PDF: Read the 2007-08 grand jury report
Special Section: San Bernardino County Assessors Probe
Each year, the 19 members of San Bernardino County's grand jury spend hours interviewing local officials and researching how government works.
They produce an annual report, with varying levels of detail, and a set of recommendations.
Officially, the Board of Supervisors and other elected county leaders must formally respond to the findings within 90 days. Many of the recommendations are put in place. Others are discounted.
This year, the 2007-2008 grand jury's actions have led to the arrest last week of a top county aide, and its scathing review of the assessor's office has within days spurred action.
The chairman of the Board of Supervisors is proposing a measure to set minimum qualifications for the top aides of elected officials, after the grand jury criticized Assessor Bill Postmus for hiring deputies without backgrounds in property appraisal. It is scheduled to go before the board Tuesday.
Postmus, while disagreeing with many of the grand jury's findings, immediately issued a detailed three-page response, vowing to improve some aspects of how he runs his office.
San Bernardino County has had a history of public corruption and the perception of misdeeds. In the 1990s, some former top officials were prosecuted for bribery, and county officials have worked hard to shed that image and improve government ethics.
Grand juries can play an essential role in local government and are a "bedrock of citizen democracy" in the state, said Judi Lazenby, president of the California Grand Jurors Association.
"It is indispensable," said Lazenby, a three-time member of the Santa Clara County grand jury. "It not only watches over the processes of government, but it also helps government because people know they have an ombudsman."
Law Mandates Grand Juries
Annual county grand juries are mandated by law in all 58 California counties. Terms run from July 1 to June 30. Members are screened and appointed by a judicial panel, receive a stipend of $25 per day and generally work three or four days a week.
The grand jury in San Bernardino County can handle criminal indictments and has the power to examine all aspects of county government and the affairs of cities. Members can decide which county departments to investigate. Residents also can lodge complaints with the grand jury.
Separately, prosecutors can impanel special criminal grand juries to seek indictments. These are separate from the annual grand juries that investigate county government.
Grand juries in San Bernardino County have weighed in on such topics as jail crowding, permits for air ambulance service and lack of space at the coroner's office.
But the depth and aggressiveness of grand juries can vary, even from year to year within the same county, based on the backgrounds of members, Lazenby said.
Supervisors control the budgets for grand juries, leading the jurors association in 2004 to accuse boards of supervisors of using fiscal woes as an excuse to curtail the activities of grand juries.
San Bernardino County supervisors slashed the grand jury's budget in 2004 to $201,000, from more than $315,000 in 2002. Since then, the grand jury's budget has slowly climbed and now stands at about $343,000.
Some in San Bernardino County point to this year's grand jury report and say it is noteworthy for its thoroughness and level of detail, especially with the inquiry into the assessor's office.
Supervisor Dennis Hansberger, who in his 20 years on the board has seen his share of grand jury reports, said he agrees this year's report appears more detailed and complete.
But he said he doesn't know if that's because the grand jury has a new legal adviser from the district attorney's office or because of the make-up of jurors or the circumstances under investigation. Deputy District Attorney Charles Umeda is the grand jury's legal adviser.
Hansberger, who spoke with the 2008-2009 grand jury last week about county government, said the reports are generally useful documents with positive recommendations.
38 Complaints Received
Throughout its one-year term, the 2007-2008 grand jury conducted hundreds of interviews and brought in 35 guest speakers involved in local government, including the Los Angeles Ethics Commission.
The grand jury received 38 complaints from residents and turned over four to the district attorney's office, the first time since at least 1999 that the grand jury has publicly acknowledged such a move.
Jurors reviewed the operations of almost 20 county departments or programs.
In their assessor's probe, jurors reviewed thousands of documents, conducted more than two dozen interviews and issued 25 subpoenas.
At least one of those subpoenas helped lead to the arrest last week of Assistant Assessor Adam Aleman, 25, on charges of presenting false evidence to the grand jury and destroying public records.
According to court records, Aleman altered minutes of executive staff meetings before turning them over to the grand jury as part of the subpoena. The grand jury turned the matter over to prosecutors when the inconsistencies were spotted.
Grand jury forewoman Gwenn Perez could not be reached for comment.
Robert E. Burkhardt, 81, of Barstow, has served on three county grand juries and was the jury foreman in 2004-2005. He said he hopes future grand juries remain as aggressive as this year's.
