SCO
Monterey County
Open Meetings Act/Brown Act Reform
Read the report at Monterey County ↗
MONTEREY COUNTY
Audit Report
OPEN MEETINGS ACT/BROWN ACT REFORM
PROGRAM
Chapter 641, Statutes of 1986;
and Chapters 1136 through 1138, Statutes of 1993
July 1, 2005, through June 30, 2012
BETTY T. YEE
California State Controller
October 2018
BETTY T. YEE
California State Controller
October 11, 2018
The Honorable Luis Alejo, Chairman
Monterey County Board of Supervisors
168 West Alisal Street, 2nd Floor
Monterey, CA 93901
Dear Mr. Alejo:
The State Controller’s Office (SCO) audited the costs claimed by Monterey County for the
legislatively mandated Open Meetings Act/Brown Act Reform Program for the period of July 1,
2005, through June 30, 2012.
The county claimed $951,436 for the mandated program. Our audit found that $528,640 is
allowable and $422,796 is unallowable because the county overstated its standard-time costs by
misstating the number of eligible agenda items, applied incorrect blended productive hourly rates
to eligible agenda items, and overstated its flat-rate costs by claiming non-existent and ineligible
meeting agendas. The State made no payments to the county. The State will pay $528,640,
contingent upon available appropriations. Following issuance of this audit report, the SCO’s
Local Government Programs and Services Division will notify the county of the adjustment to its
claims via a system-generated letter for each fiscal year in the audit period.
If you have any questions, please contact Lisa Kurokawa, Chief, Compliance Audits Bureau, by
telephone at (916) 327-3138.
Sincerely,
Original signed by
JEFFREY V. BROWNFIELD, CPA
Chief, Division of Audits
JVB/as
The Honorable Mary Adams, Chair -2- October 11, 2018
cc: The Honorable Michael J, Miller, CPA, CISA, Auditor-Controller
Monterey County
Burcu Mousa, CPA, Chief Deputy Auditor-Controller
General Accounting Division, Auditor-Controller’s Office
Monterey County
Rupa Shah, CPA, Assistant Auditor-Controller
Monterey County
Chris Hill, Principal Program Budget Analyst
Local Government Unit
California Department of Finance
Steven Pavlov, Finance Budget Analyst
Local Government Unit
California Department of Finance
Anita Dagan, Manager
Local Government Programs and Services Division
State Controller’s Office
Monterey County Open Meetings Act/Brown Act Reform Program
Contents
Audit Report
Summary ............................................................................................................................ 1
Background ........................................................................................................................ 1
Objective, Scope, and Methodology ................................................................................. 2
Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 3
Follow-up on Prior Audit Findings .................................................................................. 4
Views of Responsible Officials .......................................................................................... 4
Restricted Use .................................................................................................................... 4
Schedule—Summary of Program Costs .............................................................................. 5
Findings and Recommendations ........................................................................................... 7
Attachment—County’s Response to Draft Audit Report
Monterey County Open Meetings Act/Brown Act Reform Program
Audit Report
Summary The State Controller’s Office (SCO) audited the costs claimed by
Monterey County for the legislatively mandated Open Meetings
Act/Brown Act Reform Program for the period of July 1, 2005, through
June 30, 2012.
The county claimed $951,436 for the mandated program. Our audit found
that $528,640 is allowable and $422,796 is unallowable because the
county overstated its standard-time costs by misstating the number of
eligible agenda items and applied incorrect blended productive hourly
rates (PHRs) to eligible agenda items and overstated its flat-rate costs by
claiming non-existent and ineligible meeting agendas. The State made no
payments to the county. The State will pay $528,640, contingent upon
available appropriations.
Background Open Meetings Act Program
Chapter 641, Statutes of 1986, added Government Code (GC)
sections 54954.2 and 54954.3. GC section 54954.2 requires the legislative
body of a local agency, or its designee, to post an agenda containing a brief
general description of each item of business to be transacted or discussed
at the regular meeting, subject to exceptions stated therein, specifying the
time and location of the regular meeting. It also requires that the agenda
be posted at least 72 hours before the meeting in a location freely
accessible to the public. GC section 54954.3 requires members of the
public to be provided an opportunity to address the legislative body on
specific agenda items or an item of interest that is within the subject matter
jurisdiction of the legislative body. The legislation requires that this
opportunity be stated on the posted agenda.
