CalWatchdog found at least nine instances since 2015 where stipends were paid despite absences, although a loose interpretation of what constitutes a meeting provided a loophole.

While not a large sum of money, the lack of accountability over trustee stipends builds on a lawsuit and scathing news report earlier this year that the district was either not tracking millions in bond expenditures or hiding the records.

Trustees earn a $252 monthly stipend for attending a board meeting on the first Wednesday of the month, as per the board’s bylaws. According to district and state regulations, stipends are to be divided evenly by the number of meetings per month and then trustees are to be paid only for the meetings attended.

The board can still choose to pay a trustee for a missed meeting as long as the absence meets certain criteria and payment is authorized by a resolution.

A review of meeting minutes shows that no such resolutions have been approved by the board, even though stipends to board members were usually allocated. 

According to interim Superintendent Edward Zuniga, one trustee, Maria-Elena Talamantes, opted to forgo her July stipend for a missed meeting, so no resolution was brought forward. She again missed a meeting in August, and it is unclear if she’ll still be paid as stipends are allocated a month behind.

However, Talamantes and Trustee Maria Morgan received monthly stipends despite missing June’s meeting. However, despite this being the first Wednesday of the month, it was made a special meeting, flipping with a meeting later in the month. Neither Talamantes nor Morgan responded to requests for comment and it’s unknown if they would refund the money.

Other attendance issues

The Education Code allows for absent trustees to get paid if the board finds that he or she “was performing designated services for the district at the time of the meeting or that he/she was absent because of illness, jury duty or a hardship deemed acceptable by the board.”

But the Education Code also states: “Any member who does not attend all Board meetings during the month, is eligible to receive only a percentage of the monthly compensation equal to the percentage of meetings he/she attended, unless otherwise authorized by the Board in accordance with law.”

While the board has one regular meeting a month, it almost always has at least one “special” meeting each month as well. Since 2015, Talamantes has missed two and Board Vice President Carlos Salcedo missed three, while former trustees Salvador Ramirez and Juanita Gonzales each missed one in 2015.

The year prior, Gonzales was censured by the board for using her district-issued credit card to buy $150 worth of alcohol, meals for friends and to get reimbursed for meals she received for free. She agreed to refund the district.

Board meetings are also split into open and closed sessions. While tardiness would likely be permitted in most instances, Talamantes once missed an entire open session and then an entire closed session at another time, but she was in attendance for the other sessions on those nights.

Zuniga said attendance at special meetings has not been considered a factor in the stipend allocation, despite the bylaws and state law clearly stating “all Board meetings during the month.” Zuniga said partial meetings have not been discussed either, but said he would bring both examples to the board’s attention.

Zuniga has been in his role since March, when Superintendent Irella Perez was placed on administrative leave for undisclosed reasons. In August, the board voted 3-2 to fire Perez, and Perez has since filed suit.

Increase?

In August, Salcedo tried to increase the stipends by 5 percent. However, no other trustee seconded the motion and it died.

There are already whistleblower protections in law that shield the state’s executive and judicial employees who report unethical activity, yet legislative staff does not have the same protections from retaliation.

In 2014, Democratic state Sens. Roderick Wright of Inglewood, Leland Yee of San Francisco and Ron Calderon of Montebello, were all suspended without pay after Wright was convicted of felony perjury and election fraud and the other two were brought up on federal corruption charges. 

The bill has passed the Assembly three times, only to die in the Senate Appropriations Committee, which, like the rest of the Legislature, is strongly controlled by Democrats.

“It is clear the Democrats do not want to stand up to corruption,” Assemblywoman Melissa Melendez, R-Lake Elsinore, the bill’s sponsor, said in a statement. “It’s also clear they want to continue to protect one another as their former caucus members prepare to serve prison sentences,” Melendez said.

A war of words erupted in recent days between the proponents of a transparency ballot measure and Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon, after members of the Legislature and legislative counsel dismissed the measure as full of “ambiguities” and introduced their own watered-down versions.

