Newspaper Archive of
Feather River Bulletin
Quincy, California
Lyft
June 23, 2010     Feather River Bulletin
PAGE 63     (63 of 68 available)        PREVIOUS     NEXT      Full Size Image
 
PAGE 63     (63 of 68 available)        PREVIOUS     NEXT      Full Size Image
June 23, 2010
 

Newspaper Archive of Feather River Bulletin produced by SmallTownPapers, Inc.
Website © 2019. All content copyrighted. Copyright Information.     Terms Of Use.     Request Content Removal.




Page 13 Plumas County Grand Jury Report CAL FIRE Captain and Operations Officers Local Fire Protection District Chief Conclusion One can only imagine the feelings and thoughts going through peoples' minds while watching their home burn to the ground with a US Forest fire unit standing by to protect the nearby forest. Or, a local Fire District Unit responds to your house fire, puts the fire out and then tells you that your house is out- side of the fire district and you will be billed for the response. This shouldn't happen but it does. There are many reasons for the above scenarios and they will continue if nothing is done. That is why the Grand Jury feels the Board of Supervisors must take immediate action on the presented recommenda- tions. Audit Committee Report Background: The purpose of the Plumas County Audit Committee is to provide a forum where Grand Jury and Board of Supervisors members meet with county financial management and the independent auditor to ask questions, obtain information, and become familiar with the audit and county financial processes. The Audit Committee is made up of two members of the Board of Supervisors, the Chief Administrative Officer, the County Auditor/Controller (the chair of the committee), two Grand Jury members, and the County Treasurer/Tax Collector. The independent auditors are usually retained on a three year contract. The county is currently in year two of its contract with Smith & Newell CPA's. The independent auditor is always available to the Grand Jury to answer questions. The Grand Jury may advise the independent auditor of questionable financial activity and request that the auditor follow up accordingly. The Grand Jury may also contract, separately from the county, with the auditor to con- duct special audits. The schedule of the annual independent audit process is as follows: On June 30 of each year, the contracted indepen- dent auditor performs a cash count Beginning in July, the auditor collects documenta- tion from county departments During the months of September through November, auditors are on site to perform their audit function In early January, a draft audit report is issued to select department heads and shared with the Grand Jury members By mid-February, the Board of Supervisors reviews and approves the final audit. The final audit report is required by law to be pub- lished by March 30. County Audit Committee meetings are scheduled as nveded. The County Auditor/Controller scheduled an informal meeting on September 9, 2009, so that the incoming Grand Jury members appointed to the Audit Committee could meet the independent audi- tor, voice any concerns, and learn about the audit process. Grand Jury members were encouraged to defer any financial or audit concerns, which indicate the need for further investigation, to the next Grand Jury so that the matters can be addressed at the September 2010 Audit Committee Meeting. Findings and Recommendations: Finding 1: The Grand Jury Audit Committee mem- bers found it very helpful to meet the independent auditor and county officials early on in our terms and to learn firsthand about the audit process. Recommendation: The County Auditor/Controller should continue to schedule an introductory meeting of the County Audit Committee in early September each year. Finding 2: In January, the County Auditor/ Controller provided a very rough electronic draft of the pending financial statements to the two Grand Jury members participating in the Audit Committee. The draft was difficult to follow and understand. It was not feasible for the Grand Jury members to provide comments based upon that draft. The final audit report was not made available to the Grand Jury until the final audit review meeting. Recommendation 2: The County Auditor/Controller should release the final audit report within a reason- able timeframe to allow for Grand Jury review and questions prior to the scheduled County Audit Committee final review meeting. Finding 3: The County Audit Committee final review meeting was scheduled one hour prior to final audit presentation to the Board of Supervisors. Recommendation 3: The County Audit Committee final review should take place at least one week prior to presentation of the report to the Board of Supervisors to allow for any necessary changes found during the final audit review. Finding 4: The Board of Supervisors representatives were not present at any of the County Audit Committee meetings. Recommendation 4: The two members of the Board of Supervisors appointed to the County Audit Committee should attend the meetings. Finding 5: The two members of the 2009-2010 Grand Jury Audit Committee had substantial professional work experience in public sector finance and accounting that made their participation on the County Audit Committee reasonably easy. Future years' Grand Jury participants may not have that sort of professional background. Recommendation 5: The County Auditor/Controller, as committee facilitator, needs to be highly sensitive to the diverse backgrounds of the Grand Juror partici- pants to assure full understanding of both the govern- mental audit process, as well as, any resulting findings. Summary of Citizen Complaints = Complaint C1 000000 (carried over from 2008- 2009 Grand Jury) Complaint against the Plumas County Sheriff's office for failing to arrest an alleged assailant. Complainant also stated that the Plumas County District Attorney had refused to investigate the situation. The Plumas County Grand Jury determined that an investigation should be conducted into policy and procedures at the Plumas County Sheriff's Department. However, this Grand Jury was unable to conduct the investigation and recommended it to the 2010-2011 Grand Jury (see Appendix B, Plumas County Grand Jury History of Investigations). Complaint C2 050909 (carried over from 2008-2009 Grand Jury) Complaint against the Plumas County Probation Department procedures in processing a juvenile through arrest, incarceration, transfer to a detention facility and to a residential treatment center. The principal complaint was against the tone of voice used by the Probation Officer and the lack of psycho- logical testing prior to placing a juvenile in a deten- tion or other holding facility. The Plumas County Grand Jury determined that an investigation should be conducted into policy and procedures at the Plumas County Probation Department. However, this Grand Jury was unable to conduct the investigation and recommended it to the 2010-2011 Grand Jury (see Appendix B, Plumas County Grand Jury History of Investigations). Complaint C3 062309 (carried over from 2008- 2009 Grand Jury) Complaint against the Plumas County Probation Department regarding procedures in processing a juvenile transfer to a detention facility. The Plumas County Grand Jury determined that an investigation should be conducted into policy and procedures at the Plumas County Probation Department. However, this Grand Jury was unable to conduct the investigation and recommended it to the 2010-2011 Grand Jury (see Appendix B, Plumas County Grand Jury History of Investigations). Complaint C4 080309 Complaint against the Plumas County Probation Department procedures in processing documents and in the placement of a juvenile in a juvenile facility. The Plumas County Grand Jury determined that an investigation should be conducted into policy and procedures at the Plumas County Probation Department. However, this Grand Jury was unable to conduct the investigation and recommended it to the 2010-2011 Grand Jury (see Appendix B, Plumas County Grand Jury History of Investigations). Complaint C5 052109 Complaint against a State of California Child Protective Services attorney for failure to properly represent educational and other needs of foster children. The Plumas County Grand Jury investigates Plumas County departments and organizations funded by Plumas County. The complaint did not fall under the jurisdiction of this Grand Jury. While the Plumas County Grand Jury does not investi- gate State agencies and personnel, with concurrence of complainant, this complaint was referred to California Superior Court Judge Ira Kaufman, at his request. Complaint C6 092309 Complaint against the Plumas County Sheriff's Office and a county District Attorney for failure to prosecute a case of alleged juvenile rape. Although the Plumas County Grand Jury is civil in nature and this complaint did not fall under the