Open Meetings Act/Brown Act Reform Program
Chapters 1136 through 1138, Statutes of 1993, amended GC
sections 54952, 54954.2, 54957.1, and 54957.7, expanding the types of
legislative bodies that are required to comply with the notice and agenda
requirements of GC sections 54954.2 and 54954.3. These sections also
require all legislative bodies to perform additional activities related to the
closed session requirements of the Brown Act.
The Commission on State Mandates (Commission) determined that the
Open Meetings Act Program (October 22, 1987) and the Open Meetings
Act/Brown Act Reform Program (June 28, 2001) resulted in state-
mandated costs that are reimbursable under GC section 17561.
The program’s parameters and guidelines establish the State mandate and
define the reimbursement criteria. The Commission adopted parameters
and guidelines on September 22, 1988 (last amended on November 30,
2000) for the Open Meetings Act Program, and on April 25, 2002, for the
Open Meetings Act/Brown Act Reform Program. In compliance with
GC section 17558, the SCO issues claiming instructions to assist local
agencies in claiming mandated program reimbursable costs.
-1-
Monterey County Open Meetings Act/Brown Act Reform Program
The Open Meetings Act Program became effective August 29, 1986. The
Open Meetings Act/Brown Act Reform Program was effective for FY
2001-02. Commencing in fiscal year (FY) 1997-98, a local agency may
claim costs using the actual-time reimbursement option, the standard-time
reimbursement option, or the flat-rate reimbursement option as specified
in the parameters and guidelines.
Based on the passage of Proposition 30, adopted by the voters on
November 7, 2012, the California Department of Finance filed a request
for redetermination of the Open Meetings Act and Brown Act Reform
Program. On January 23, 2015, the Commission found that the Open
Meetings Act/Brown Act Reform Program no longer constitutes a
reimbursable state-mandated program, effective November 7, 2012.
Objective, Scope, The objective of our audit was to determine whether costs claimed
represent increased costs resulting from the Open Meetings Act/Brown
and Methodology
Act Reform Program. Specifically, we conducted this audit to determine
whether costs claimed were supported by appropriate source documents,
were not funded by another source, and were not unreasonable and/or
excessive.
The audit period was July 1, 2005, through June 30, 2012.
To achieve our audit objective, we:
Reviewed the annual mandated cost claims filed by the county for the
audit period and identified the material cost components of each claim
for the standard-time option as the number of agenda items, the
minutes per agenda item, and the blended PHR; and for the flat-rate
option as the number of agenda items and the uniform cost allowance.
Determined whether there were any mathematical errors or any
unusual or unexpected variances from year to year, and whether the
claims adhered to the SCO’s claiming instructions and the program’s
parameters and guidelines;
Completed an internal control questionnaire by interviewing key
county staff, and discussed the claim preparation process with county
staff to determine what information was obtained, who obtained it, and
how it was used;
Inquired of county employees whether the county realized any
offsetting savings or reimbursements from the statutes that created the
mandated program;
Standard-time option
Selected a judgmental non-statistical sample of meeting agendas
claimed, ranging from 14.53% to 19.82% for each fiscal year of the
audit period:
o Counted the number of agenda items identified on the sampled
meeting agendas and compared the results to the number of
agenda items claimed for that meeting and determined an error
percentage for each fiscal year in the audit period;
-2-
Monterey County Open Meetings Act/Brown Act Reform Program
o Increased testing for FY 2009-10 and FY 2010-11 to 100% of the
agenda items claimed, due to the large error percentages from
initial testing for those years;
o Consistent with the American Institute of Certified Public
Accountants (AICPA) Audit Sampling Guide, we projected the
results from the sample by applying each fiscal year’s error rate to
the total population of agenda items for that year;
Discussed with county staff which employee classifications performed
the reimbursable activities and their extent of involvement:
o Recalculated the PHR calculations for FY 2005-06 through
FY 2011-12 for all county employee classifications that
performed the mandated activities using documentation from the
county’s payroll system;
Flat-rate option
Selected a judgmental non-statistical sample of meeting agendas from
three of the county’s 16 departments per fiscal year, comprising 19.6%
of costs claimed under this option for the audit period. Ensured that
all 16 departments were represented in our testing for the audit period:
o Determined the existence of the meeting agendas claimed and
compared the number of supported meeting agendas to the number
of meeting agendas claimed; and
o Developed error rates for each of the 16 county departments based
on the number of eligible meeting agendas. Consistent with the
AICPA Audit Sampling Guide, we applied the error rate for each
department to the total costs claimed by that department for the
audit period.