In a scathing letter, the Lakewood Democrat accused the measure’s proponents of allowing their “passion” for the measure “blind” them to the “shortcomings that may be obvious to others,” painting them as unwilling to work with the Legislature.

“It is unfortunate that you have become entrenched in a patently defensive, inflexible, and ultimately unproductive position, which has impeded the Legislature’s good faith efforts to help you develop a superior legislative transparency measure for voter consideration,” Rendon wrote.

But Hold Politicians Accountable — the committee formed by former Republican legislator Sam Blakeslee and Republican donor Charles T. Munger, Jr., backing the California Legislature Transparency Act — fired back that the measure was “refined by three distinguished attorneys, including a Constitutional scholar” and independent vetting by cosponsors, none of whom found fault.  

Last week, a spokesman for Hold Politicians Accountable told CalWatchdog that the versions of the measure in the Legislature are “not palatable.”

Rendon stressed a sense of urgency with the bills, with a rapidly approaching deadline for the Legislature and the CLTA proponents to work out a deal.

But Blakeslee and Munger argue that early February, when the initiative became eligible for a legislative hearing, was the time for legal analysis and negotiations “in a spirit and time frame that is conducive to collaborative rather than adversarial integrations.”

Instead, they pointed out, the first hearing was held June 15 — CLTA proponents received legislative counsel’s 10 concerns six hours prior — just 15 days before the June 30 deadline.

The bills

The CLTA is a constitutional amendment requiring the Legislature make available online the final version of a bill at least 72 hours prior to a vote on either the Assembly or Senate floor. It would also require all open legislative meetings be recorded with the videos posted online within 24 hours and would give permission to individuals to record and share their own videos of open meetings.

The Legislature-introduced versions, however, would make the 72-hour notice apply to only votes in the second house, would require the Legislature-introduced versions of bills be posted online “promptly” and would not give permission for individuals to share and record their own videos.

What’s the alleged problem with the CLTA?

Legislative counsel argues that there are 10 “ambiguities” in the CLTA language, but the proponents argue that the first three are still found in the Legislature’s version of the transparency measure. One of the legal reviews sought by the CLTA’s proponents dismiss legislative counsel’s concerns as lacking merit.

“The referenced claims of ambiguity have no merit, and in many cases, are downright frivolous,” wrote Daniel K. Malloy, a partner at a private law firm who previously served as both an associate justice on the California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, and counsel to former Gov. Pete Wilson.

By law, the Legislature has to hold hearings on ballot measures after they’ve reached the 25 percent mark in signature gathering. 

The CLTA is cosponsored by a diverse, bipartisan group of outside interests, including California Common Cause, the League of Women Voters of California, California State Conference of the NAACP, California Chamber of Commerce, California Black Chamber of Commerce, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and La Raza Roundtable de California. 

The letters from legislative counsel and the independent reply are attached. 

The two leaders of the California Legislative Women’s Caucus demanded in April Hernández, a West Covina Democrat, step down from his committee assignments (including the Labor and Employment Committee chairmanship) and take a leave of absence from the legislature while under a temporary restraining order from his wife. 

Last week, calls against Hernández intensified following testimony from his wife during divorce proceedings, which detailed eight alleged incidents: One of Hernández choking her with a belt, another of Hernández dropping her to the ground and beating her with a broom and another of Hernández threatening her with a knife after accusing her of having an affair, according to the news reports.

But Asm. Nora Campos, D-San Jose, said the outrage from the women’s caucus has been unevenly applied.

“I want to know why the women’s caucus is so quick to take position on Asm. Hernández, but when it comes to Sen. Jim Beall and the bullying of women in San Jose they’ve been quiet,” Campos said. “I called on the Women’s Caucus leadership to take an equally aggressive position with Sen. Jim Beall.”

A spokesperson for the women’s caucus said the group would not be responding to Campos’ allegations regarding either Beall or the manner with which the group responds “at this time.”

What’s going on?

Campos is termed-out of the Assembly and challenging Beall, a fellow San Jose Democrat, in the Senate. She previously alleged that Beall “bullied” both her and the woman vying to replace her, and alleged Senate President Pro Tempore Kevin de León did as well.

