying water supply sources.” It formally recommended that the Water Authority “continue to pursue a vigorous policy to lessen dependence on imported water by continued conservation, reuse and reclamation, additional emergency storage projects and new desalination projects.” It also recommended that the Water Authority “further demonstrate the economic feasibility of expansion of desalination projects to include a Camp Pendleton location.”
The Water Authority said those recommendations are being implemented through various means, including the development of local groundwater and recycled water supplies, ongoing conservation efforts and the evaluation of seawater desalination options conducted in collaboration with Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton.
In addition, the Water Authority fully agreed with two findings issued by the Grand Jury – that desalination is a viable local source of water and that long-term local storage of water for use in emergencies is vital.
The Water Authority partially disagreed with a third finding – that six months of water storage capacity for emergencies is insufficient. Based on projected growth, supply development and conservation, six months of capacity for emergency use remains adequate for responding to an earthquake or other catastrophic event for the next 20 or 30 years, according to the Water Authority. However, the agency is developing 100,000 acre-feet of additional storage at San Vicente Reservoir to address potential needs due to environmental restrictions on water deliveries, drought and other factors that can limit supply availability but don’t fall under the parameters of the Water Authority’s Emergency Storage Program.
The Water Authority’s diversification strategy dates back to the early 1990s, when the agency relied on the Los Angeles-based Metropolitan Water District of Southern California for up to 95 percent of its water. In 1991, a severe drought led to a 31 percent reduction in supplies for San Diego County, with threats of deeper cuts.
In response, the Water Authority launched a long-term plan to increase water supply reliability through a series of investments in major infrastructure projects, water-transfer agreements and conservation measures. The agency helped craft the nation’s largest agriculture-to-urban water transfer in 2003 and embarked on a multi-billion dollar Capital Improvement Program that has substantially increased the region’s ability to move and store water by adding and expanding facilities.
In addition, the Water Authority has promoted water-use efficiency through legislation, outreach and conservation upgrades such as low-flow toilets, weather-based irrigation controllers and water-efficient landscaping. Those efforts helped decrease regional water consumption by about 30 percent between 2007 and 2012.
The Water Authority’s overall strategy has markedly reduced its reliance on MWD. In 2020, the San Diego region plans to meet 30 percent of its demand with water supplies from MWD, and the rest will come from its portfolio of other sources.
The San Diego County Water Authority’s Board of Directors on Thursday said the agency is advancing plans that align with recommendations issued by the San Diego County Grand Jury in its May report, “Reduce Dependence on Imported Water.”
The Water Authority and its 24 member agencies “will continue to implement programs and projects that encourage efficient water use through conservation and water recycling,” the Water Authority’s official response said. “Additional supply options are being pursued to address the multiple challenges to providing future water supply reliability.” The letter was submitted August 1 to comply with the Grand Jury’s deadline, and then ratified on Thursday by the Water Authority’s Board.
“The Grand Jury’s articulate assessment of water issues benefits the entire region,” said Thomas V. Wornham, chair of the Water Authority’s Board. “It’s encouraging to have this kind of support for our mission as we craft water supply plans through 2035. We will continue diligently looking for cost-effective ways to enhance the county’s water supply portfolio and emergency safety net.”
In May, the Grand Jury said the Water Authority “has made substantial progress in diversifying water supply sources.” It formally recommended that the Water Authority “continue to pursue a vigorous policy to lessen dependence on imported water by continued conservation, reuse and reclamation, additional emergency storage projects and new desalination projects.” It also recommended that the Water Authority “further demonstrate the economic feasibility of expansion of desalination projects to include a Camp Pendleton location.”
The Water Authority said those recommendations are being implemented through various means, including the development of local groundwater and recycled water supplies, ongoing conservation efforts and the evaluation of seawater desalination options conducted in collaboration with Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton.
In addition, the Water Authority fully agreed with two findings issued by the Grand Jury – that desalination is a viable local source of water and that long-term local storage of water for use in emergencies is vital.
The Water Authority partially disagreed with a third finding – that six months of water storage capacity for emergencies is insufficient. Based on projected growth, supply development and conservation, six months of capacity for emergency use remains adequate for responding to an earthquake or other catastrophic event for the next 20 or 30 years, according to the Water Authority. However, the agency is developing 100,000 acre-feet of additional storage at San Vicente Reservoir to address potential needs due to environmental restrictions on water deliveries, drought and other factors that can limit supply availability but don’t fall under the parameters of the Water Authority’s Emergency Storage Program.