GC sections 12410, 17558.5, and 17561 provide the legal authority to
conduct this audit. We conducted this performance audit in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards
require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate
evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions
based on our audit objective. We believe that the evidence obtained
provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our
audit objective.
We limited our review of the county’s internal controls to gaining an
understanding of the transaction flow and claim preparation process as
necessary to develop appropriate auditing procedures. Our audit scope did
not assess the efficiency or effectiveness of program operations. We did
not audit the county’s financial statements.
Conclusion Our audit found instances of noncompliance with the requirements
outlined in the Objective, Scope, and Methodology section. We found that
the county did not claim costs that were funded by other sources; however,
the county claimed ineligible costs, as quantified in the accompanying
Schedule and described in the Findings and Recommendations section of
this report.
-3-
Monterey County Open Meetings Act/Brown Act Reform Program
For the audit period, Monterey County claimed $951,436 for costs of the
Open Meetings Act/Brown Act Reform Program. Our audit found that
$528,640 is allowable and $422,796 is unallowable. The State made no
payments to the county. The State will pay $528,640, contingent upon
available appropriations.
Following issuance of this audit report, the SCO’s Local Government
Programs and Services Division will notify the county of the adjustment
to its claims via a system-generated letter for each fiscal year in the audit
period.
Follow-up on The county has satisfactorily resolved the findings noted in our prior audit
Prior Audit report, issued December 29, 2006.
Findings
Views of We issued a draft audit report on August 30, 2018. Burcu Mousa, CPA,
Responsible Chief Deputy Auditor-Controller, responded by letter dated September 10,
2018 (Attachment), agreeing with the audit results. This final audit report
Officials
includes the county’s response.
Restricted Use This audit report is solely for the information and use of Monterey County,
the California Department of Finance, and the SCO; it is not intended to
be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties.
This restriction is not intended to limit distribution of this audit report,
which is a matter of public record.
Original signed by
JEFFREY V. BROWNFIELD, CPA
Chief, Division of Audits
October 11, 2018
-4-
Monterey County Open Meetings Act/Brown Act Reform Program
Schedule—
Summary of Program Costs
July 1, 2005, through June 30, 2012
Actual Costs Allowable per Audit
Cost Elements Claimed Audit Adjustment Reference1
July 1, 2005, through June 30, 2006
Standard rate $ 54,231 $ 38,900 $ (15,331) Finding 1
Flat rate 80,718 3 2,569 ( 48,149) Finding 2
Total program costs $ 1 34,949 7 1,469 $ (63,480)
Less amount paid by the State2 -
Allowable costs claimed in excess of amount paid $ 71,469
July 1, 2006, through June 30, 2007
Standard rate $ 63,559 $ 44,559 $ (19,000) Finding 1
Flat rate 85,851 3 6,541 ( 49,310) Finding 2
Total program costs $ 1 49,410 8 1,100 $ (68,310)
Less amount paid by the State2 -
Allowable costs claimed in excess of amount paid $ 81,100
July 1, 2007, through June 30, 2008
Standard rate $ 48,958 $ 39,524 $ ( 9,434) Finding 1
Flat rate 90,239 3 7,683 ( 52,556) Finding 2
Total program costs $ 1 39,197 7 7,207 $ (61,990)
Less amount paid by the State2 -
Allowable costs claimed in excess of amount paid $ 77,207
July 1, 2008, through June 30, 2009
Standard rate $ 46,725 $ 37,368 $ ( 9,357) Finding 1
Flat rate 92,928 3 7,312 ( 55,616) Finding 2
Total program costs $ 1 39,653 7 4,680 $ (64,973)
Less amount paid by the State2 -
Allowable costs claimed in excess of amount paid $ 74,680
July 1, 2009, through June 30, 2010
Standard rate $ 42,787 $ 31,519 $ (11,268) Finding 1
Flat rate 92,316 3 6,766 ( 55,550) Finding 2
Total program costs $ 1 35,103 6 8,285 $ (66,818)