De León was accused of trying to discourage Campos from challenging Beall and for sending another senator to do the same. The alleged other senator allegedly said he or she was “concerned” for Campos’ safety, according to The San Jose Mercury News. 

A de León spokesman called the allegations “irrational” and “outrageous,” according to The Mercury News. 

As for the allegations against Beall, it’s complicated.

What (allegedly) happened with Beall?

In April, Campos’ husband, Neil Struthers, was kicked in the genitals by entourage members of union leader Enrique Arguello, a Beall ally, at a union fundraiser. Arguello claimed Struthers called him a gay slur, threatened him physically and made racist remarks, all of which Struthers denied.

Campos told The Mercury News that this related to Beall because of his political connection to Arguello, adding that Beall had endorsed Arguello for a position on a Democratic central committee. Campos also alleged that following the fight, two union members came by her house to “intimidate” her.

More allegations?

The Mercury News also reported that Darcie Green, the Democrat running to replace Campos in the Assembly, is alleging Beall used his influence with Kaiser Permanente officials to get Green forced an unpaid leave of absence from her job.

Beall endorsed Green’s opponent.

Back to Hernández

The original statement by the two leaders of the women’s caucus about Hernández was conspicuously from them and not from the caucus as a whole. CalWatchdog followed up with Campos to see if she had a position on Hernández and asked her to clarify her response, as it seemed she was putting political intimidation on the same level as domestic violence.

“The Women’s Caucus position is clear and I stand behind (sic),” Campos said. “I demand consistency from caucus leadership and expect that they give the same type of response to Senator Beall. If they do not, it is clear to me they are simply playing politics.”

History

It’s not the first time Hernández — who is challenging Rep. Grace Napolitano, D-Norwalk, for her seat in Congress — has been accused of wrongdoing. In 2012, an ex-girlfriend accused him of domestic violence, although charges were never filed due to insufficient evidence. 

That same year, Hernández was arrested for drunk driving in a state vehicle, but was acquitted by a jury on one charge, while the jury was hung on another. 

In 2015, allegations of political money laundering against Hernández were dropped by the Fair Political Practices Commission after two key witnesses were unable to testify — one had serious medical issues while the other had passed away. 

A stockpile of dead animals, as well as other contaminates like dirt and asphalt, was found in a drainage ditch — considered a waterway — by a North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board inspector in Mendocino County. 

As barbaric as it seems at first glance, Caltrans has the unenviable task of removing roadkill from the roadways, which means the remains must be disposed of somewhere, to which there are procedures.  

In 2008, state lawmakers created stricter regulations for how Caltrans would dispose of animal carcasses after it was discovered that Caltrans was dumping the dead animals in a way that allowed some of the carcasses to roll into Saratoga Creek in Saratoga. Mass graves were found in Sausalito as well.

In addition to amending the Highway Code requiring that animal carcasses be disposed of at least 150 feet from waterways, the 2008 law required Caltrans to come up with procedures on how it would dispose of the carcasses. 

Caltrans policy was to have its area superintendents establish their own procedures for handling roadkill. Caltrans has until May 27 to provide evidence of the procedures to the waterboard.

Caltrans spokesman Matt Rocco told CalWatchdog that the department was “working with our District offices to coordinate an official response to this order.”

Caltrans has so far been unable to provide evidence of the local procedures to CalWatchdog. We’ll update this story as needed. 

The animals were dumped within 150 feet of the waterway, regardless of Caltrans’ policies. But the waterboard does not enforce the Highway Code, so another agency would have had to seek action on that allegation. 

The waterboard is concerned with the disposal policies, particularly because of the impact decaying animals can have on the water supply. 

“Decaying animal carcasses and/or parts may cause or contribute to exceedances of applicable water quality objectives in the waters of the state (e.g., pathogens, nutrients, dissolved oxygen), especially when placed in a concentrated manner,” according to the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board.