The Water Authority’s diversification strategy dates back to the early 1990s, when the agency relied on the Los Angeles-based Metropolitan Water District of Southern California for up to 95 percent of its water. In 1991, a severe drought led to a 31 percent reduction in supplies for San Diego County, with threats of deeper cuts.
In response, the Water Authority launched a long-term plan to increase water supply reliability through a series of investments in major infrastructure projects, water-transfer agreements and conservation measures. The agency helped craft the nation’s largest agriculture-to-urban water transfer in 2003 and embarked on a multi-billion dollar Capital Improvement Program that has substantially increased the region’s ability to move and store water by adding and expanding facilities.
In addition, the Water Authority has promoted water-use efficiency through legislation, outreach and conservation upgrades such as low-flow toilets, weather-based irrigation controllers and water-efficient landscaping. Those efforts helped decrease regional water consumption by about 30 percent between 2007 and 2012.
The Water Authority’s overall strategy has markedly reduced its reliance on MWD. In 2020, the San Diego region plans to meet 30 percent of its demand with water supplies from MWD, and the rest will come from its portfolio of other sources.
Tuesday, August 27, 2013
(Santa Clara) Grand Jury Reports Dominate Board of Supervisors’ Next Meeting
Three Civil Grand Jury reports will go before the Board of Supervisors next week.
by Jennifer Wadsworth, San Jose Inside -
The people in charge of providing financial and protective services for Santa Clara County residents run a department lacking structure and accountability, according to a just-released Civil Grand Jury audit that goes before the county Board of Supervisors on Tuesday.
This isn’t the first time the Office of the Public Administrator/Guardian/Conservator has come under scrutiny. It’s been subject to several grand jury audits over the past decade, investigations prompted each time by complaints. Its function as public guardian and conservatorship of the elderly, in particular, has riled up some residents who contest the legality of the county taking control of the assets of the elderly. Take a look at this Facebook page. Or this YouTube video. Or this one.
The latest grand jury audit points out mostly administrative problems in the department under purview of the Social Services Administration. Employees in the office don’t clock in or out in any organized way. There aren’t any staff meetings. There’s no formal process to handle complaints.
About two-thirds of the department’s policies haven’t been reviewed in several years. Few people use the case management software installed five years ago to make everyone’s life way easier by automating the whole deal from start to finish. A bunch of staffers are behind on certification and training. And management was mistakenly under the impression that they couldn’t conduct employee evaluations because of some agreement with labor unions.
by Jennifer Wadsworth, San Jose Inside -
The people in charge of providing financial and protective services for Santa Clara County residents run a department lacking structure and accountability, according to a just-released Civil Grand Jury audit that goes before the county Board of Supervisors on Tuesday.
This isn’t the first time the Office of the Public Administrator/Guardian/Conservator has come under scrutiny. It’s been subject to several grand jury audits over the past decade, investigations prompted each time by complaints. Its function as public guardian and conservatorship of the elderly, in particular, has riled up some residents who contest the legality of the county taking control of the assets of the elderly. Take a look at this Facebook page. Or this YouTube video. Or this one.
The latest grand jury audit points out mostly administrative problems in the department under purview of the Social Services Administration. Employees in the office don’t clock in or out in any organized way. There aren’t any staff meetings. There’s no formal process to handle complaints.
About two-thirds of the department’s policies haven’t been reviewed in several years. Few people use the case management software installed five years ago to make everyone’s life way easier by automating the whole deal from start to finish. A bunch of staffers are behind on certification and training. And management was mistakenly under the impression that they couldn’t conduct employee evaluations because of some agreement with labor unions.
Saturday, August 24, 2013
The Mountain Messenger
Downieville, Sierra County, California July 18, 2013
(Sierra County) Grand Jury Report Published
Downieville, Sierra County, California July 18, 2013
(Sierra County) Grand Jury Report Published
DOWNIEVILLE – The 2012-2013 grand jury report is finished,
out and available. Masochists, political
junkies and scholars may find copies from the Clerk-Recorder’s Office as the
courthouse or online by rummaging through www.sierracounty.ws.
This year’s panel reports on four areas of local governance;
law enforcement facilities, the building department, employees’ conceders over
whistleblowing, and the school district.
