California Parks Director Resigns Amid Scandal

[mannysouza]

Maybe everything the government gets and spends should be audited by an independent party?

[OrangeCrash]

Originally Posted by fermentor

She's 52. You can retire at 50 if you have 5 years service. She has a little over 15 years service.
Standard formula is 2%/per year at 55 of final compensation, about $60K in this case.
Not sure how it works if younger than 55. Probably a bunch of state workers here that might know.
At this time, they can still purchase additional years of service, up to 5 years worth.
I'd like to see 5 years prison time.

You are correct I meant to say 50's not 40's that was a typo, Greene is a year or so younger than Coleman it's interesting how they appear to have gone their separate ways after hitting the 50 mark isn't it......

[Sodder]

I came home yesterday and complained about the $20 it cost me to inspect and launch my brand new kayak at Del Valle. This certainly doesn't help.

As a recent transplant, I can't believe how poorly this state is run. Makes me sick to my stomach knowing that 30 some odd million came from wheelers paying "their dues"...

[EarlKann]

Originally Posted by fermentor

She's 52. You can retire at 50 if you have 5 years service. She has a little over 15 years service.
Standard formula is 2%/per year at 55 of final compensation, about $60K in this case.
Not sure how it works if younger than 55. Probably a bunch of state workers here that might know.
At this time, they can still purchase additional years of service, up to 5 years worth.
I'd like to see 5 years prison time.

Must wait till you are 55 to file for calpers retirement. Wife just left .gov at age 43. Retirement will sit there till she files the paperwork in 12 years.

Originally Posted by LYIN' KING

Oh, no bad . . .

I was just pointing out that would be the salary required to achieve the $60K income level were she to retire at 52.

The buy "extra service credits" deal is a non-starter for most as it is expensive, results in a minimal yearly increase and would take forever to break even in most folks cases.

Better to operate straight up, not get fired and put a few more years in.

Yup.

[mannysouza]

Originally Posted by Sodder

I came home yesterday and complained about the $20 it cost me to inspect and launch my brand new kayak at Del Valle. This certainly doesn't help.

As a recent transplant, I can't believe how poorly this state is run. Makes me sick to my stomach knowing that 30 some odd million came from wheelers paying "their dues"...

Mussles? My wife, kids( one 5 and one 4) and I were almost arrested for launching a brand new paddle boat, that I got for fathers day, at a local reservoir. Two sherifs and two park rangers. We thought we were going to jail! They asked why we didn't use the launch ramp that was at the opposite end of the reservoir. My bad!

[LYIN' KING]

Originally Posted by EarlKann

Must wait till you are 55 to file for calpers retirement.

Just adding more to this off-topic matter but . . .

"When is the earliest I can retire?

For most people, the earliest you can retire is age 50. You must also have at least five years of CalPERS service credit. State Second Tier members must be at least age 55 with 10 years of CalPERS service credit, unless you have five years of credit prior to January 1985. If so, you can retire as early as age 50 with five years of CalPERS service credit".

Source: http://www.calpers.ca.gov/index.jsp?...pst=ACT&pca=ST

[OrangeCrash]

Originally Posted by EarlKann

Must wait till you are 55 to file for calpers retirement. Wife just left .gov at age 43. Retirement will sit there till she files the paperwork in 12 years.






Yup.

Originally Posted by fermentor

She's 52. You can retire at 50 if you have 5 years service. She has a little over 15 years service.
Standard formula is 2%/per year at 55 of final compensation, about $60K in this case.
Not sure how it works if younger than 55. Probably a bunch of state workers here that might know.
At this time, they can still purchase additional years of service, up to 5 years worth.
I'd like to see 5 years prison time.

Originally Posted by LYIN' KING

Oh, no bad . . .

I was just pointing out that would be the salary required to achieve the $60K income level were she to retire at 52.

The buy "extra service credits" deal is a non-starter for most as it is expensive, results in a minimal yearly increase and would take forever to break even in most folks cases.

Better to operate straight up, not get fired and put a few more years in.

OK so what does this mean if you are a political appointee, is it doing what your told like diverting our funds, allowing and/or enabling the diversion of our funds, and just pray some nobody on the outside can't figure out how to raise the money to higher a good Law firm

[LYIN' KING]

Originally Posted by OrangeCrash

OK so what does this mean if you are a political appointee, is it doing what your told like diverting our funds, allowing and/or enabling the diversion of our funds, and just pray some nobody on the outside can't figure out how to raise the money to higher a good Law firm

Huh? Why don't you tell me???