Less amount paid by the State2 -
Allowable costs claimed in excess of amount paid $ 68,285
-5-
Monterey County Open Meetings Act/Brown Act Reform Program
Schedule (continued)
Actual Costs Allowable per Audit
Cost Elements Claimed Audit Adjustment Reference1
July 1, 2010, through June 30, 2011
Standard rate $ 52,085 $ 42,962 $ ( 9,123) Finding 1
Flat rate 91,764 3 7,242 ( 54,522) Finding 2
Total program costs $ 1 43,849 8 0,204 $ (63,645)
Less amount paid by the State2 -
Allowable costs claimed in excess of amount paid $ 80,204
July 1, 2011, through June 30, 2012
Standard rate $ 53,347 $ 55,658 $ 2,311 Finding 1
Flat rate 55,928 2 0,037 ( 35,891) Finding 2
Total program costs $ 1 09,275 7 5,695 $ (33,580)
Less amount paid by the State2 -
Allowable costs claimed in excess of amount paid $ 75,695
Summary: July 1, 2005, through June 30, 2012 -
Standard rate $ 3 61,692 $ 290,490 $ (71,202) Finding 1
Flat rate 589,744 238,150 (351,594) Finding 2
Total program costs $ 9 51,436 528,640 $ (422,796)
Less amount paid by the State2 -
Allowable costs claimed in excess of amount paid $ 528,640
_________________________
1 See the Findings and Recommendations section.
2 Payment amount current as of September 17, 2018.
-6-
Monterey County Open Meetings Act/Brown Act Reform Program
Findings and Recommendations
FINDING 1— The county claimed $361,692 under the standard-time option for the
preparation and posting of agenda items for the Open Meetings Act/Brown
Overstated standard-
Act Reform Program for the audit period. The costs claimed were based
time costs
on the number of the county’s Board of Supervisors (Board) meeting
agenda items multiplied by the standard-time allowance of 30 minutes per
agenda item multiplied by the blended hourly rate, which includes related
benefits and indirect costs for the employee classifications that performed
the reimbursable activity.
During testing, we found that $290,490 is allowable and $71,202 is
unallowable. The unallowable costs occurred because the county
misstated the number of eligible agenda items ($18,816), applied incorrect
blended PHRs to eligible agenda items ($52,388), and underclaimed
allowable costs by $2. The county misstated the number of eligible agenda
items by 390 items (overstated by 428 and understated by 38) and
overstated the blended PHRs for the entire audit period. The county
misstated the elements of the PHR calculations (employee annual salaries,
productive hours, benefit percentages, and the percentage of involvement
by various staff members in the reimbursable activities). County
representatives could not identify how these errors occurred, and
explained that the county had fully relied on its mandated cost consultant
to prepare its claims for the audit period.
The following table summarizes the claimed, allowable, and audit
adjustment amounts for the standard-time option costs by fiscal year:
Fiscal Year
2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-101 2010-111 2011-121 Total
Number of claimed agenda items 1 ,791 2 ,030 1,576 1,537 1 ,524 1 ,508 1 ,167
Standard time (hours) per agenda × 0 .5 × 0 .5 × 0.5 × 0.5 × 0 .5 × 0 .5 × 0 .5
Total claimed hours 8 95.5 1 ,015.5 788.0 768.5 7 62.0 7 54.0 5 83.5
Claimed PHR × 6 0.56 × 6 2.62 × 62.13 × 60.80 × 5 6.15 × 6 9.08 × 9 1.43
Totals $ 5 4,231 $ 6 3,559 $ 48,958 $ 46,725 $ 4 2,786 $ 5 2,086 $ 5 3,349 $ 361,694
Claim calculation errors - - - - 1 (1) (2) (2)
Claimed costs $ 5 4,231 $ 6 3,559 $ 48,958 $ 46,725 $ 4 2,787 $ 5 2,085 $ 5 3,347 $ 361,692
Number of allowable agenda items 1 ,655 1 ,804 1,431 1,468 1 ,287 1 ,413 1 ,362
Standard time (hours) per agenda × 0 .5 × 0 .5 × 0.5 × 0.5 × 0 .5 × 0 .5 × 0 .5
Total allowable hours 8 27.5 9 02.0 715.5 734.0 6 43.5 7 06.5 6 81.0
Allowable blended PHR × 4 7.01 × 4 9.40 × 55.24 × 50.91 × 4 8.98 × 6 0.81 × 8 1.73
Total allowable costs $ 3 8,900 $ 4 4,559 $ 39,524 $ 37,368 $ 3 1,519 $ 4 2,962 $ 5 5,658 $ 290,490
Audit adjustment $ (15,331) $ (19,000) $ (9,434) $ (9,357) $ (11,267) $ (9,123) $ 2 ,309 $ (71,202)
1Minor claim calculation variances due to rounding errors.