This is not the first time Caltrans has shown disregard for laws protecting against groundwater contamination. A few months ago, CalWatchdog reported that for almost a quarter of a century, Caltrans flaunted state and local laws regulating drilling practices an estimated 10,000 times (though the number has since jumped to 20,000). 

The Waterboard is asking for the procedures of multiple Caltrans regions and districts. Failure to comply could result in fines of up to $5,000 per day by the regional water board and up to $25,000 per day by a court, according to the notice. 

State Controller Betty T. Yee announced earlier this month an expansion of the eClaim feature for the state’s unclaimed property program. Property owners will now be eligible to submit their claims for property valued up to $5,000 using the controller’s streamlined paperless electronic claim process.

“The eClaim process is simple, efficient, and can be completed in a couple of minutes,” Yee said in a press release. “An increased threshold of $5,000 will allow many more Californians to claim lost or forgotten property online and quickly receive a check in the mail.”

Unclaimed Property: Your Money Held by the State

Under state law, when there’s been no activity on an account for three years, financial institutions are obliged to report this unclaimed property to the California Controller’s Office. In turn, the controller holds the funds until it is claimed by the owner. The most common types of unclaimed properties are bank accounts, stocks, bonds, uncashed checks, wages, life insurance benefits and safe deposit box contents.

Among the biggest problems facing the state’s unclaimed property program: a lack of public awareness about where people can find their old property. Most people don’t realize they’re owed money from a forgotten insurance settlement or an abandoned stock dividend.

However, for those owners aware of the program, obtaining the necessary paperwork to prove ownership can be costly and time-consuming. Many find the hassle of paperwork not worth a small dollar amount.

Unclaimed Property: eClaim created by Chiang

To address the paperwork hassle problem, in January 2014, then-Controller John Chiang created the eClaim feature to expedite the return process for properties valued at less than $500. Later that year, Chaing increased the value to $1,000. In total, more than 315,000 properties have been returned through the Controller’s eClaim feature.

The state currently holds more than $8 billion in unclaimed property that rightfully belongs to more than 32 million people and businesses. More than three-quarters of unclaimed properties are estimated to be eligible for the new expanded eClaim feature. Yee says that by increasing the threshold to $5,000, she’ll be able to return another $9.4 million per year.

Among those who could benefit from the eClaim feature is billionaire hedge fund manager turned environmental activist Tom Steyer. The former hedge fund manager has three unclaimed properties, each valued at less than $50, dating back to his time as founder of the San Francisco-based Farallon Capital Management.

LAO Report: State Can Do More

For decades, the state has made it difficult for owners to obtain their property. From 1990-2007, state law prohibited the Controller’s office from contacting approximately 80 percent of owners.

Earlier this year, the state Legislative Analyst’s Office released a report critical of the state’s unclaimed property system. The state could do a better job of finding owners, the report concluded, instead of passively waiting for the cash to be claimed.

It also argued that the state has a conflict of interest in managing the program.

“In particular, because property not reunited with owners becomes state General Fund revenue, the unclaimed property law creates an incentive for the state to reunite less property with owners,” the report found. “Now generating over $400 million in annual revenue, unclaimed property is the state General Fund’s fifth-largest revenue source. This has created tension between two opposing program identities — unclaimed property as a consumer protection program and as a source of General Fund revenue.”

Unclaimed Property: How to Search for Unclaimed Property

To find out if you have unclaimed property held by the state, go to www.claimit.ca.gov.

The audit released in January strongly suggested the council move its headquarters from pricey San Francisco, where the median price of a two-bedroom apartment is now $5,000 a month, to Sacramento and save $5 million annually. The auditors also noted that the move would save in both travel and salary costs. One administrator spent $22,000 over three years in travel between the offices, the audit noted.

But the council has refused to make the move, instead opting to close its small Burbank operation, which it claims will save between $10 million and $12 million.

The council, which operates California’s state and local courts, is given fiscal autonomy to a degree, but has forever lamented that it lacks the proper funding from the state to handle its caseloads.

Records show that while the council has pruned its employee ranks since 2009, its pension costs have increased 15 percent and its wages have jumped 7 percent. Thirty percent of the agency’s 786 employees in 2014 received six-figure salaries.