[LYIN' KING]

Since I started the thread . . . here's a bit of somewhat related uncommon sense coming from one of our State Senators . . .


What the Legislative Majority and the Governor are Telling You:
Hand Over the Money and No One Gets Hurt

As unbelievable as it seems, in the midst of this years–long budget crisis, your government leaders are saying, in essence, “Give us what we want, or someone is going to get hurt.” If the process feels a little like someone is holding a proverbial gun to your head, you might not be too far off.

Last month we witnessed our legislative leaders smiling and patting themselves on the back for sending what they are calling a budget on the Governor’s desk. However, the law requires the Legislature to submit a “balanced” budget. They haven’t. It isn’t. The “balanced” part is being left up to you – on your doorstep – with a ransom note attached.

It is utterly disingenuous to approve a spending plan that might be balanced if – and only if – you agree to higher taxes. Balancing the budget is their job; not yours. Only a year and a half ago, these same leaders convinced the voters to approve Proposition 25, which changed the budget vote requirement from two–thirds to a simple majority. Unfortunately, they failed to mention that they would leave it up to you to fill in the financial gaps on their faulty balance sheet – or else.

Even with the newfound authority to craft a majority vote budget, last year’s plan was held together with $4 billion in phantom revenue they prayed would arrive in time to cushion their fall. No one was really surprised when only a portion of that new revenue materialized. Although the Legislative Analyst subsequently emphasized the need to reduce spending immediately, those in power rejected the call to do so. Perhaps a $15.7 billion deficit and threats of widespread death and destruction lends more credence to their design to extract more of your money. So, this year, instead of a budget balanced with available revenue, they handed us a budget that includes a ransom note: “Don’t make us hurt you.” The demands require the voters’ approval of a seven–year, $40 billion “temporary” tax increase.

It should come as no surprise that we don’t hear our leaders threatening to reduce the size of government, streamline the bureaucracy, reduce outlandish state salaries, implement long–awaited pension reform, consolidate departments and commissions, repeal the Dream Act, or halt funding on an over–priced high–speed rail system that the majority of voters no longer want. They wouldn’t find much sympathy there. By way of analogy, you don’t hold the unpopular loner hostage if you want to get people to write the check. You hold a knife to the throat of the golden–haired star pupil, the favorite teacher, the college athlete, the respected veteran. There’s a method to their madness.

With all the talk about about slashing and burning, perhaps our leaders failed to mention that this budget will add about 1,000 new state employees in the coming fiscal year, and projections are showing a $25 billion increase in government spending over the next four years. Lest you think we’ve been starved for revenues, the Legislature spent $194 billion from all funds in 2007–08, and proposes to spend $225 billion in 2012–13. Just as alarming, the voters haven’t yet agreed to higher taxes on anything, but the Governor and the Legislature are assuming they will and began to spend money they haven’t collected – and may never collect – on July 1.

Those in power are making it clear that they don’t like the word ’no,’ and they seem intent on holding you responsible for any negative outcomes. Be warned: If you don’t give them what they want, things could get ugly. I suppose if it feels kind of like a hostage situation, there may be a good reason for that.

Source: http://cssrc.us/web/4/

[LYIN' KING]

Back on-topic . . . here's what the uncommon sense Senator above had to say about the Coleman fiasco . . .

LaMalfa Comments on Resignation of Parks Director


State Parks Concealed Millions in Surplus Funds While Attempting to Close Parks


Today, Senator LaMalfa issued a statement regarding the resignation of California Department of Parks and Recreation Director Ruth Coleman amid allegations that the Department has concealed $54 million in surplus funds.

“Though I am happy to discover there is money to keep California’s parks open, I am disappointed in the State Parks Director and her staff for concealing money from California’s taxpayers while calling for the closure of 70 state parks,” commented LaMalfa.

Director Coleman resigned, effective immediately, and a senior staff member was fired when it was discovered there is as much as $33 million in the Off Highway Vehicle Fund and $20 million in the Parks and Recreation Fund.

“Given the State Legislature’s tendencies to steal money from special funds, I understand the Department’s wishes to conceal millions of dollars from the Legislature,” stated LaMalfa. “However, it is still highly inappropriate.”

“I now expect this Legislature to ensure the money is spent on only the designated issues highlighted for each of these funds and not stolen to fund a completely unrelated program,” continued LaMalfa. “This is our chance to show the public we can do what is right and continue to make all parks available to taxpayers.”

