 |
San Benito County Grand Jury |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
City and County Committee CHARTER The City and County Committee is responsible to investigate matters pertaining to the various city and county governments, special districts and joint-powers agencies. Committee MembersRobert P. Graves, Chairperson BACKGROUND Authority for investigation of San Benito County and the Cities of San Juan Bautista and Hollister is given by §914.1 of the Penal Code which says, in part that the Grand Jury should "ascertain by a careful and diligent investigation whether such provisions (city and county matters of civil concern) have been complied with, and to note the result of such investigation in its report." METHOD OF REVIEW
OBSERVATIONS, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The 1998-1999 Grand Jury, in its report to the San Benito County Board of Supervisors, recommended that an independent auditor conduct a full financial audit of the county's finances. The Board of Supervisors engaged the firm of Bartig, Basler & Ray to perform the audit. The Grand Jury finds that the audit was not, as recommended, an in-depth and detailed examination of the financial condition of the county. The need for a full financial audit of the county's financial condition remains. The Grand Jury recommended to the Board of Supervisors a process for tracing fee-funds as early as December 31, 1998, after its review of procedures at the Auditor-Controller's Office. The Grand Jury finds that, to date, the recommended process has not been implemented. In tracing fee-funds from the County Planning Department to deposit with the County Treasurer, the Grand Jury determined that there was a lapse of up to three days before checks received for fees were deposited with the Treasurer. It appears that the laxness in depositing fees is attributable to an absence of procedures regarding the expeditious handling of these funds. The Grand Jury finds that the paper receipt in use by the County Planning Department, as well as every county department, should be under the control of the Auditor-Controller’s Office. Both the paper receipt and the fee check should reflect information which enables the Auditor-Controller’s Office to account for every fee-fund deposit that is made into the Treasury and allows the Treasury to trace each deposit back to its source. The sequential numbering machine, presently in the Treasurer's Office, should be returned to the Auditor-Controller’s Office so that the identification, and tracing, of fee-fund deposits to the department of origin can be maintained. The County is required to publish its approved budget and make it available not later than October 1st of each year. Although the Board of Supervisors approved the county's budget in August, as of late November 1999, the Auditor-Controller had not made the budget available to the public. The Grand Jury observed that the Finance Officer position of the Auditor-Controller's Office has remained vacant for nearly two years. Rather than fill the vacant position, the Auditor-Controller has used the funds budgeted for this position to hire lesser-qualified temporary staff. The Grand Jury finds that there is a need for the expertise that would be provided by a Finance Officer. The Grand Jury finds that there is a need for additional basic level accounting/clerical staff in the Auditor-Controller's Office as is substantiated by the recommendations contained in the Bartig, Basler and Ray report. The Grand Jury reviewed San Benito County's personnel practices and policies, specifically hiring practices, intradepartmental transfers, and promotions. The present system has been in place for many years. A final candidate for county employment is chosen from a field of the top ten (10) applicants. The choice from this field is not based on the applicant's superior qualifications, but on the head of department's subjective decision. The wide field from which the finalist is chosen makes it possible that the least qualified candidate could be chosen to fill a position. The Grand Jury finds that the "Rule of Five," used in most Merit Systems, reduces the likelihood of less qualified persons being hired. Further, only applicants in the top ten are notified of their failure to be appointed to the position for which they applied. Applicants for county positions may include county employees wishing to transfer from one department to a like-position in another department. The ability to transfer from one position to another within the county frequently results in the depletion of knowledgeable employees within a particular department. The Grand Jury finds that Auditor-Controller's Office has been hard hit as a result of this practice. In order to maintain continuity and the smooth operation of a complex and vital department of county government such as the Auditor-Controller's Office, experienced employees are essential. As county employees may exercise their freedom of choice in work location, incentives to remain within a department should be explored. Proper staffing and workload, as well as an increase in pay specifically apportioned for seniority may alleviate staffing problems experienced by the departments. The Grand Jury observed that the new Director of the Integrated Waste Management Department solved a long-standing "fee collection" problem, identifying over $115,000.00 in uncollected fees and recovering over $85,000.00 to date. She discovered an un-deposited fee check for $300,000.00, which had languished for several months in a drawer rather than accrue a significant amount of interest on deposit. While the Director has made improvements to the Department, it is a "one-person" department at the present time and a qualified full-time assistant is needed to bring the Department to an acceptable level of operation. The City of Hollister has made great strides in solving the problems identified in the 1998-1999 Grand Jury Report, particularly those of the Building Department and its Building Inspectors. The Director of Hollister Public Works made useful recommendations to the Grand Jury for maintenance of the City’s streets, as well as describing a plan for facilitating efficient traffic patterns throughout the City. A comprehensive study of traffic flow on Fourth Street through the intersection of East Street is essential. The back up that occurs during times of heavy traffic causes serious delay and congestion on the thoroughfare. The Public Works Director explained how the flow of traffic could be improved and the Grand Jury found that his ideas had merit. As did the 1998-1999 Grand Jury, this Grand Jury observes that a central purchasing agent for the City of Hollister and the County of San Benito could obtain substantial savings in the purchase of office supplies and equipment. At the present time, each department makes its own purchases without the benefit of quantity pricing. As has been noted in prior Grand Jury Reports, savings could be achieved by negotiating with suppliers for quantity purchases as is done in private industry. Departmental heads of various county agencies have made repeated requests for a County Grant Writer to assist them in obtaining grant funds. This Grand Jury joins its predecessor, the 1998-1999 Grand Jury, in recommending that the county hire or identify a Grant Writer to serve the County and to assist in capturing moneys otherwise not available to it. The Board of Supervisors has repeatedly claimed that individual department heads should write their own grants. Yet department heads, with few exceptions, have informed the Grand Jury that grant writing is a specialized skill that they do not possess. The Grand Jury has heard of only two heads of departments who have the ability to write their own grants, as well as having the knowledge and background to know where to pursue such grants. Salaries for grant writers are more often than not included in the grants themselves and an experienced grant writer should be able to minimize his/her expense to the cities and the county. The Grand Jury has information that many other counties and cities do hire a grant writer to assist the various departments in obtaining grant moneys from the state and federal government. This year the State of California has substantial unexpected and unallocated revenue, money that may go to counties having the know-how to write grants accessing these funds. San Benito County likely will not be one of them. After interviewing various selected public officials and reviewing departmental procedures, the Grand Jury found that the county departments on the whole were operating satisfactorily. RECOMMENDATIONS The Grand Jury recommends that:
AFFECTED AGENCIES: San Benito County Board of Supervisors RESPONSE REQUIRED California Penal Code, §933, requires that a response to this final report’s recommendations be delivered to the presiding judge of the Superior Court within 90 days of the receipt of the report. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
About the
Grand Jury |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