Some in the past have been, he said. But others have been hampered by the difficulty of getting dedicated members and the lack cooperation from officials, he said.
"We tried to be aggressive one year and the judge told us to back off," Burkhardt said.
"They were trying to keep things under control," he said. "I am glad they kind of let them loose this year."
Reach Duane W. Gang at 951-36-9547 or dgang@PE.com
FINDINGS
The reorganization of the Assessors Office created two distinct management groups within the Assessors office. The Grand Jury found striking contrast in the level of management expertise, technical knowledge, and productive contributions to the duties and responsibilities between the two management groups. The Grand Jury found that these two management groups had very little interaction.
The Operations managers oversee the day-to-day operations of the Assessors Office. These managers are currently career employees who provide departmental competency and expertise. They have high levels of experience, training and education and are indispensable to the everyday operations of the Assessors Office. These managers report directly to the Assistant Assessor for Operations.
As part of the reorganization, the current Assessor reclassified key operational management positions from “civil service protected” to “at-will.” Testimony from Assessor’s employees indicated career employees may be reluctant to give up their civil service status for an “at will” political appointment. The reclassification of these top positions from “civil service protected” to “at will” threatens the professionalism and competency of those positions. These reclassifications could make these positions vulnerable to political cronyism or undue influence from administrative political appointees.
The Executive Support staff was created when the current Assessor took office in January 2007. In contrast to the Operations managers, the individuals appointed to the positions in the Executive Support staff lacked experience or training directly associated with assessor work. The lack of management and assessor function experience of the two Assistant Assessors originally appointed by the Assessor caused the Grand Jury great concern. According to the Revenue & Taxation Code, within 30 days of appointment, the Assistant Assessor must hold a valid temporary appraiser’s certificate issued by the Board of Equalization. A four-year college degree or a high school degree and relevant work experience is a requirement for receiving a temporary appraiser’s certificate. The Assistant Assessor for Executive Support did not meet these requirements, but a waiver was obtained from the Board of Equalization.
Most of the Executive Support staff is made up of individuals with previous
associations with the Assessor when he was on the Board of Supervisors and/or was
Republican Central Committee Chairman.
In order to determine the purpose and work activities of the Executive Support
Staff, the Grand Jury elicited testimony from employees of the Assessors Office
regarding their own projects and their knowledge of tasks assigned to other employees.
The Grand Jury also reviewed the minutes from the weekly meetings held by the
Executive Support Staff. Based on this information, the Grand Jury determined that staff
members used considerable time on planning and implementing such projects as
completing and publishing the annual Assessors Office report, creating website links, and
planning outreach meetings. Such projects are at best “public image” work and
determined to be generally peripheral to the core activities of the Assessors Office. This
assessment was confirmed by the testimony of individuals from the Assessors Office that
the Executive Support Staff had little impact on the everyday operations of the office.
The increase in personnel and funding to staff the new bureaucracy group appears
unjustified based on the contribution of this group to the office in terms of expertise,
education, training and work product. It is important to note the former Assessor did not
have a two-tiered management staff. Under the previous assessor, the operations staff and
two executive secretaries performed many of functions listed for the current Executive
Support Staff.
During the investigation, the Grand Jury reviewed thousands of emails sent and
received in the County email system by the Executive Support staff members. There is
evidence from emails and testimony that the Executive Support Staff members have been
engaged in political activities for various national, state, and local political candidates
during normal working hours.
Numerous emails were political in content. Examples of such content were
arranging of political meetings, solicitations for campaign contributions, instructions to
move monies from one campaign fund to another, solicitation of political proxies, and
activity on and discussions of a Republican Party website called redcounty.com. A
sampling of email received by the Assistant Assessor for the Executive Support Staff
over a two-week period in the year 2008, on the county email system, revealed 91 emails
sent by campaign organizations for national political candidates. The use of the county
email system to send or receive messages with political content violates County Policy
#14-01 on email use by county employees.
In July of 2007, the Assessors Office entered into an agreement, in the form of a
purchase order, for consulting services. According to San Bernardino County policy, a
purchase order of $50,000 or more must receive Board of Supervisors approval. The
valuation of the purchase order just below the amount requiring Board of Supervisors
review raised concerns that the Assessors Office intended to circumvent policy and avoid
board review. The purchase order was originally valued at $49,992. This was later
reduced to $49,200. By valuing the purchase order $800 below the value requiring Board of Supervisors review, the Assessors Office circumvented county policy in the hiring of the consultant. When interviewed, the current Assessor could not explain how the original amount of $49,992 was determined or why the amount was later reduced to $49,200. The consultant was never asked to make a proposal specifying fees, hourly rates or projects. The Assessors Office did not solicit for consulting services through the Request for Proposal (RFP) process, which would have allowed for competitive bidding by qualified consultants.