Misstated Agenda Items
The county claimed costs for preparing 11,133 agenda items for its Board
of Supervisors meetings during the audit period. We found that
10,743 items are allowable and the county overstated the number of
eligible agenda items by 390 (overstated by 428 and understated by 38)
during the audit period.
-7-
Monterey County Open Meetings Act/Brown Act Reform Program
We haphazardly sampled agendas for Board meetings during each year of
the audit period, which comprised agenda items ranging from 14.53% to
19.82% of the number of agenda items claimed per year. We reviewed the
Board meeting agendas to determine the number of eligible items.
Following the requirements of the parameters and guidelines, our testing
strategy was as follows:
We did not count regular agenda items such as roll call, flag salute,
public comments, consent calendars, and adjournment;
We did not count closed sessions items as one item. Instead, we
counted the individual items discussed within closed sessions, as they
were all non-related separate business items;
We counted regular items by their appropriation number and/or
alphabetical points with sub-points. For instance, if an item contained
no sub-points or five sub-points, both items were counted as one
agenda item, since sub-points were all related to the same particular
item of business discussed; and
For supplemental addendum and additions and corrections, we
counted additional agenda items, but not the corrections to these items
and/or titles, as that did not affect the number of items discussed. In
cases where the county removed and/or deleted agenda items, we
removed them from the count accordingly.
Our initial testing results are summarized in the following table:
Items Items Testing Items Variance
Fiscal Claimed Tested Percentage Variance Percentage
Year (a) (b) (c) = (a) / (b) (d) (e) = (d) / (b)
2005-06 1,791 355 19.82% ( 27) -7.61%
2006-07 2,030 324 15.96% ( 36) -11.11%
2007-08 1,576 229 14.53% ( 21) -9.17%
2008-09 1,537 268 17.44% ( 12) -4.48%
2009-10 1,524 242 15.88% ( 109) -45.04%
2010-11 1,508 248 16.45% ( 104) -41.94%
2011-12 1,167 228 19.54% 38 16.67%
Total 11,133 1,894 17.01% ( 271) -14.31%
Due to the high variances of initial testing for FY 2009-10 and
FY 2010-11, we expanded our testing for those years to 100% of agenda
items claimed. As a result of that testing, the number of ineligible agenda
items increased from 109 to 237 for FY 2009-10 (a total error rate of
15.55%) and decreased from 104 to 95 for FY 2010-11 (a total error rate
of 6.30%). Therefore, the increased number of tested ineligible agenda
items for the audit period increased by 119, from 271 to 390.
We then applied the variance percentages that we computed for sampled
items during each year of the audit period to the number of agenda items
claimed to determine the overall audit adjustment.