The legacy costs have been among the forces driving increased fines and fees in the courts for taxpayers, as well as the closing of over a dozen courthouses in the state since 2012.

Earlier this year, Martin Hoshino, administrative director of the Judicial Council, told San Francisco NPR affiliate KQED that closing the courts causes “great concern among a lot of the judicial officials or court administrators that I speak to in terms of what are the real impacts of saying that a courtroom or courthouse is closed and really unavailable.”

But when it comes to moving his own headquarters out of one of the most expensive cities in the world, Hoshino cites the need for further analysis.

He’s known of the money sap the San Francisco office has been since at least 2012, according to an evaluation done by the judicial State Evaluation Committee.

“From a strictly economic standpoint, lease costs are generally lower in Sacramento than San Francisco,” reads the report, which, like this year’s audit, was critical of the cost of the court system. “Labor costs generally are lower as well. The [Judicial Council] partly recognizes this through its geographic pay differential system, whereby some Sacramento region employees are paid 7 percent less than San Francisco-based employees performing the same type of work.”

Reacting to Audit

Hoshino in March appeared before an Assembly budget subcommittee and explained that the office had taken some steps on the heels of the audit.

“The office directors, which are eight in total, will no longer receive the option of receiving reimbursement for parking at their office headquarters,” he said. “That also would be effective July 1, 2015.”

But changing the location of the headquarters was never broached. Union representatives spoke of the effect of cutbacks on their ranks. Marsha Slough, presiding judge in San Bernardino County, noted that her staff had been cut 27 percent.

The Alliance of California Judges, which backs the move of the headquarters, said in a statement last week, “… San Francisco is now the world’s most expensive place for visitors to spend the night. Parking, gasoline, groceries — everything costs more in the city. So why does the [Judicial Council] insist on staying there? Why won’t it move to Sacramento, thereby freeing up millions of taxpayer dollars that could go to our cash-strapped trial courts?”

In an interview with CalWatchdog, Alliance member Judge Maryanne Gilliard noted that many judges refer to the Judicial Council’s San Francisco headquarters as the “crystal palace.”

“They do not desire to give up those plush digs for a more modest utilitarian building in Sacramento, where there would also be a greater ability for the Legislature to have fiscal oversight of what they are doing,” Gilliard said.

The council, which has been criticized for poor handling of public money, will also be forced to use funds on deposit as payment on a $231 million courthouse in Santa Clara County that was supposed to open this summer but is now running at least six months behind.

The Judicial Council, like other state agencies, often rents buildings from the State Public Works Board, which issues bonds to pay for construction.

The State Public Works Board will have to pay for debt service on the Santa Clara courthouse from another fund as a result of the delayed opening, according to a financial disclosure filing last month.

Thereafter, the Board “intends to take steps as necessary to apply lawfully available funds from March 1, 2016 until rent on the facility commences to accrue,” the state reported on the disclosure.

In an email, Judicial Council spokesman Peter Allen said:  “The first rental payment is due in August 2016 … and is for rent during the 6 month period from 3/1/2016 to 8/30/2016.  We are currently projecting that we will be in the building by 4/14/2016… .”

Nearly one in six California school districts has dropped out of a federal outreach program for low-income student health that brings millions in unfettered dollars into schools, citing bungled state management and years-long delays in receiving funds … . The exodus is part of the continuing fallout from a 2012 federal investigation that found California had “serious deficiencies” in its oversight and management of the School-Based Medi-Cal Administrative Activities program. The program reimburses schools for a portion of the cost of referring students to Medi-Cal, California’s name for the federal Medicaid low-income health insurance program.

 

After the 2012 investigation, federal officials temporarily froze payments to school districts effective July 1, 2012, recalculated previously paid claims submitted in 2011-12, introduced a formula for interim payments and devised a new method of calculating claims moving forward.

 

As a result, some districts are still waiting to be reimbursed for 2009 expenses, while others have been told to return money from previous reimbursements that are now under review.