The report is somewhat unusual in its temperance. Often grand juries second-guess elected officials
and proclaim what County priorities should be.
While there are whiffs of this usual problem in this year’s report, the
panel generally avoided that tendency.
Governors will nonetheless complain that while the grand
jury has pointed out some problems, neglect, and failings, as ever the panel
doesn’t offer funding for fixes.
“There’s always money.
It’s a matter of priorities.”
Auditor Don Hemphill was wont to say.
Therein lies the rub: grand juries
inevitably propose to change the priorities set by those actually elected to
govern.
The grand jury concluded the leak in the courthouse roof
needs fixing, that much of the security infrastructure didn’t get fixed with
grand money, that prisoners don’t have a good enough exercise area, that the
supes must consider closing the jail, that terrorists could wreak havoc and
that the supes must do something about that, too.
Nope.
The county may, as the grand jury recommends, establish a
standing committee to worry about such things.
On the other hand the supes might continue to assign those chores elsewhere. The grand jury cannot command the supes to do
anything, including share its assessment of likely terrorists attacks, or create
and pay task force to re-examine the benefits of closing the jail.
The grand jury also believes the building department is
fostering a disrespect for the law by ignoring most building code violations.
We had believed the State and the feds had the responsibility
of fostering such disrespect. But the
grand jury is right: those who obey building laws pay dearly, while others
skate.
“As to the problem the County has two options: 1) uniformly enforce the building codes, or
2) abandon the pretense of having a building code for structures in ‘Sierra
County.” The grand jury wrote. We can find no way to quarrel with this
analysis.
Complaining employees will always have a problem in such a
small workforce. ‘By the nature of a
complaint, the complainer can often be identified. Further, department heads, work so closely that
complainers and whistle- blowers have a hard time believing their anonymity
will be preserved by the personnel office.
We are somewhat sympathetic, while having little regard for
anonymous narks. We do not pay attention
to unsigned letters, and are uneasy with anonymous complaints. At the same time, we protect our sources.
Tough one. The grand
jury has discovered Nevada County would be willing to help us out with
this. We hope that avenue will be
explored.
Finally, the grand jury responded to questions regarding the
school district by attending meetings and interviewing staff. We believe this chore will excuse each and
every grand jury member from purgatory, if not harsher afterlife conditions.
The grand jury concluded the school district is clean; it
does abide by the Brown Act, the State’s open meeting law.
The grand jury also notes the school district’s website
makes digging out background information exceedingly difficult.
The grand jury points out the obvious problems of educating
our youth: a steadily declining number of kids spread over 1,000 square miles,
underpaid teachers, the lack of an economy of scale and, finally, a relatively uncaring
populace.
If, the grand jury explains, the people of Sierra County
want the level of excellence long provided by an under paid and under-appreciated
staff, they’ll simply have to get involved and pay for it.
Amen.
Don Russell, Editor
Friday, August 23, 2013
(Santa Clara) Hospital district improving transparency, agency says
After critical grand jury report, El Camino making strides
by Nick Veronin, Mountain View Voice -
A better website, a distinguishing name change and modifications to the way the organization keeps track of taxpayer money have made the El Camino Healthcare District more transparent and accountable to the public, according to an official with the Local Agency Formation Commission of Santa Clara County.
After being publicly criticized last year by the LAFCO board and the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury for a lack of openness and questionable business practices, ECH and the district are turning their act around, said Margaret Abe-Koga, a member of the LAFCO board and the Mountain View City Council.
"From what we've seen, it seems they have actually made quite a few changes and a lot of progress has been made," Abe-Koga said, referring to a report, which officials from the local healthcare organization delivered before the LAFCO board on Aug. 7.
In the report, ECH and ECHD leaders highlighted a number of changes made over the past year aimed at improving transparency.
Officials noted that a much sharper distinction has now been drawn between the hospital and the taxpayer-funded hospital district. Before, the hospital was named El Camino Hospital and the district was named the El Camino Hospital District, and both entities shared a single website. Now, the district has changed its name to the El Camino Healthcare District and it no longer shares a website with the hospital.
According to Abe-Koga, money collected by the healthcare district used to essentially be funneled directly into the hospital corporation. Once there, officials promised that they only used they taxpayer-generated funds for capital improvements and community benefits projects as the law requires. However, because there was no sharp dividing line, many questioned whether that money might be used for other purposes.