-8-
Monterey County Open Meetings Act/Brown Act Reform Program
The following table presents the calculation of the audit adjustment for the
misstated number of agenda items:
Fiscal Items Variance Overall Time Claimed Audit
Year Claimed Percentage Variance Allowance PHR Adjustment1
2005-06 1,791 -7.61% ( 136) 0.50 $ 60.56 $ (4,118)
2006-07 2,030 -11.11% ( 226) 0.50 62.62 (7,076)
2007-08 1,576 -9.17% ( 145) 0.50 62.13 (4,504)
2008-09 1,537 -4.48% ( 69) 0.50 60.80 (2,098)
2009-10 1,524 -15.55% ( 237) 0.50 56.15 (6,653)
2010-11 1,508 -6.30% ( 95) 0.50 69.08 (3,281)
2011-12 1,167 16.67% 195 0.50 91.43 8,914
Total 11,133 -7.89% ( 713) $ (18,816)
1Some minor calculation variances due to rounding
Overstated Productive Hourly Rates
The county claimed blended PHRs based on the percentage of
involvement in the reimbursable activities during each fiscal year for the
following three job classifications:
Clerk to the Board
Board of Supervisors (BOS) Clerk
Senior BOS Clerk
To validate the county’s assertion as to who performed the reimbursable
activities and the extent of their involvement, we met with representatives
of the Clerk to the Board Office. Based on the interviews we held with the
representatives, we adjusted the percentage involvement for FY 2007-08
through FY 2011-12. We also requested actual payroll information from
the Auditor-Controller’s Office for the staff members performing the
reimbursable activities during the audit period. We used this actual cost
information to compute blended PHRs and found that the county
overstated the claimed rates for all years of the audit period.
The following table summarizes the claimed and actual percentages of
involvement for county staff performing the reimbursable activities during
the audit period:
Fiscal Year
Classification 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12
Claimed percentages:
Clerk to the Board 100% 100% 26.4% 0.0% 0.0% 49.6% 49.6%
BOS Clerk 0% 0% 24.6% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7%
Senior BOS Clerk 0% 0% 49.0% 99.3% 99.3% 49.6% 49.6%
Actual percentages:
Clerk to the Board 100% 100% 26.4% 0.0% 0.0% 25.0% 45.0%
BOS Clerk 0% 0% 24.6% 40.0% 40.0% 15.0% 20.0%
Senior BOS Clerk 0% 0% 49.0% 60.0% 60.0% 60.0% 35.0%
-9-
Monterey County Open Meetings Act/Brown Act Reform Program
We used the actual salary and benefit information that the county provided
to compute blended PHRs for the audit period. We used the indirect cost
percentages that the county calculated. For example, the following table
shows the calculation of the blended PHR used to calculate allowable costs
for FY 2011-12:
Percentage Benefit Indirect Blended
Employee PHR Involvement Percentage Percentage PHR
Classification (a) (b) (c) (d) (a)*(b)*(c)*(d)
Clerk to the Board $ 60.136 45% 31.39% 55.11% $ 55.15
BOS Clerk 24.930 20% 47.34% 55.11% 11.39
Senior BOS Clerk 25.073 35% 11.57% 55.11% 15.19
100% $ 81.73
We performed a similar calculation for all other years of the audit period.
The following table summarizes the blended PHRs claimed, allowable,
and the audit adjustments made for standard time activities by fiscal year:
Claimed Audited
Fiscal Blended Blended Audit
Year PHR PHR Adjustment
2005-06 $ 6 0.56 $ 47.01 $ (13.55)
2006-07 62.62 4 9.40 (13.22)
2007-08 62.13 5 5.24 (6.89)
2008-09 60.80 5 0.91 (9.89)
2009-10 56.15 4 8.98 (7.17)
2010-11 69.08 6 0.81 (8.27)
2011-12 91.43 8 1.73 (9.70)
The following table presents the audit adjustment due to PHR variances
by fiscal year based on the allowable number of agenda items:
Allowable Standard
Fiscal Agenda Time PHR Audit
Year Items Allowance Variance Adjustment1
2005-06 1,655 0.5 $ (13.55) $ (11,213)
2006-07 1,804 0.5 (13.22) (11,924)
2007-08 1,431 0.5 (6.89) (4,930)
2008-09 1,468 0.5 (9.89) (7,259)
2009-10 1,287 0.5 (7.17) (4,614)
2010-11 1,413 0.5 (8.27) (5,843)
2011-12 1,362 0.5 (9.70) (6,605)
Total 10,420 $ (52,388)
1Some minor calculation variances due to rounding.
-10-
Monterey County Open Meetings Act/Brown Act Reform Program
Criteria
Section IV. (A) (Reimbursable Activities – Agenda Preparation and
Posting Activities) of the parameters and guidelines states, in part, that
reimbursable activities include “Prepare a single agenda for a regular
meeting of a legislative body of a local agency” and “Post a single agenda
72 hours before a meeting.”
