Laserfiche WebLink
required by the District Board. However, LAFCo has taken no further action on the District <br />matter. <br />It is important for County taxpayers to understand special district governance structure and the <br />responsibility of special district boards with regard to such issues as embezzlement. <br />Concerns about special district management practices, accountability, and oversight were the <br />impetus for a Grand Jury investigation. <br />METHODOLOGY <br />Documents <br />The Grand Jury reviewed the following documents: <br />• The LAFCO Service Review of the District, dated June 12, 2012 <br />• The District's certified financial audits for fiscal years ending June 30, 2009, 2010, and <br />2011 <br />• Letter of concern from a member city <br />• Documents from three former senior District employees including timelines of <br />management judgments, financial invoices, and grievance letters to Trustees <br />• Personnel files of certain District employees <br />• Forensic audit performed in 2011 by C.G. Ulenberg, the District's regular auditor <br />• Correspondence regarding the Hartford Insurance claim <br />• Report issued by Dr. Peter Hughes, CPA, a consultant retained by the District to review <br />its accounting policies. <br />Survey <br />• The Grand Jury sent a survey to all County independent special districts <br />Site Tours <br />• The Grand Jury toured the District's headquarters and laboratory located at 1351 Rollins <br />Road, Burlingame. <br />Interviews <br />• The Grand Jury interviewed 13 individuals. Interviewees included representatives from <br />the District and its Board; representatives from LAFCo and its Commission; former key <br />01• abed - .3. V J <br />