Now, the district keeps a very separate set of books, and instead of sending tax dollars directly to the hospital's capital improvement and community benefit funds, the hospital corporation now has to formally request funds from the district, according to Abe-Koga.
"We were very pleased that the district took LAFCO's recommendations seriously," Abe-Koga said. "Overall things are looking much better than they did a year ago."
In addition to Abe-Koga's endorsement, the district also received a certificate acknowledging their efforts to increase transparency from the Special District Leadership Foundation.
The SDLF, an organization composed of leaders from special districts from all over California, gave the district its District Transparency Certificate of Excellence -- recognizing the district for taking a number of steps to improve its openness.
Those steps included putting all of its board members through an ethics training course, adopting official policies for dealing with public records act requests, conducting annual audits and making sure policies are in place to prevent conflicts of interest.
"This award is a true testament to the hard work and collaboration between the district and our community over the past several years," ECHD Chair Patricia Einarson said in a press release. "As a publicly accountable organization, we are committed to being open and transparent about activities and decisions impacting district residents."
by Nick Veronin, Mountain View Voice -
A better website, a distinguishing name change and modifications to the way the organization keeps track of taxpayer money have made the El Camino Healthcare District more transparent and accountable to the public, according to an official with the Local Agency Formation Commission of Santa Clara County.
After being publicly criticized last year by the LAFCO board and the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury for a lack of openness and questionable business practices, ECH and the district are turning their act around, said Margaret Abe-Koga, a member of the LAFCO board and the Mountain View City Council.
"From what we've seen, it seems they have actually made quite a few changes and a lot of progress has been made," Abe-Koga said, referring to a report, which officials from the local healthcare organization delivered before the LAFCO board on Aug. 7.
In the report, ECH and ECHD leaders highlighted a number of changes made over the past year aimed at improving transparency.
Officials noted that a much sharper distinction has now been drawn between the hospital and the taxpayer-funded hospital district. Before, the hospital was named El Camino Hospital and the district was named the El Camino Hospital District, and both entities shared a single website. Now, the district has changed its name to the El Camino Healthcare District and it no longer shares a website with the hospital.
According to Abe-Koga, money collected by the healthcare district used to essentially be funneled directly into the hospital corporation. Once there, officials promised that they only used they taxpayer-generated funds for capital improvements and community benefits projects as the law requires. However, because there was no sharp dividing line, many questioned whether that money might be used for other purposes.
Now, the district keeps a very separate set of books, and instead of sending tax dollars directly to the hospital's capital improvement and community benefit funds, the hospital corporation now has to formally request funds from the district, according to Abe-Koga.
"We were very pleased that the district took LAFCO's recommendations seriously," Abe-Koga said. "Overall things are looking much better than they did a year ago."
In addition to Abe-Koga's endorsement, the district also received a certificate acknowledging their efforts to increase transparency from the Special District Leadership Foundation.
The SDLF, an organization composed of leaders from special districts from all over California, gave the district its District Transparency Certificate of Excellence -- recognizing the district for taking a number of steps to improve its openness.
Those steps included putting all of its board members through an ethics training course, adopting official policies for dealing with public records act requests, conducting annual audits and making sure policies are in place to prevent conflicts of interest.
"This award is a true testament to the hard work and collaboration between the district and our community over the past several years," ECHD Chair Patricia Einarson said in a press release. "As a publicly accountable organization, we are committed to being open and transparent about activities and decisions impacting district residents."
Wednesday, August 21, 2013
Mono Grand Jury finds allegations against MCSO “unfounded”
by Benett Kessler on August 21, 2013
The Mono County 2012-2013 Grand Jury Report is out. One of the investigations involved someone who complained about an alleged illegal search and excessive force by the Mono County Sheriff’s Department. The Jury found that allegations agains the Sheriff’s Department were “unfounded based upon all available evidence.”
The Jury did investigate the allegations that an officer used an excessive amount of pepper spray and denied paramedic transport of the complainant to the hospital. The complainant also alleged that an officer illegally obtained evidence without probable cause.
The Jury found that officers did have probable cause to search the occupants and their vehicle. They also found that officers followed guidelines in Sheriff’s Department Policy 300. The Jury Report said Sheriff vehicles carry a first aid kit and water to counteract effects of pepper spray. So, they concluded, medical attention was provided.