Senator Doug LaMalfa is a lifelong farmer representing the fourth Senate District including Shasta, Tehama, Butte, Colusa, Glenn, Siskiyou, Sutter, Del Norte, Placer, Trinity, Yuba and Nevada counties.

Source: http://cssrc.us/web/4/news.aspx?id=12489

[OrangeCrash]

Originally Posted by LYIN' KING

Back on-topic . . . here's what the uncommon sense Senator above had to say about the Coleman fiasco . . .

LaMalfa Comments on Resignation of Parks Director


State Parks Concealed Millions in Surplus Funds While Attempting to Close Parks


Today, Senator LaMalfa issued a statement regarding the resignation of California Department of Parks and Recreation Director Ruth Coleman amid allegations that the Department has concealed $54 million in surplus funds.

“Though I am happy to discover there is money to keep California’s parks open, I am disappointed in the State Parks Director and her staff for concealing money from California’s taxpayers while calling for the closure of 70 state parks,” commented LaMalfa.

Director Coleman resigned, effective immediately, and a senior staff member was fired when it was discovered there is as much as $33 million in the Off Highway Vehicle Fund and $20 million in the Parks and Recreation Fund.

“Given the State Legislature’s tendencies to steal money from special funds, I understand the Department’s wishes to conceal millions of dollars from the Legislature,” stated LaMalfa. “However, it is still highly inappropriate.”

“I now expect this Legislature to ensure the money is spent on only the designated issues highlighted for each of these funds and not stolen to fund a completely unrelated program,” continued LaMalfa. “This is our chance to show the public we can do what is right and continue to make all parks available to taxpayers.”

Senator Doug LaMalfa is a lifelong farmer representing the fourth Senate District including Shasta, Tehama, Butte, Colusa, Glenn, Siskiyou, Sutter, Del Norte, Placer, Trinity, Yuba and Nevada counties.

Source: http://cssrc.us/web/4/news.aspx?id=12489

OK the two simple facts here are Coleman and Greene are Both gone now, simple question will ether of them be getting any retirement and why or why not?

[LYIN' KING]

Originally Posted by OrangeCrash

OK the two simple facts here are Coleman and Greene are Both gone now, simple question will ether of them be getting any retirement and why or why not?

What's the simple answer?

[LYIN' KING]

State Parks Director Resigns

Written by CAMRC.


OHV Community Supports Governor's Effort to Review Fund


How does a hidden fund get started and who made the decisions?

The Off-Highway Vehicle Community welcomes the quick response from Governor Jerry Brown to investigate financial irregularities and a hidden slush fund within State Parks.

We are disappointed, but not the least bit surprised that the problem exists.

We have made repeated efforts over the past couple of years to draw attention to the theft of OHV funds under the guise that dire conditions are forcing the closure of recreational opportunities in order to save what management has described as distressed quiet parks.

We are asking that the OHV program, a national model and one with absolute fiscal clarity, be restored completely.

The OHV program is the most successful division of State Parks and responsibly provides recreational opportunities to millions of Californians. OHV recreation is also critical to the rural economy of our state.

We are not amused by the protestations of former Director Ruth Coleman that she had no idea the problem existed. Certainly, her career as a budget expert is a matter of record. The buck stops someplace...we hope that is where the investigation will begin.

We look forward to participating in the process.

Read the article regarding Ruth Coleman's resignation: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/07/20/464...r-resigns.html


Source: http://cal4wheel.com/california--acc...m_medium=email

[surveyboy]

I'm still friggen confused if this is a black eye on us or on the state park people?

[LYIN' KING]

Originally Posted by surveyboy

I'm still friggen confused if this is a black eye on us or on the state park people?

Read the last post here . . . /forum/land-use-issues/1068291-senator-simitians-truths.html

This . . . http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showp...8&postcount=14

[Runzoff]

This fiasco is a Golden opportunity that should not be wasted! I think we as OHV Taxpaying Californian's should be clamoring, flooding our local newspapers and media about restoring the OHV Trust Fund and Grant Programs and reinstating Daphne Greene and Eric Lueder to the OHMVR!!

Lets start up the letter writing campaigns NOW!!

[ErikB]

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...ack=lanowpicks

[randii]

Originally Posted by randii

Two separate things here... the OHV Fund is certainly no secret, but 20+ million in Parks and Recs with closures bemoaned so heavily, WTF?

OHMVR Division Vindicated:
Attorney General's Investigation into Discrepancies in Financial Reporting by California State Parks
California Resources Agency - Attorney General's Investigation into Discrepancies in Financial Reporting by California State Parks

It is a shame that good news like this gets so little notice.