Lax oversight, poor Internet security and more

It’s the sixth highly critical audit of state government since June. That’s an unusual concentration of negative reports based on a review of the auditor’s archive of reports and a Nexis search of recent years of Sacramento coverage. Many audits in past years offered mixed reviews of government agencies, such as this October 2012 assessment of how public universities report crime. This summer, audits appeared much more likely to be harsh.

Last month, Howle issued a report about wrongdoing revealed by state whistle-blowers. This is from the San Francisco Chronicle:

An engineer for the California Department of Transportation was busy working on his golf swing when he was supposed to be at work, according to an audit released this week detailing bad behavior by state employees and public agencies. … [The} report found 10 substantiated allegations from whistle-blowers with more than $4.2 million in wasted money, improper payments and misuse of work time by public employees.

 

The Caltrans engineer was found to have played golf on 55 workdays in a 19-month period while his time card listed him as working. State auditors faulted the engineer’s supervisor for failing to manage the employee or ensure his time sheets were accurate from August 2012 to March 2014.

 

The employee said he played golf as much as possible — for an estimated 4½ hours a day — during hours the auditor found he was supposed to be working.

 

The audit also found a month in May 2014 in which no one could account for how much work the engineer had done, if any, because there was a miscommunication about who was supposed to oversee the employee.

Also in August, Howle faulted state bureaucrats for being indifferent about Internet security. This is from AP:

Many state agencies are not complying with the state’s information technology standards, leaving them vulnerable to a major security breach of sensitive data such as Social Security numbers, health information or tax returns, the state auditor reported Tuesday.

 

“Our review found that many state entities have weaknesses in their controls over information security. These weaknesses leave some of the state’s sensitive data vulnerable to unauthorized use, disclosure, or disruption,” Auditor Elaine Howle wrote in the report. She notes that the state is a prime target for information security breaches as government agencies keep extensive amounts of confidential data. Many agencies also have not sufficiently planned for interruptions or disasters, she found.

State not tracking mentally ill gun owners

In July, Howle knocked Attorney General Kamala Harris and the state Department of Justice. This is from the Sacramento Bee:

Nearly two years after that the state Department of Justice and courts failed to identify thousands of mentally ill gun owners who are prohibited from having guns, the state auditor said Thursday that the department has failed to resolve its backlog of such cases.

 

State Auditor Elaine Howle wrote that the department’s “delays in fully implementing certain recommendations result in continued risk to public safety.”

 

Lawmakers in 2013 approved legislation appropriating $24 million to the Department of Justice to address a backlog of cases of prohibited people having guns. But the state auditor said the department had failed to fully implement seven of eight recommendations made in 2013 to improve department procedures.

 

For example, the department has not taken sufficient steps to ensure courts and mental health facilities are reporting mentally ill people for review, the audit said, and it continues to redirect staff to work on other priorities.

 

As of April, the audit said, the department had a review backlog of more than 257,000 people who are potentially prohibited from having guns.

In June, Howle ripped the State Bar of California. This is from AP:

The nation’s largest state bar failed to consistently protect the public from bad lawyers by settling hundreds of complaints, many without adequate discipline for botched cases or ethical violations, according to a scathing audit released Thursday that also found the organization has spent money with little financial accountability. …

 

As the state bar scurried to settle more than 5,100 backlogged complaints in 2010 and 2011, the severity of discipline imposed against attorneys decreased, according to the State Auditor’s report.

 

In 2012, the California Supreme Court rejected settlements reached with 27 attorneys because of insufficient discipline; 21 of those attorneys later got harsher punishments, including five who were disbarred, the audit said. Additionally, 131 attorneys whose complaints were settled in 2010 and 2011 later were disciplined after new complaints were filed, including 28 disbarments.

 

To reduce its backlog, the state bar allowed some attorneys whom it otherwise might have disciplined more severely – or even disbarred – to continue practicing law, placing the public at risk,” State Auditor Elaine Howle wrote to the governor and legislative leaders Thursday.