Section V. (A) (2) (a) (Claim Preparation and Submission –
Reimbursement Options for Agenda Preparation and Posting, Including
Closed Session Agenda Items – Standard Time Option) of the parameters
and guidelines states:
List the meeting name and dates. For each meeting, multiply the number
of agenda items, excluding standard agenda items [emphasis added] such
as ‘adjournment’, ‘call to order’, ‘flag salute’, and ‘public comments’,
by 30 minutes and then by the blended productive hourly rate of the
involved employees.
Section VI. (A) (Supporting Data – Source Documents) of the parameters
and guidelines states that “all incurred costs claimed must be traceable to
source documents that show evidence of their validity and relationship to
the reimbursable activities.” Section VI. (A) also states:
For those entities that elect reimbursement pursuant to the standard time
methodology, option 2 in section V.A, documents showing the
calculation of the blended productive hourly rate and copies of agendas
shall be sufficient evidence.
Recommendation
No recommendation is applicable for this finding, as the period of
reimbursement for this mandated program expired on November 7, 2012,
due to the passage of Proposition 30, approved by voters on November 6,
2012. For other mandated programs, we recommend that the county:
Follow the mandated program’s parameters and guidelines and
claiming instructions when preparing its reimbursement claims; and
Ensure that claimed costs include only eligible costs, are based on
actual costs, and are properly supported.
County’s Response
The county agrees with the finding.
FINDING 2— The county claimed $589,744 under the flat-rate option allowable per the
parameters and guidelines under the Open Meetings Act/Brown Act
Overstated flat-rate
Reform Program for the audit period. During testing, we found that
costs
$238,150 is allowable and $351,594 is unallowable.
Claimed costs under the flat-rate option are determined by multiplying an
annual uniform cost allowance by the number of meetings. The uniform
cost allowance is adjusted each year by the Implicit Price Deflator
referenced in GC section 17523.
-11-
Monterey County Open Meetings Act/Brown Act Reform Program
The costs are unallowable because the county overstated the number of
meetings claimed in all years of the audit period. We worked with county
representatives and searched the county’s website to obtain meeting
agendas, but neither the county nor its departments were able to locate all
of the meeting agendas claimed. In addition, some meeting agendas were
ineligible for claiming purposes because the meetings did not include an
item for public comment or were canceled. County representatives could
not identify how these errors occurred, and explained that they fully relied
on their mandated cost consultant to prepare the county’s claims for the
audit period.
The following table summarizes the claimed, allowable, and audit
adjustment amounts for the flat-rate option by fiscal year:
Fiscal Year
2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 Total
Claimed costs $ 8 0,718 $ 8 5,851 $ 9 0,239 $ 9 2,928 $ 9 2,316 $ 9 1,764 $ 5 5,928 $ 5 89,744
Allowable costs 3 2,569 3 6,541 3 7,683 3 7,312 3 6,766 3 7,242 2 0,037 2 38,150
Audit adjustment $ (48,149) $ (49,310) $ (52,556) $ (55,616) $ (55,550) $ (54,522) $ (35,891) $ (351,594)
Overstated Agendas
The county claimed costs for preparing agendas for 3,908 meetings during
the audit period. We found that 1,580 agendas are allowable and 2,328 are
unallowable.
The county claimed agenda items comprising 16 county departments
during the audit period. We selected three county departments per fiscal
year to ensure that we tested all 16 departments. We then requested all
meeting agendas for legislative bodies within those departments for the
years selected. We retrieved as many agendas as possible from the
county’s website and requested that the county provide copies of agendas
that were not posted on its website. Allowable agendas were for the
meetings that actually occurred and were supported. Unallowable agendas
were for meetings that were not supported, were for cancelled meetings,
or were for meetings that did not include the opportunity for public
comment. Based on the testing results, we developed error rates for each
of the 16 departments based on the number of eligible agenda items that
the county provided compared to the number claimed. We applied these
error rates to the dollar amounts claimed by each county department for
each fiscal year of the audit period.
