Waste - Law Enforcement

Recent Examples of Government Waste, Fraud and Mismanagement

Law Enforcement

Convicted Sheriff Collects Pension Pay. Convicted last year for tampering with witnesses, former Orange County Sheriff Michael Carona collected $215,000 in retirement payments in 2009.

Data revealing Mr. Carona's retirement pay was included in a new report from the Orange County Employees Retirement System because of a lawsuit by the California Foundation for Fiscal Responsibility, a pension reform group.

According to the report, 36 percent of the retirement payments to the county's highest pension earners go to former Sheriff's Department employees.

Many of the county's high public safety pensions were approved 10 years ago. Orange County Supervisor John Moorlach recalled: "It was right after September 11…. All of a sudden, public safety people became elevated to god status…. The Board of Supervisors were tripping over themselves to make the motion."

The report includes other information about high-earning retirees, including former Treasurer-Collector Robert L. Citron, who received $142,000 last year. Mr. Citron was responsible for poor investment decisions that led to Orange County's bankruptcy in 1994. More than 400 Orange County pensioners earned more than $100,000 in 2009.

Orange County's pension system currently faces a $3.7 billion unfunded liability. (Source: Los Angeles Times, July 9.)

Cal-Tax recommendation: Local governments should actively embrace pension reforms to make their pension systems sustainable.

Los Angeles County Probation Workers Escaped Discipline Because of Missed Deadlines. Los Angeles County's Office of Independent Review, asked in March by the Board of Supervisors to examine the internal investigation functions of the Los Angeles County Probation Department, has found that the department has "a number of significant problems," including employee discipline cases that had to be dropped due to missed deadlines.

"Our review of this 6,000-member department revealed a number of significant problems in the units most directly involved with internal investigations and administrative discipline," the panel said. "We discovered inordinate delays in completing and reviewing internal investigations. As a result, in at least 31 cases over the past two calendar years, the department may well be unable to discipline sworn employees who violated policy because it was unable to complete the cases on time."

The review said those cases "are only emblematic of a wholesale systems breakdown in which over half of all disciplinary cases were completed five days or less shy of the statutory one-year deadline." This caused victims, complainants, subject employees, and department managers in over half the cases to wait almost a year before the cases were finalized. "The bottlenecks that caused the delay derived primarily from bureaucratic inefficiencies, insufficient tracking, and weak case management," the review found.

In the Internal Affairs unit, the review found "quality deficiencies in the investigations and a clear need for training in basic investigative skills to professionalize their methods and work product." In the Performance Management unit, the review found "significant holes in documentation and an obscure, inconsistent process of case evaluation and discipline decision-making."

"When we asked why some seemingly counterproductive procedures exist, we often heard, 'That's the way we've always done it,'" the report said.

On the plus side, the investigators stated: "During our review, we observed a department already actively engaging in reforms on many fronts with the assistance of the County offices of the CEO, the Auditor/Controller and Human Resources. The Probation Department's managers have already modified some aspects of their process during our review as a result of our continuing dialogue with them. We hope that the receptive attitude we encountered from its leaders will continue to sustain the Department through this dynamic period of challenge and reform." (Source: "Evaluation and Recommendations Concerning Internal Investigations at the Los Angeles County Probation Department – A Special Report by the Office of Independent Review, County of Los Angeles," June 2.)

Cal-Tax recommendation: The Probation Department should continue its efforts to improve its internal workings, and the Board of Supervisors should keep up the pressure for meaningful reforms.
L.A. Probation Department Can't Verify Where Funds Were Spent. The Los Angeles Probation Department's lack of financial oversight makes it impossible to determine how it is spending its $630 million annual budget, according to a review by the county's chief executive officer. The CEO, William Fujioka, said, "The problems of this department are shocking."

The review was initiated to determine whether the department had properly used $79.5 million in county funding for improving juvenile halls, camps and management. The CEO reported that "because of the inadequacy of Probation's records," it is "not able to verify … whether all of the funds were expended for their intended purpose."

A review of the department's Downey facility found that 146 of the 548 employees reported to be working there were actually deployed elsewhere. (Source: Los Angeles Daily News, June 7.)

Cal-Tax recommendation: County supervisors have indicated that they will follow up on this report by making sure the Probation Department improves its oversight of taxpayers' money. Los Angeles County residents should maintain pressure on their elected officials to make sure this follow-up occurs.
Parents Remain on State's Child Abuser List Even After Being Cleared. The Los Angeles Times reports that more than a year after a court ruled that California's child-abuse reporting act is unconstitutional because the wrongly accused have no way to get off the list, "the state has yet to fix the problem." For example, the paper notes that a Valencia couple remains on the list even though the courts have ruled that their child fabricated claims against them, and they are "factually innocent."