Call Medi-Cal, never get through

Also in June, Howle was sharply critical of the state Medi-Cal program. This is from AP:

Thousands of calls to California’s Medi-Cal complaint lines don’t get through, and thousands more that manage to ring the call center go unanswered, according to a new state audit.

 

For the year that ended in January 2015, the phone system to the Medi-Cal ombudsman’s office rejected up to 45,000 calls in a month, State Auditor Elaine Howle said in her report. Of the calls that did get through, only one-third and one-half were handled by ombudsman’s staff each month.

 

(B)etween February 2014 and January 2015, an average of 12,500 additional calls went unanswered,” the audit states. A department official blamed the unrelenting backlog and unanswered calls on inadequate staffing and “hardware limitations” that cause the call database to crash.

It is difficult to know what to make, if anything, of this rash of harsh audits. But former state Sen. Mark Wyland, R-Solana Beach, complained for years about a state government culture that he felt tolerated mistakes and poor performance. Perhaps the relative budget austerity of 2007-2013 led to even lower standards at some agencies.

Now, however, the agency is becoming notorious for another problem: chronic corruption. This is from an Aug. 11 AP report:

As many as 100 commercial truck drivers paid up to $5,000 each to bribe state Department of Motor Vehicles employees for illegal California licenses, federal authorities said Tuesday.

 

Up to 23 traffic accidents could be related to the fraud, officials said, though there were no fatalities.

 

Emma Klem, a 45-year-old Salinas DMV employee, and trucking school owner Kulwinder Dosanjh Singh, 58, of Turlock, both pleaded guilty Tuesday to conspiracy to commit bribery and identity fraud, U.S. Attorney Benjamin Wagner said.

 

Two other DMV employees in Salinas and Sacramento and two other Central Valley trucking school operators have been arrested on similar charges.

 

Court records say the employees changed computer records to falsely show that drivers had passed written and behind-the-wheel tests after they were bribed by the owners of three truck-driving schools between June 2011 and March 2015. …

 

The DMV revoked or cancelled 602 commercial licenses that could be linked to the fraud, including the 100 that were pinpointed by investigators, said Frank Alvarez, the DMV’s chief investigator.

Bribery cases concentrated in San Diego County

This is only one of several recent cases. This is from a June Union-Tribune report:

SAN DIEGO — A California Highway Patrol officer is the second person to be charged in connection with a DMV bribery scandal.

 

Carlos Ravelo is accused of illegally transferring a temporary driver’s license to a driver, once in September 2013 and again in January 2014, according to an indictment unsealed in San Diego federal court last month.

 

Ravelo is a 13-year veteran officer and works at the CHP’s El Cajon station.

In March, a Westminster DMV employee was arrested and charged with two counts related to taking bribes to provide driver’s licenses.

The Los Angeles Times also notes other cases in San Diego County:

In February, a San Diego DMV official pleaded guilty to accepting bribes for setting aside license suspensions and providing unauthorized temporary licenses to drivers who had lost theirs after being arrested on DUI charges.

 

Last year, five employees of the DMV’s El Cajon and Rancho San Diego offices were convicted in connection with a bribery scam in which licenses were improperly provided to clients of a local driving school.

Low starting pay may be driving scandals

These are in addition to 21 FBI arrests related to bribery at the same two offices in May 2012. This is from the FBI’s press release:

United States Attorney Laura E. Duffy announced today that employees at the California Department of Motor Vehicles in San Diego County were charged in a criminal complaint for their involvement in a long-running bribery conspiracy that resulted in the production of hundreds of fraudulent driver licenses for applicants who had failed — or not taken — the required driver license tests.

 

The complaint alleges that DMV officials at the El Cajon DMV office … and the Rancho San Diego DMV office … falsely entered both “passing” written and “passing” driving test scores for applicants in exchange for bribes ranging up to $3,000 per license.

 

In addition to the DMV employees, 16 other defendants were charged in the complaint. … According to court documents, the corruption scheme involved the fraudulent production of both Class C (regular) and Commercial Class A driver licenses. Hundreds of applicants paid recruiters approximately $400- $500 for each fraudulent Class C license … .