-12-
Monterey County Open Meetings Act/Brown Act Reform Program
The following table presents the number of agenda items claimed, the error
percentage, and the audit adjustment for meeting agendas claimed during
the audit period:
Agenda
County Items Error Audit
Department Claimed Percentage Adjustment
Agriculture 48 31.25% 15
Clerk of the Board 61 22.22% 14
Administrative Office (CAO) 3 76 -33.80% (127)
Emergency Medical Services 1 81 -100.00% (181)
Equal Opportunity Office 96 -100.00% (96)
Health 68 -8.33% (6)
Human Resources 19 200.00% 38
Natividad Medical Center 2 37 -65.38% (155)
Parks 1 66 -12.00% (20)
Planning 1,047 -27.21% (285)
Probation 1 40 -100.00% (140)
Public Works 61 -100.00% (61)
Redevelopment and Housing 1 60 -72.50% (116)
Social Services 9 30 -95.65% (890)
Transportation 3 11 -100.00% (311)
Treasurer and Tax Collector 7 -100.00% (7)
Totals 3,908 (2,328)
The following table presents the amount claimed, the error percentage, and
the audit adjustment amount by county department for the audit period:
County Amount Error Audit
Department Claimed Percentage Adjustment
Agriculture $ 7 ,275 31.25% $ 2,273
Clerk of the Board 9,145 22.22% 2 ,032
Administrative Office (CAO) 5 6,724 -33.80% ( 19,173)
Emergency Medical Services 2 7,364 -100.00% ( 27,364)
Equal Opportunity Office 1 4,357 -100.00% ( 14,357)
Health 1 0,182 -8.33% (848)
Human Resources 2,909 200.00% 5 ,818
Natividad Medical Center 3 5,321 -65.38% ( 23,093)
Parks 2 4,728 -12.00% (2,967)
Planning 157,967 -27.21% ( 42,983)
Probation 2 0,988 -100.00% ( 20,988)
Public Works 9,227 -100.00% (9,227)
Redevelopment and Housing 2 4,255 -72.50% ( 17,585)
Social Services 141,847 -95.65% (135,677)
Transportation 4 6,378 -100.00% ( 46,378)
Treasurer and Tax Collector 1,077 -100.00% (1,077)
Totals $ 589,744 $ (351,594)
-13-
Monterey County Open Meetings Act/Brown Act Reform Program
Criteria
Section I. (Summary of Mandate) of the parameters and guidelines states:
Statutes of 1986, chapter 641 also added Government Code
section 54954.3 to provide an opportunity for members of the public to
address the legislative body on specific agenda items or any item of
interest that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative
body, and this opportunity for comment must be stated on the posted
agenda.
Section IV. (A) (Reimbursable Activities – Agenda Preparation and
Posting Activities) of the parameters and guidelines states, in part, that
reimbursable activities include “Prepare a single agenda for a regular
meeting of a legislative body of a local agency” and “Post a single agenda
72 hours before a meeting.”
Section V. (A) (3) (Claim Preparation and Submission – Reimbursement
Options for Agenda Preparation and Posting, Including Closed Session
Agenda Items – Flat Rate Option) of the parameters and guidelines states,
“List the meeting names and dates. Multiply the uniform cost
allowance…by the number of meetings.”
Section VI. (A) (Supporting Data – Source Documents) of the parameters
and guidelines states that “all incurred costs claimed must be traceable to
source documents that show evidence of their validity and relationship to
the reimbursable activities.” Section VI. (A) also states:
For those entities that elect reimbursement pursuant to the flat-rate
methodology, option 3 in section V.A, copies of agendas shall be
sufficient evidence.
Recommendation
No recommendation is applicable for this finding, as the period of
reimbursement for this mandated program expired on November 7, 2012,
due to the passage of Proposition 30, approved by voters on November 6,
2012. For other mandated programs, we recommend that the county:
Follow the mandated program’s parameters and guidelines and
claiming instructions when preparing its reimbursement claims; and
Ensure that claimed costs include only eligible costs, are based on
actual costs, and are properly supported.
County’s Response
The county agrees with the finding. There were several departments who
didn’t retain the agendas as it was past the County’s retention policy. The
County will be educating applicable departments with SB-90 claims to
ensure the claim support is retained if subject to audit, regardless of the
retention policies.
-14-
Monterey County Open Meetings Act/Brown Act Reform Program
Attachment—
County’s Response to
Draft Audit Report
State Controller’s Office
Division of Audits
Post Office Box 942850
Sacramento, CA 94250
http://www.sco.ca.gov
S18-MCC-0007