The consultant was not required to provide detailed invoices to show work done
but was instructed to submit monthly invoices for $4100. Under the purchase order, the
consultant was to provide the Assessors Office bi-weekly reports. The Grand Jury found
no evidence that written reports were ever generated. The consultant was not on the
distribution list for the “executive” staff’s weekly meetings, and did not regularly attend
them. While in the Assessors employ, the consultant continued to perform political work
for a number of Republican candidates in California. The most significant work
produced by the consultant was assisting others in producing the annual Assessors
Report, created a program to hand out certificates when the Assessor and taxpayer
advocates attended events, and tracking all legislation that affected the Assessors Office.
The Grand Jury found very little results from this contract that benefited the Assessor’s
function and that the work product failed to justify the cost of the contract.
Article 7 of the County Employee Exempt Compensation plan provides for two
educational benefits for exempt employees regarding tuition reimbursement. The first
benefit allows employees to be compensated up to $1,000 per fiscal year for tuition
expenses incurred for job-related education or career development. The second benefit
allows for department heads, within their discretion, to reimburse employees for expenses
related to obtaining advance degrees which will advance the employee’s career in service
to the county. Such advance degrees must be obtained outside regular work hours.
Pursuant to Article 7, the current Assessor used his discretion to reimburse the
tuition expense of the Assistant Assessor for Executive Support in the amount of $8,280.
The reimbursement covered tuition for classes the employee attended while pursuing an
undergraduate degree. The term “advance degree” is generally defined as degrees
conferred upon the completion of a master’s or doctorate program, not a degree conferred
upon completion of an undergraduate program. Furthermore, the total amount of tuition
reimbursement far exceeded the amounts provided to other county employees.
The Assessors Office’s use of discretion to reimburse an employee in the amount of $8,280 for undergraduate classes violated the spirit and intent of Article 7. Such expenses related to classes taken for an undergraduate degree may only be reimbursed up to $1,000 per fiscal year and must be incurred for job-related education or career development.
The Assessors Office also approved tuition reimbursement for another employee for undergraduate classes. The reimbursement for this employee was limited to $1,000 per fiscal year. However, the reimbursed expenses were for history classes unrelated to the employee’s county job. The approval of reimbursement for classes not job related violated Article 7.
Review of this employee’s payroll and school records indicated that he was allowed to use absence without pay and other leave time to facilitate his attendance at scheduled classes. The use of such leave time regularly reduced the employee’s work attendance to almost half a forty-hour work week. A review of the class schedule indicated that these classes were scheduled during county work hours.
Although Article 7 only addresses the attendance of classes outside regular work hours for advanced degrees, the intent of the policy is plain on its face and should have been applied to undergraduate degrees. The Assessors Office approval of extensive employee leave of absence for the purpose of class attendance during work hours was an abuse of managerial discretion.
The former Assistant Assessor for Operations resigned his position after a disagreement with the Assessor. Soon after, the current assessor entered into a separation agreement that allowed the employee to be placed on a six-month paid administrative leave. This separation agreement, amounting to more than $63,000 plus benefits was agreed to by the Assessors Office for the employee after only 10 months of employment.
The interested parties of the separation agreement were unable to justify the contractual terms. The Grand Jury was unable find an instance in the County of a separation agreement longer than 4 months. The separation agreement was excessive for the time served in the position.
RECOMMENDATIONS
08-01 Review Executive Support staff requirements in the Assessors Office for potential consolidation of positions to increase efficiency.
08-02 Reclassify Operations management positions to civil service protected.
08-03 Enact policy that requires competitive bidding for consulting services.
08-04 Revise the education reimbursement policy to limit discretionary reimbursement for exempt employees. It is ambiguous and open to broad interpretation. Require employees receiving tuition assistance while working towards a college degree, guarantee the county that they will remain in its employ for a fixed period after graduating.
08-05 Enact policies for separation agreements of County employees that link the length of employment with terms of severance.
08-06 Require that County email system have automatic firewalls in place to preclude all political email from being accessed on the County email system and equipment.