Randii

[randii]

Here's the Executive summary... there's more worth reading but that's what the link is for.

California’s Natural Resources Agency issued a statement on July 20, 2012, advising that preliminary investigation into finances at the Department of Parks and Recreation “has revealed that for at least 12 years the department underreported tens of millions of dollars to the Department of Finance.” The statement also advised that, as of the Parks Department’s “most recently reported balances,” the Department of Finance (DOF) was unaware of $20,378,000 in the State Parks and Recreation Fund, and $34,492,000 in the Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) Fund. It has since been continuously reported that the Parks Department “has been sitting on nearly $54 million in surplus money for at least 12 years.” This report, based on extensive investigation, concludes that the amount of funds intentionally undisclosed is much more limited. This investigation found no evidence of intentional or systematic failure to disclose OHV fund monies to the DOF, including the $34 million described as having been under-reported to the DOF at the close of fiscal year 2010-11. Instead, the evidence indicates that the historically erratic and at times significantly disparate OHV fund balances reported to the DOF and State Controller’s Office (SCO) are largely attributable to the timing and methodology of reporting a variety of multi-million-dollar events to those two control agencies. Examples of such events include large appropriations and deductions, followed by budget report reimbursements, for land purchases not consummated, multi-million-dollar loans of OHV monies to the general fund, and errant infusions in the 2010-11 and 2011-12 fiscal years of millions in fuel excise tax dollars later corrected and reclaimed by the Legislature. In four of the past nineteen years, such events have evidently resulted in anywhere from $20.5 to $35.1 million more OHV dollars being overreported to the DOF when compared to balances reported to the SCO. This investigation has yielded no evidence that any OHV monies were ever intentionally hidden. Instead, as the DOF has noted, these discrete fiscal events have contributed to significant disparities in OHV fund reports dating back to the 1990s.
The systematic non-disclosure to the DOF of millions in State Parks and Recreation Fund (SPRF) monies for the past 15 years is a different story. The disparity in SPRF balances reported to the DOF and SCO, and the resulting amount unreported to the DOF, grew consistently from $5.5 million in 1996 to a high of $29.2 million in 2003. The unreported amount then incrementally declined the next four years, from $29.2 to $20.2 million, and from 2007 to the present has remained close to $20 million. Those SPRF monies, and how they came to exist, grow, partially contract, and be kept hidden from the DOF, are the focus of this report.
Based on interviews with 40 current and former state employees, and related documentation, the evidence indicates the disparity in SPRF year-end balance reports began and grew unintentionally during a challenging financial tracking and budgeting period from 1995 to 2003, resulting in far fewer dollars being reported for budget purposes to the DOF. During the first five years of this period, 1995 to 2000, the Department was engaged in a performance-based budgeting project, which reportedly entailed the added complexity of operating dual financial tracking and budgeting programs. This may be at the root of SPRF budget reporting errors that began around 1996. The growing disparity in SPRF balance reports may have been exacerbated in 2000 when Proposition 12 added $1.364 billion in funding for California’s parks, including $519 million for capital improvement projects. The backup documentation for the SPRF budget fund condition statements submitted to the DOF over those past 16 years would be required to pinpoint precisely what caused the balance disparities, and it is unknown whether such material remains available. Thus, the original cause or causes of the SPRF balance disparities may never be fully understood. Regardless of its origins, the fact that the Department’s budgeting manager, with assistance from her peers in accounting, set out in 2001 to study and understand the disparity strongly suggests that non-disclosure of SPRF monies to the DOF was not originally intended.
It is clear, however, that by no later than 2003, and perhaps as early as 1999, the failure to accurately report all SPRF monies to the DOF became conscious and deliberate. The facts show that former budget officer Becky Brown noticed the growing disparity as early as 1998. By late 2002, when the discrepancy in SPRF balance reports had reached $26.8 million, the budget and accounting officers and their supervisor, Tom Domich, then-manager of fiscal services, were all aware of the discrepancy. Thereafter, from 2002 to 2012, numerous individuals failed to take appropriate action to ensure the monies were revealed to the DOF. The 3 primary reason consistently given for not doing so was fear that the Department would see its already-reduced general funding cut further if the extra monies in the SPRF were revealed. The embarrassment expected to result from revealing the funds was another motivating factor. Some witnesses attempted to shift responsibility by noting that the correct SPRF balance was always reported to the SCO. Throughout this period of intentional non-disclosure, some Parks employees consistently requested, without success, that their superiors address the issue.
Ultimately, Aaron Robertson arrived as head of the Department’s administrative services division and recognized his duty to report the matter up the chain of command, both within and outside the Department. Until then, no one had been willing to report the matter beyond their supervisors. Instead, people have consistently followed the directions of those above them that the fund balance disparity would not be disclosed to the DOF.
Conclusively identifying everyone who knew of the funds and gave orders that they not be reported to the DOF is difficult. Reports that former director Ruth Coleman knew of the funds are unreliable. One such assertion was attributed in media reports to Cheryl Taylor. Taylor stated during her interview in this investigation that the assertion was speculation. Two people, Rob Boriskin and Manuel Lopez, state that they believe they explained the situation and existence of disparate SPRF fund balance reports to Coleman, but are uncertain whether and to what extent she understood. What is apparent, however, is that by no later than 2003 thenfinancial services manager Tom Domich was informed about what was then approaching $29 million in undisclosed SPRF monies. This is evident from the testimony of former accounting officer Freda Luan-Dun, who states that she and Domich and then-budget officer Becky Brown had many conversations about the issue. Similarly, former chief deputy Michael Harris states that, shortly after he arrived at Parks in November 2003, he received his original briefing about the undisclosed funds from Domich and Brown, and was told a decision had already been made not to disclose them to the DOF. Domich, however, refuses to acknowledge he was aware of the disparity in balance reports and the undisclosed SPRF monies.
Because Domich denies he knew of the funds, it is uncertain whether he alone made the decision in 2003 not to disclose the monies to the DOF, or whether he reported the issue to those above him, specifically former administrative services chiefs Denzil Verardo and Ron Brean, or Ruth Coleman, who became acting director in January 2002 and went on to serve as director until July 2012. Verardo, Brean, and Coleman have all stated that they did not know of the funds. Former budget officer and then administrative services chief Manuel Lopez acknowledges he learned of the funds after arriving at Parks in April 2005. Lopez promptly reported the matter to his supervisor, then-administrative services deputy director Michael Harris, who was already aware. Over the ensuing years Lopez played a role in keeping the funds hidden from the DOF, but Lopez was not the first manager to learn of and order the funds be kept hidden, and he was not the highest-ranking manager known to have ordered their continued non-disclosure. The evidence indicates Domich made the initial decision not to disclose the funds, and in subsequent years Harris was the highest ranking manager who ordered their continued non-disclosure.
Ultimately, there is no indication the funds were ever expended. Because they were not reported to the DOF, the monies seem to have represented an essentially useless reserve that could not be spent by the Parks Department as there was no legislative appropriation to do so. With better internal management and oversight, and increased coordination and sharing of financial information among control agencies as now legislatively mandated, a repeat of any such non-disclosures should be less likely.

