December 3, 20152015-102
The Governor of California
President pro Tempore of the Senate
Speaker of the Assembly
Sacramento, California 95814
Dear Governor and Legislative Leaders:
As requested by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee, the California State Auditor presents this audit report concerning the Central Basin Municipal Water District’s (district) planning, operations and management, long‑term financial viability, and control environment.
This report concludes that the district’s board of directors (board) has failed to provide the leadership necessary for the district to effectively fulfill its responsibilities. For example, we found that the board failed to ensure that the district maintained stability in key executive management positions throughout our review period. Further, we found that the board failed to take basic steps to ensure the district’s long‑term financial viability, including engaging in long‑term financial planning and performing the necessary study to ensure the district’s water rate structure is appropriate and that it will collect sufficient revenues to meet its costs. Finally, the board’s actions contributed to the district losing its insurance coverage, forcing the district to purchase insurance with higher premiums for considerably less coverage than in previous years.
The board also violated state law in 2010 when it improperly approved the establishment of a legal trust fund without adequate public disclosure. Further, it lacked a means of ensuring expenditures made from the $2.75 million trust fund were appropriate. In addition, the district consistently engaged in questionable contracting practices. For example, we found that the district often inappropriately circumvented its competitive bidding process when it awarded contracts to vendors. The district also spent thousands of dollars of public funds on purposes unrelated to its mission, some of which very likely constitute gifts of public funds, which are prohibited by the California Constitution.
Additionally, the district did not always follow its policies for hiring employees, which led it to hire certain individuals who did not possess the necessary qualifications for their positions and to incur unnecessary expenses. In one instance, the district paid more than $22,000 for an employee to obtain a bachelor’s degree, when possession of such a degree was already a minimum requirement to qualify for his high‑level position. Ultimately, this individual did not obtain his degree during his employment with the district. We also found that some of the benefits the district offers its board members may be overly generous, as it provides them with full health benefits and a generous automobile allowance, even though their work is essentially part‑time. Finally, we noted multiple instances in which the district paid for unreasonable travel and meal expenses for both its board members and staff.
Although the district has recently taken some steps to address these issues, the magnitude of the problems we found suggests that the district could benefit from a different governance structure. The district’s board is currently publicly elected, yet the board’s customers, to which it should be held accountable, are those various entities the district wholesales water to which is, in turn, then sold throughout the district. If the Legislature chooses to change the governance structure, it could consider a structure in which the board would be composed of members appointed by the district’s direct customers. Such a change would not be a novel approach—as we note, it is already used by certain other water agencies in the region—and it would enable the district’s customers to hold the board accountable when it takes actions or makes decisions that are not in the best interests of the district.
ELAINE M. HOWLE, CPA