HomeMy WebLinkAbout21, Response to Grand Jury ReportAction Item # 21
Consideration of a Response to
the Grand Jury Report Dated
May 25, 2012
June 6, 2012
Background / History
• Nevada County Grand Jury received complaint about
District on April 19, 2011
— Complaint from member of the public
— Issue was the eligibility of a Director of the District to serve on
the Board
— Grand Jury conducted and extensive investigation including
interviews of District Staff and Board, the US Postal Service,
and the public
• Grand Jury posted the final report on May 25, 2012
— Formal response required by August 23, 2012
2
New Information
• Board must respond to the Grand Jury Findings and
Recommendations
• Per California Code, the Board shall indicate one of the
following:
— The Board agrees with the findings; or
— The Board disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in
which case the response shall specify the portion of the
finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the
reasons therefore
3
New Information
• Per California Code, the Board shall report one of the
following actions:
— The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding
the implemented action; or
— The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be
implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation; or
— The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the
scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the
matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or
department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of
the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six
months from the date of publication of the grand jury report; or
— The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted
or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore
0
New Information
• General assessment of Grand Jury report
— The State of California, Office of the Attorney General and the
courts, has jurisdiction regarding issues relating to residency
requirements for local government officials
— The District does not agree with many of the 'facts' and findings of
the report
— Director Hillstrom addressed the question of his residency multiple
times in open session
— The Board and General Manager were aware of their
responsibilities regarding this issue, followed District code and
State law, and took appropriate actions
5
New Information
• Draft responses to Grand Jury Findings
- F.1.1. The District Code does not specifically address the process
for responding to a complaint concerning a member of the Board.
Agree.
- F.1.2. The District Code does not specifically require the GM to keep
the Board informed of a complaint concerning a member of the
Board. Ag ree.
- F.1.3. The GM's failure to notify the Board of the complaint regarding
the Director denied the Board the opportunity to address the
complaint. Disagree. There is no requirement, regulation, or
law for the GM to notify the Board in this circumstance.
Additionally, the Board was given the opportunity to address
the complaint.
a
New Information
• Draft responses to Grand Jury Findings (cont.)
- F.1.4. After the Director's public statements at the December 15,
2010 and February 16, 2011 Board meetings, the Board showed a
lack of engagement and responsiveness by failing to address the
issues raised by the Director's statement. Disagree. Director
Hillstrom addressed the question of his residency multiple
times in open session and the Board was satisfied with his
statements. The Board and GM were aware of their
responsibilities regarding this issue, followed District code
and State law, and took appropriate actions. The State of
California, Office of the Attorney General and the courts, have
jurisdiction regarding issues relating to residency
requirements for local government officials.
- F.1.5. The District Code does not require the complainant be notified
of the disposition of a complaint made concerning a member of the
7 Board. Ag ree.
r'0141"MM
New Information
• Draft responses to Grand Jury Recommendations
— R 1. All members of the Board should seek out and attend training
regarding the roles and responsibilities of Board members in
special districts. The recommendation has been implemented.
The District has an on -going program to train Board members.
— R2. The Board should develop written policy which clearly defines
the roles and responsibilities of the GM, the TDPUD legal counsel
and Board in response to a complaint concerning a member of the
Board. The recommendation has not yet been implemented,
but will be implemented within 120 days.
— R3. The Board should amend the District Code to require the
complainant be notified of the disposition of a complaint made
concerning a member of the Board. The recommendation has
not yet been implemented, but will be implemented within 120
days.
d.
New Information
• Draft responses to Grand Jury Recommendations (cont.)
- R4. The Board should develop written policy that requires the GM
to keep the Board informed of a complaint concerning a member of
the Board. The recommendation has not yet been
implemented, but will be implemented within 120 days.
- R5. The Board should improve communications among TDPUD
management, TDPUD legal counsel and the Board. This
recommendation will not be implemented because it is not
warranted. See the District's response to F.1.3 and FAA The
District strives to continually improve communications among
the TDPUD management, TDPUD legal counsel and the Board.
Fiscal Impact
• There is no fiscal impact associated with this item
Recommendation
• Provide comments on this draft response to the Grand Jury
report and direct the Board President to respond to the
Nevada County Grand Jury
11