The state's Child Abuse Central Index includes 800,000 names. The Office of the Attorney General describes the possible uses of the index: "To aid law enforcement investigations and prosecutions, the Child Protection Program makes information from the Child Abuse Central Index available, including notices of new child abuse investigation reports involving the same reported suspects and/or victims. Information also is provided to designated social welfare agencies to help screen applicants for licensing or employment in child care facilities and foster homes, and to aid in background checks for other possible child placements, and adoptions." (Source: Los Angeles Times, February 23; Office of the Attorney General website, accessed February 24.)

(Cal-Tax recommendation: The state needs to take this problem seriously. By including the names of people who are not child abusers on the list, the state is making the taxpayers financially liable for massive lawsuits.)
CHP Officers' Morbid Misconduct Costs Taxpayers. A deeply disturbing act committed by two California Highway Patrol officers has caused major pain to an accident victim's family, and may cost taxpayers a great deal of money.

The case involves an 18-year-old girl who was killed in an automobile accident. According to court documents, two CHP officers in Orange County e-mailed gruesome photos of the accident scene to friends and family members on Halloween, which led to the photos being widely distributed. In a January 29 opinion, the Fourth District Court of Appeal stated, "Those photographs were strewn about the Internet and spit back at the family members, accompanied by hateful messages." The court said it is not clear whether or not the e-mail address of the victim's father was distributed by the officers, but somehow the address became known to the public, leading to the family being "taunted … with the photographs, in deplorable ways."

An Orange County Superior Court judge initially ruled that the officers could not be sued for invasion of privacy, negligence and other torts, and dismissed the case. But the Court of Appeal overturned that ruling and said the family members have raised issues that should be decided in a trial. It is not clear whether taxpayers or the officers themselves would be liable for potential damages, but taxpayers already have paid for lawyers from the CHP and Attorney General's Office to represent the officers. (Cal-Tax: To avoid putting the victim's family through additional trauma, we are omitting names and the graphic details of the accident.) (Source: Court of Appeal opinion filed January 29.)

(Cal-Tax recommendation: This case should be used to teach all incoming officers about the seriousness of their duties. We concur with the Court of Appeal, which wrote: "It is a sad day, to be sure, when those upon whom we rely to protect and serve do the opposite, and make … a teenage girl the subject of international gossip and disrespect, and inflict devastating emotional harm on the parents and siblings of that girl. The CHP should know better. Every one of its officers should know better. The CHP is in a position to ensure that this does not happen again.")
Error by the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitations Costs Taxpayers $7 Million. Last year, the Legislature and the governor ordered the elimination of 800 state prison teaching positions. When the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitations sent out notices to inform the employees of their job loss, the envelopes delivering the news were improperly dated. As a result, the notice sent to the employees violated the 30-day notice rule. The department is re-sending notices to the employees, but the delay means that the laid-off workers will stay on the payroll for another month, at a total cost of $7 million. (Source: The Sacramento Bee, January 28.)

(Cal-Tax recommendation: More oversight is needed to ensure that employees follow the letter of the law when sending out legally required notices. With millions of dollars at stake, much more attention to detail is needed.)
Prison Receiver Spending Out of Control? The Sacramento Bee has published several news stories in recent weeks calling into question the spending practices of the federally appointed prison health care receiver. Some examples:
- The receiver issued a $400,000 contract for five employees of a law firm to build support for a proposed facility in San Joaquin County. The five include former state Senator Mike Machado and the son of Congressman John Garamendi. Mr. Machado is being paid $300 an hour for "community outreach" efforts.
- Overtime pay accounts for nearly 20 percent of all wages for prison nursing care. In 2008, California's prisons spent $60 million on overtime for prison health care workers. While prison officials blamed a staff shortage, The Bee noted that "only 62 of the state's more than 400 vacant prison nurse positions are posted on the receiver's career Web site." On top of that, the hiring process can take more than a year.
- Thanks to overtime pay, 52 nurses and three physician assistants earned more than the $187,535 salary of the corrections secretary who oversees the prison system. Nurses who sit and observe inmates on suicide watch receive $84 an hour.
- The state paid a medical assistant in a Tracy facility for working an average of 26.5 hours a day. A certified nursing assistant in Delano was paid for working an average of 24.7 hours per day (based on a five-day week).
- The state paid a temporary agency $393 per hour for a nurse practitioner in Vacaville – more than six times the average paid to state employees for the same work. Overall, the state spent $152 million from July 2008 to May 2009 on temporary workers – about $22 million more than the jobs would have cost if state employees did the work. (Source: The Sacramento Bee, December 11, 13 and 14.)
(Cal-Tax recommendation: The federal judge who appointed the receiver should become involved to increase the receiver's respect for the state taxpayers who are paying his bills. Californians are unlikely to favor massive spending to help convicted felons at a time when budget problems are having a negative impact on services for law-abiding residents.)