The Jury Report did say that the complainant had resisted officers’ repeated directions to vacate the vehicle. The Report says the complainant was removed from the vehicle but care provided was not captured on camera. The Jury recommended that whenever possible, officers contact with individuals should be captured on camera and that dialogue from visual and audio tapes should be transcribed and included in reports when applicable.
The Jury Report said from viewing the video tape, it was difficult to tell how much pepper spray was used. They recommend development of a system to document when a canister of pepper spray is issued to an officer and when it has been depleted. Again, the Jury concluded that allegations against the Sheriff’s Department were “unfounded based upon all available evidence.”
http://www.sierrawave.net/26087/mono-grand-jury-finds/
The Mono County 2012-2013 Grand Jury Report is out. One of the investigations involved someone who complained about an alleged illegal search and excessive force by the Mono County Sheriff’s Department. The Jury found that allegations agains the Sheriff’s Department were “unfounded based upon all available evidence.”
The Jury did investigate the allegations that an officer used an excessive amount of pepper spray and denied paramedic transport of the complainant to the hospital. The complainant also alleged that an officer illegally obtained evidence without probable cause.
The Jury found that officers did have probable cause to search the occupants and their vehicle. They also found that officers followed guidelines in Sheriff’s Department Policy 300. The Jury Report said Sheriff vehicles carry a first aid kit and water to counteract effects of pepper spray. So, they concluded, medical attention was provided.
The Jury Report did say that the complainant had resisted officers’ repeated directions to vacate the vehicle. The Report says the complainant was removed from the vehicle but care provided was not captured on camera. The Jury recommended that whenever possible, officers contact with individuals should be captured on camera and that dialogue from visual and audio tapes should be transcribed and included in reports when applicable.
The Jury Report said from viewing the video tape, it was difficult to tell how much pepper spray was used. They recommend development of a system to document when a canister of pepper spray is issued to an officer and when it has been depleted. Again, the Jury concluded that allegations against the Sheriff’s Department were “unfounded based upon all available evidence.”
http://www.sierrawave.net/26087/mono-grand-jury-finds/
(Marin) County embraces grand jury computer advice
By Nels Johnson, Marin Independent Journal -
Civic Center officials are taking recommendations of the civil grand jury to heart as they seek to select a new computer software system, saying some jury proposals will be embraced while others will be studied.
The jury raised questions about the overall project plan and urged that management be tightened in a report that saluted officials for "lessons learned" after the $30 million system installed in 2006 worked so poorly and proved so costly it now has to be scrapped.
A county administration response to the jury report endorsed by county supervisors Tuesday indicates two jury recommendations already have been implemented, four will be put to work in the future and two will be studied. A jury proposal that an outside expert or entity be routinely used to help oversee all major projects was rejected.
"I really appreciate the thoughtful program, the thinking that has gone into how we move forward" in selecting a new system, Supervisor Katie Rice told County Administrator Matthew Hymel.
Civic Center officials say they are on track to select a new program by next summer after detailed study by a staff task force and expert analysis including $880,000 for consultants.
Although lauding the county's cautious, studied approach to planning for a new system, jurors found some of the same "deficiencies" in the program that torpedoed the last one. Management of the new project is inadequate, reliance on consultants too great, and county supervisors are not as involved as they should be, the panel observed, adding governance must be tightened and accountability assigned.
"Possibly the most glaring deficiency ... is the lack of a comprehensive project plan to guide all the key players and to measure progress," the jury concluded.
The administration's response said such a plan will be developed, adding, "project planning and change management activities have been occurring with each phase of this project to date."
Jury proposals to make the project manager a full-time post and issue regular briefings to supervisors also will be "implemented in the future." And jury recommendations providing for independent oversight advice and appointing the county administrator and information technology chief as project directors already have been implemented.
Jury proposals to ease up on consultants, and that when consultants are hired, county staffers acquire "missing expertise" from them, will require "further analysis," according to the response.
"We do not believe there is a lack of best business practices expertise in-house," the jury asserted, urging a consultant crackdown including strict hiring guidelines. "The process of hiring outside consultants has become too convenient for the Board of Supervisors."
The jury said the county, and not consultants, should be in charge of the new computer plan. Just like last time, "the outside consultants seem to be the driving and controlling force," the jury reported. Yet the jury also urged an "objective advisory resource" or consulting adviser review the project and its risks.
