1993-1994 LOS ANGELES COUNTY GRAND JURY     FINAL REPORT     GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS COMMITTEE     MEMBERS Walter Coombs, Chairman Henry Frias Eugene Harding Saundra Huff Robert Lathrop Audrey Lynberg Nicholas Palamiotis Warren Pietro Ralph Shaffer John Wilson Thomas Yacenda   GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION As directed by the Grand Jury, the Government Operations Committee is authorized to look into matters relating to the operations of government within Los Angeles County. This oversight function covers activities of all cities and municipal corporations; specialized agencies such as the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA), MTA, and Metropolitan Water District (MWD); non-profit agencies engaged in fund-raising in the County; various entities such as water districts and special improvement districts; contract services and other such functions. PROCEDURES Under this broad mandate, the Committee considered several subjects that might be the object of a preliminary investigation, leading to a formal audit. A number of possibilities were agreed upon and presented to the Grand Jury for approval: The following general subjects received Grand Jury approval: Community Redevelopment Agencies* Office of the District Attorney Los Angeles Sheriff's Department Water Resources Los Angeles County Marina* Contract Services* *Citizen complaints were received on these topics During the course of the Committee's deliberations other matters were presented to the group for preliminary consideration; these included Satellite Airports such as Torrance and El Monte. Subcommittees on these subjects reported on their findings. No formal investigations were conducted because of time restraints or ongoing investigations by the District Attorney or other agencies. Early in its term the Grand Jury was informed that, in the past, there had been little oversight exercised by the Grand Jury over departments headed by elected officials. Some of these officials had taken the position that they were answerable only to the voters. The Grand Jury took the position that all County activities were subject to Grand Jury scrutiny. An investigation was begun into the effectiveness of data processing and computer systems in the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. This was withdrawn due to a perceived conflict of interest. As to the Los Angeles Marina, it was determined that one aspect of that inquiry which was based on a citizen's complaint, should be referred to the District Attorney. An informational study regarding the functions of court interpreter services was initiated for possible future performance review. The Committee investigated the County's action in diverting all money in the San Gabriel Canyon Recreation Fund into the County General Fund. The Recreation Fund, collected as a parking fee, was established by agreement with the United States Forest Service in 1988 to augment money budgeted for recreation improvements in the canyon. Facing a budget shortfall, the County in 1992 removed the entire $188,000 then remaining in the account. In response to inquiries from the Committee, the County Counsel ruled that the County was authorized to divert the funds even though the fees were levied for the express purpose of relieving parking congestion and improving recreational facilities in the canyon. The Grand Jury questions the misuse of users' fees. To sweep funds, as the County did in this matter, raises doubts about the validity of the arguments for user fees since they are justified on grounds that the service cannot be paid for by the General Fund and that the burden should be borne by those benefiting from the service. Other matters that came before the Committee related to complaints in accordance with long standing procedures whereby citizens were urged to present matters to the Grand Jury when they believe rights are violated or where there is evidence of improper conduct by county officials. Thirty such petitions were presented to the committee for consideration. Formal audits based on preliminary studies were recommended in three matters that were initiated by the Grand Jury. These three are the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) of Monterey Park, the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office, and Water Resource Analysis. A. Review of the Monterey Park Redevelopment Agency The Grand Jury received several formal complaints, as well as informal communications, from citizens concerned with the operation and practices of the redevelopment agency in their community. The Grand Jury commissioned Price Waterhouse to conduct a formal audit of aspects of the CRA of Monterey Park as representative of common CRA practices in Los Angeles County. Additionally, in conjunction with the Education Committee, the Committee participated in a formal audit conducted by Price Waterhouse of the agreement between the City of Los Angeles CRA and the Los Angeles Unified School District relative to lifting the cap on CRA expenditures in the Central Business District redevelopment zone. B. Community Redevelopment Agencies (Subcommittee Report) The issue of Community Redevelopment Agencies in Los Angeles County was exemplified by the filing of a citizen's complaint regarding activities of the Monterey Park CRA. In conjunction with the audit conducted by Price Waterhouse, the Subcommittee also reviewed this topic. C. The Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office Performance Audit The 1993-94 Grand Jury identified and ranked issues of concern within Los Angeles County. One of the most important issues identified by the Grand Jury was a review of the District Attorney's Office. Since a review had not been conducted for several years, it was concluded that a formal management review process would be undertaken by the Committee. D. The Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office (Subcommittee Report) A post-verdict juror survey was conducted in conjunction with the overall management study of the District Attorney's Office. E. The Condition of Water Resources in Los Angeles County All of Los Angeles County is marginally humid. The cities and rural areas in the county depend on both imported water and water extracted from the ground which has collected during winter rains. Both are finite. Their availability has not, and currently is not, a factor considered in the process for planning growth in the County. Recently, legislation was introduced requiring planners to identify water resources of reasonable reliability that can service additional growth before the growth is approved. While management of water resources can be controlled, population cannot be controlled. To ignore this fact is to invite decreasing standards of living. [Return To Grand Jury Index] [Return to Main Page]