[randii]

Cliff notes for the MTV generation... yeah, I'm part of that.

Preliminary investigation into finances at the Department of Parks and Recreation showed tens of millions of dollars of under-reporting in the State Parks and Recreation Fund and the Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) Fund. Some reports said there was $54 million in surplus hidden away.
Extensive investigation found that the amount of funds intentionally undisclosed is much more limited, and that there was no evidence of intentional or systematic failure to disclose OHV fund monies to the Department of Finance. Rather, the OHV fund balance discrepancies reflect timing/methodology of reporting issues between the Department of Finance and State Controller’s Office, many attributable to multi-million-dollar 'loans' of OHV and/or fuel tax monies elsewhere to the state. This investigation has yielded no evidence that any OHV monies were ever intentionally hidden.
The systematic non-disclosure to the DOF of millions in State Parks and Recreation Fund (SPRF) monies for the past 15 years is a different story. The disparity in SPRF balances reported to the DOF and SCO, and the resulting amount unreported to the DOF, grew consistently from $5.5 million in 1996 to a high of $29.2 million in 2003; declined the next four years, from $29.2 to $20.2 million; and from 2007 to the present has remained close to $20 million. Those SPRF monies, and how they came to exist, grow, partially contract, and be kept hidden from the DOF, are the focus of the report linked above. A whole lot if interviews with current and former state employees indicate that the disparity in SPRF year-end balance reports began and grew unintentionally. Though the original cause or causes of the SPRF balance disparities may never be fully understood... and may not have been intentional... by no later than 2003, and perhaps as early as 1999, the failure to accurately report all SPRF monies to the DOF became conscious and deliberate.