Positive developments listed by the jury included involving high-tech staffers in decision making, better staff training, more staff "user input" and a goal of obtaining simpler software designed for government.
Civic Center officials are taking recommendations of the civil grand jury to heart as they seek to select a new computer software system, saying some jury proposals will be embraced while others will be studied.
The jury raised questions about the overall project plan and urged that management be tightened in a report that saluted officials for "lessons learned" after the $30 million system installed in 2006 worked so poorly and proved so costly it now has to be scrapped.
A county administration response to the jury report endorsed by county supervisors Tuesday indicates two jury recommendations already have been implemented, four will be put to work in the future and two will be studied. A jury proposal that an outside expert or entity be routinely used to help oversee all major projects was rejected.
"I really appreciate the thoughtful program, the thinking that has gone into how we move forward" in selecting a new system, Supervisor Katie Rice told County Administrator Matthew Hymel.
Civic Center officials say they are on track to select a new program by next summer after detailed study by a staff task force and expert analysis including $880,000 for consultants.
Although lauding the county's cautious, studied approach to planning for a new system, jurors found some of the same "deficiencies" in the program that torpedoed the last one. Management of the new project is inadequate, reliance on consultants too great, and county supervisors are not as involved as they should be, the panel observed, adding governance must be tightened and accountability assigned.
"Possibly the most glaring deficiency ... is the lack of a comprehensive project plan to guide all the key players and to measure progress," the jury concluded.
The administration's response said such a plan will be developed, adding, "project planning and change management activities have been occurring with each phase of this project to date."
Jury proposals to make the project manager a full-time post and issue regular briefings to supervisors also will be "implemented in the future." And jury recommendations providing for independent oversight advice and appointing the county administrator and information technology chief as project directors already have been implemented.
Jury proposals to ease up on consultants, and that when consultants are hired, county staffers acquire "missing expertise" from them, will require "further analysis," according to the response.
"We do not believe there is a lack of best business practices expertise in-house," the jury asserted, urging a consultant crackdown including strict hiring guidelines. "The process of hiring outside consultants has become too convenient for the Board of Supervisors."
The jury said the county, and not consultants, should be in charge of the new computer plan. Just like last time, "the outside consultants seem to be the driving and controlling force," the jury reported. Yet the jury also urged an "objective advisory resource" or consulting adviser review the project and its risks.
Positive developments listed by the jury included involving high-tech staffers in decision making, better staff training, more staff "user input" and a goal of obtaining simpler software designed for government.
Tuesday, August 20, 2013
Culver City Ranked #3 in Los Angeles County’s 88 Cities in 2012-13
by Kelly Hartog, Editor, Culver City Patch -
Incorporated cities were judged on their fiscal health, governance, financial management and compensation.
As part of its recently released Final Report, the County of Los Angeles 2012-2013 Civil Grand Jury ranked Culver City #3 of the County’s 88 incorporated cities for the City’s outstanding performance in its fiscal health, governance, financial management, and compensation programs.
The Civil Grand Jury is empowered by state law to investigate county, city, and joint-powers agencies and acts in a “watch-dog” capacity by examining carefully and completely the operations of various government agencies within Los Angeles County.
Earlier in the year, the Grand Jury issued an in-depth questionnaire to each city involving the topics of fiscal management policies and practices, audit requirements, and public participation in the budget process. In response to the questionnaire, Culver City provided over 120 pages of City Council adopted policies, procedures, and other documents for evaluation. Based on those documents, the answers to the questionnaire, and follow-up investigations, the Grand Jury scored Culver City’s responses with a 94 percent, which ranks Culver City #3.
“There is a high level of transparency and solicitation of public involvement inherent in Culver City’s local government.” said Mayor Jeffrey Cooper. “Especially in today’s environment, the City is pleased that the Grand Jury’s Report recognizes Culver City’s fiscal management policies and practices as a model for other cities and the importance of spending the public’s money wisely and efficiently. The Culver City community can take pride in the results of this report!”
The Grand Jury’s Final Report can be accessed on the Grand Jury’s website at http://grandjury.co.la.ca.us/gjury12-13/Final%20Report%20%2012-13.pdf
Incorporated cities were judged on their fiscal health, governance, financial management and compensation.