Considering that the starting pay of a “business service assistant” at DMV can be as low as $29,940 a year, this may be behind clerks deciding to augment their income illegally.

Kate Hiscock / flickr

A care-giving facility for disabled adults and the taxpayer-funded groups that oversee it have settled a 2011 lawsuit that accused the center of numerous instances of abuse and violent attacks on patients.

The incidents include the sexual assault of several residents by an illegal immigrant who was hired as a driver by Healthy Start, the lead defendant in the case.

The lawsuit also names the Eastern Los Angeles Regional Center and the San Gabriel/Pomona Valley Developmental Services as defendants.

The payoff, while publicly undisclosed under the provisions of the settlement, was less than $400,000 to be shared by the nine plaintiffs, according to observers.

The amount is a paltry sum, victims’ advocates say, for the abuse the patrons allege occurred in 2009 and 2010.

That’s because the regional centers had for years not been required to carry liability insurance.

The lawsuit against Healthy Start, which was shuttered by the state in 2012, contends that the center hired Juan Fernando Flores, an illegal immigrant, to serve as a transportation driver who sexually abused several patients. Flores took a plea deal in 2011 and is serving an eight-year prison sentence.

A bill passed last session requires the regional centers to carry $3 million of limited liability insurance effective July 1.

It mandates that the coverage “will cover injuries sustained by acts, omission to act, or neglect of the licensee or his or her employees.”

Because the Healthy Start agreement is sealed, the source of the payment to the litigants is unknown.

But the fact that it has taken so long to get the regional centers to carry insurance, which distribute money to vendors like Healthy Start, rankles supporters of the disabled.

“I look at adult residential services and these places where they have developmentally disabled residents, and, of course they should have insurance,” said Pat McGinnis, executive director of California Advocates for Nursing Home Reform. She said the newly enacted legislation is a start, but there are plenty of aggrieved parties that will never be made whole, given what she considers is a small minimum insurance requirement.

“Most of the insurance companies won’t cover intentional torts,” which are willful acts of abuse, she added.

Some operators of the homes do carry insurance, said Jody Moore, an elder abuse lawyer in Thousand Oaks, but until now, it has been voluntary.

“Which discourages litigation, when there are firms out there looking for the biggest cases,” Moore said.

Plus, the smaller facilities are difficult to keep honest, she said.

“A 100-bed facility can make money and pay on a judgment,” Moore said. “But a smaller provider, no, and in a lot of cases they go out of business. We always hope the [Department of Social Services] is shutting them down and hopefully preventing them from opening another facility.”

Claiming lack of funding despite rise in revenues

Providers like Healthy Start are supervised by state-funded, not-for-profit regional centers, which receive hundreds of millions of dollars to disperse money to the agencies on a per-person capitation. For years, the system has claimed a lack of funding is dogging the system, pointing to budget cuts as the reason.

The tax form for the East Los Angeles Regional Center for 2014, the last year available, shows a 20 percent increase in revenue since 2009, from $144 million to $173 million in 2013.

Revenue for San Gabriel/Pomona Valley Developmental Services increased 17 percent in the same time, from $156 million to $183 million, according to its tax filing.

The Los Angeles Center did not respond to a request for a comment or interview.

A call to the San Gabriel/Pomona center rang repeatedly with no answer and an email to R. Keith Penman, director at San Gabriel/Pomona, was not returned.

As a private entity, the residence center had no background check process verified by the state, although state law “requires a background check of all applicants, licensees, adult residents, volunteers under certain conditions and employees of community care facilities who have contact with clients,” according to the California Department of Social Services.

The group that owned Healthy Start, Casa De Angeles Cal. Corp., filed for bankruptcy shortly after Healthy Start closed. The group could not be reached for comment.

The complaint in the case claims that the president of Casa De Angeles Cal., Anait Krgatbashayan, “does not speak English and prior to being named president of Casa De Angeles had no financial experience, had never run a business … and had no experience dealing with disabled persons.”

Steve Miller can be reached at 517-775-9952 and avalanche50@hotmail.com. His website is www.Avalanche50.com.