As part of its recently released Final Report, the County of Los Angeles 2012-2013 Civil Grand Jury ranked Culver City #3 of the County’s 88 incorporated cities for the City’s outstanding performance in its fiscal health, governance, financial management, and compensation programs.
The Civil Grand Jury is empowered by state law to investigate county, city, and joint-powers agencies and acts in a “watch-dog” capacity by examining carefully and completely the operations of various government agencies within Los Angeles County.
Earlier in the year, the Grand Jury issued an in-depth questionnaire to each city involving the topics of fiscal management policies and practices, audit requirements, and public participation in the budget process. In response to the questionnaire, Culver City provided over 120 pages of City Council adopted policies, procedures, and other documents for evaluation. Based on those documents, the answers to the questionnaire, and follow-up investigations, the Grand Jury scored Culver City’s responses with a 94 percent, which ranks Culver City #3.
“There is a high level of transparency and solicitation of public involvement inherent in Culver City’s local government.” said Mayor Jeffrey Cooper. “Especially in today’s environment, the City is pleased that the Grand Jury’s Report recognizes Culver City’s fiscal management policies and practices as a model for other cities and the importance of spending the public’s money wisely and efficiently. The Culver City community can take pride in the results of this report!”
The Grand Jury’s Final Report can be accessed on the Grand Jury’s website at http://grandjury.co.la.ca.us/gjury12-13/Final%20Report%20%2012-13.pdf
Sunday, August 18, 2013
Editorial: Solano grand jury report raises questions about dog licensing
Published by The Reporter
POSTED: 08/18/2013 01:04:58 AM PDT
Representatives of Solano County and its seven cities have said they will get together during the next six months and work on addressing a grand jury report criticizing the disjointed way that animal control services are provided. That's all well and good, but the report raises a more fundamental question that ought to be addressed by the community at large: Should the county and cities continue to require licenses for dogs?
One of the grand jury's findings is that approximately 72 percent of dogs in Solano County are unlicensed. That means only 28 percent of dog owners follow the law -- about the same number as in 2002, when Solano County outsourced licensing duties to Texas-based PetData, in hopes of improving compliance rates.
For a while, it did. A 2009-10 grand jury report noted that PetData had managed to increase compliance to about 40 percent. Now the numbers have dropped again. Part of that fall-off, no doubt, is linked to the recession.
But there may be another contributing factor: The most recent grand jury report notes that only 20 of the 37 veterinarians in Solano County are filing required reports about the dogs that they vaccinate for rabies. The information on those reports is used, among other things, to send dog license notices to pet owners. Without knowing where the dogs are, the county, via PetData, can't send out those notices.
It's hard to know if noncompliance by so many veterinarians is new, but it's troubling. For one thing, it's required by state law -- as are dog licenses, for that matter. And the rabies vaccination reporting law isn't new. It's been around for decades. One would think that the veterinarians' own licenses to practice might be made contingent upon complying with the rabies reporting law.
But back to the dog licenses. The funds raised from licensing dogs -- it costs $60 in Vacaville and Benicia, and $40 in the county and other Solano cities -- help pay for animal care services: shelters to house lost or stray animals, officers to pick up wandering pets or carcasses in the streets, investigators of animal abuse or dog bites, etc.
The license fees don't cover everything, but they contribute a substantial amount. If every dog actually were licensed, it might even be possible to lower the current fees and still cover more of the costs. Given the experience of the past decade, though, it doesn't seem likely that the county will get close to 100 percent compliance any time soon. Besides, the matter of dog owners flouting the law isn't unique to Solano County. It's been estimated that, statewide, only about 40 percent hold them.
If that's true, it may be time to reconsider the whole licensing issue. After all, why should dog owners bear the entire responsibility? Animal control deals with plenty of stray cats on a regular basis, and other animals, large and small, periodically. It might make more sense to pay for those services with a tax on veterinary care or pet supplies and do away with dog licenses. That would require changes to state law.
For now, Solano County and its seven cities have to deal with the laws that are in effect. The Solano County Sheriff, who now runs the county's Animal Care Services, has agreed to lead a discussion with the cities to address the grand jury's concerns, including its criticism that the public is confused about who provides services in various jurisdictions.
Judging from the city responses to the grand jury report, it will be a timely discussion. In northern Solano County, Vacaville, Rio Vista, Dixon, Fairfield and Suisun City are part of a consortium that contracts with Humane Animal Services, a division of the SPCA in Vacaville, to handle its animal control. While Vacaville and Suisun City -- which spend $293,000 and $80,000, respectively, each year for the service -- are content with that arrangement, Fairfield and Rio Vista have indicated that they are not. Noting that their annual costs are $280,000 and $51,000, respectively, Fairfield and Rio Vista officials stated that the company "has failed to provide upon request an accurate accountability of funding and expenses for over two years."
With the county's PetData contract coming up for renewal at the end of this fiscal year, this seems to be an ideal time for the cities and the county to come together to see how they might help each other provide quality animal care services for all of Solano County.
http://www.thereporter.com/editorials/ci_23887277/editorial-solano-grand-jury-report-raises-questions-about
POSTED: 08/18/2013 01:04:58 AM PDT
Representatives of Solano County and its seven cities have said they will get together during the next six months and work on addressing a grand jury report criticizing the disjointed way that animal control services are provided. That's all well and good, but the report raises a more fundamental question that ought to be addressed by the community at large: Should the county and cities continue to require licenses for dogs?
One of the grand jury's findings is that approximately 72 percent of dogs in Solano County are unlicensed. That means only 28 percent of dog owners follow the law -- about the same number as in 2002, when Solano County outsourced licensing duties to Texas-based PetData, in hopes of improving compliance rates.
For a while, it did. A 2009-10 grand jury report noted that PetData had managed to increase compliance to about 40 percent. Now the numbers have dropped again. Part of that fall-off, no doubt, is linked to the recession.
But there may be another contributing factor: The most recent grand jury report notes that only 20 of the 37 veterinarians in Solano County are filing required reports about the dogs that they vaccinate for rabies. The information on those reports is used, among other things, to send dog license notices to pet owners. Without knowing where the dogs are, the county, via PetData, can't send out those notices.
It's hard to know if noncompliance by so many veterinarians is new, but it's troubling. For one thing, it's required by state law -- as are dog licenses, for that matter. And the rabies vaccination reporting law isn't new. It's been around for decades. One would think that the veterinarians' own licenses to practice might be made contingent upon complying with the rabies reporting law.
But back to the dog licenses. The funds raised from licensing dogs -- it costs $60 in Vacaville and Benicia, and $40 in the county and other Solano cities -- help pay for animal care services: shelters to house lost or stray animals, officers to pick up wandering pets or carcasses in the streets, investigators of animal abuse or dog bites, etc.
The license fees don't cover everything, but they contribute a substantial amount. If every dog actually were licensed, it might even be possible to lower the current fees and still cover more of the costs. Given the experience of the past decade, though, it doesn't seem likely that the county will get close to 100 percent compliance any time soon. Besides, the matter of dog owners flouting the law isn't unique to Solano County. It's been estimated that, statewide, only about 40 percent hold them.
If that's true, it may be time to reconsider the whole licensing issue. After all, why should dog owners bear the entire responsibility? Animal control deals with plenty of stray cats on a regular basis, and other animals, large and small, periodically. It might make more sense to pay for those services with a tax on veterinary care or pet supplies and do away with dog licenses. That would require changes to state law.
For now, Solano County and its seven cities have to deal with the laws that are in effect. The Solano County Sheriff, who now runs the county's Animal Care Services, has agreed to lead a discussion with the cities to address the grand jury's concerns, including its criticism that the public is confused about who provides services in various jurisdictions.
Judging from the city responses to the grand jury report, it will be a timely discussion. In northern Solano County, Vacaville, Rio Vista, Dixon, Fairfield and Suisun City are part of a consortium that contracts with Humane Animal Services, a division of the SPCA in Vacaville, to handle its animal control. While Vacaville and Suisun City -- which spend $293,000 and $80,000, respectively, each year for the service -- are content with that arrangement, Fairfield and Rio Vista have indicated that they are not. Noting that their annual costs are $280,000 and $51,000, respectively, Fairfield and Rio Vista officials stated that the company "has failed to provide upon request an accurate accountability of funding and expenses for over two years."
With the county's PetData contract coming up for renewal at the end of this fiscal year, this seems to be an ideal time for the cities and the county to come together to see how they might help each other provide quality animal care services for all of Solano County.
http://www.thereporter.com/editorials/ci_23887277/editorial-solano-grand-jury-report-raises-questions-about
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)