I spoke to Ron Bamieh today about the Public Guardian's office, more firewoorks will be out very soon and rightfully so.

I, as you know am an advocate/case manager for individuals with disabilties so this issue is near and dear to me. I am currently working to represent individuals that are privately conserved and accounting their special needs trusts to the courts. I find it hard to believe that the public guardians office could be so lax. This issue is despicable!

The County Supervisors should have the entire departments head on a plate.

Matheny should rescind his entire salary to provide restitution to the clients.

Trouble is, this is not only about money it is also about the quality of care and the physical abuse and neglect that the elderly and disabled individuals are enduring as wards of the public guardians.

If the guardians are using their time to figure out how to embezzle do you really think that they are visiting and investigating direct care of the conservatees.

When Donna speaks out on issues such as these, you can pretty much take it to the bank that she's right. I was happy Bubba brought this to closer attention as well, as I had only read the most recent articles and didn't have all the facts.

Mr. Matheney should resign and allow fresh a fresh manager to come in and clean-up the problem for the good of the county. The trust in the system should be restored and frankly I don't see that happening just with someone not getting a raise.

In terms of the gross negligence I have read about, I would feel more comfortable if this office was no longer an electeed office, but one where it's a hire and fire from the board of supervisors much like a city manager over that department.

If this were to occur and he was hired by the supervisors, he'd most likely be out on his ear right now.

Instead, we are only talking about taking the raise away, which just isn't enough to pay back for the loss in trust that has been brought upon the public due to poor public management.

Scott, didn't 4 out of 5 supervisors vote to raise his salary? Did they not have many of the same details before the vote?

If they ask him to resign it is because it has become public, not because of the facts of the case.

Did our supervisor vote to raise his pay?

The Supervisors voted to raise his pay as part of a larger pay package for various non-union county positions. Union jobs are covered under the various MOUs that are negotiated each contract cycle. But for other non-represented workers the Board of Supervisors must vote annually on pay raises.

This year the Supervisors agreed on a 3% cost of living increase to these workers. However, the Board also conducts salary surveys to, ostensibly, determine if the level of compensation for certain positions is in line with the amount being offered by other large counties. If a position appears to be significantly below that of other counties there may be an additional adjustment to bring the pay up to a more competitive level.

In the past these adjustments could be very large, especially if other counties approve large pay increase for their employees. This also created a situation where, from time-to-time, the public would get upset when highly compensated public employees were receiving double-digit pay raises as a result of salary surveys. That, combined with the use of parity agreements in MOUs, also resulted in a situation where Supervisors had a difficult time controlling the growth in the cost of employee salary and benefits. As a result, the Supervisors a few years ago capped annual pay raises to non-represented employees to no more than 9%.

In the case of Matheney, his pay is being bumped up as the result of salary surveys that indicate that he is being paid less than many of his counterparts in other large counties. These same surveys also awarded a 9% pay raise this year to Greg Totten and Bob Brooks for the same reason. That is also the reason why Matheney and others received a 9% pay raise last year.

Basically what we have here is a Board of Supervisors that is blindly raising pay based on salary surveys. The problem is that this is a game that is being played all over the state at all levels by public employees. All it takes is for one public agency or department to approve a generous pay package and, as a result of salary parity policies, all other departments follow suit. That is why we have seen a rapid escalation in salary and benefits to public employees throughout the state. The shortfall of this approach is that it fails to make any connection between compensation and performance. In the case of Matheney, his pay raise simply defies common sense.

The solution is for the Supervisors to also consider performance as part of their process for reviewing salary adjustments. Their failure to do so shows that they are asleep at the switch.

Bubba:

Thanks for the insight. I don't think I've ever seen a salary survey public or private that doesn't end in an increase in salaries.

Let me guess, when the salaries go up in Ventura, another county will run a salary survey that will include Ventura County and be forced to raise it even further?

Brian:

Don't be so cynical. In this case it has come to public light, but that doesn't mean the board shouldn't request his resignation for fear of political posturing.

The most important objective that needs to be achieved is restoration of confidence to those programs that have become mismanaged and justice for those wronged. I don't see that happening without a leadership change.

Are you saying doing the right thing is bad politics?

Brian, It would be Bamieh vs. Matheny not the other way around.

Maybe it could develop into The People vs. Larry Matheny & Public Guardians Office.

Trouble with this whole mess is the conservatees would need to be aware enough to know they have been duped or are being mistreated.

It appears in the case of Bamieh's client she apparently had a child that is offering some level of oversight.

I am not an attorney and this is a complicated issue but my limited knowledge leads me to the conclusion that, the less fortunate individuals (who do not have a loved one watching for checks and balances) the County would actually need to sue themselves to offer the individuals restitution.

Anyone have further knowledge on the process? I will talk to the attorneys of the firm I consult for to clarify.

It would seem the justice/courts would approve the accountings of the public guardian and seek outside council if they believe the public guardian is guilty of malfaesance of office.

Possibly an independent advocacy group like Protection and Advocacy or NAMI could petition the court and ask for outside representation to audit and oversee the guardians office. Or individuals could ask the VCBOS to initiate hiring an outside conservator/guardian. Regional Center could also petition the courts on their clients behalf.

Anyone?

That could result in outsourcing the responsilbilites of the Auditor/Controller, Treasurer/Tax Collector to an independent firm.

I am sure the civil rights attorneys have their wagons circling.

I am personally aware of cases of abuse and neglect, but not at liberty to indulge any further information.

This issue could also be brought forward to the Ventura County Behavioral Health's Mental Health Board maybe they could ask VCBH to explain the process.

Scott, do you think the GAO could help in this case?

Maybe the Public Guardian's office has an employee that could contact the GAO fraudnet to report Fraud, Waste or Abuse of federal funds.

A link is provided for anyone who wants to make a confidential report.

Donna:

I believe the GAO would only be able to jump in if we are talking federal funds and a Congresserson requested those federal funds and programs be reviewed. Do you know the source of funding for this office?

Last January, the Governor signed a bunch of new bills on reforming Conservatorship and Guardianship reforms. Sadly, what occurred under Matheney's watch seems to be a common occurrence requiring state action. The law is called the Omnibus Conservatorship and Guardianship Reform Act and looks like something that is going to require all sorts of new regulations to this area.

One part of this Omnibus package is California Senate Bill 1716, which appears to establish greater oversight over these programs from the courts, but I'm still digging into the details.

A group that appears to be very interested in this topic is a group called Congress of California Seniors. The link is left above.

I'll keep digging and see what I can find out.

Bubba is right. He said we've been writing about government accountability on all these other topics while this one was getting no play. Thanks Bubba.

Donna:

One other thing and I'm not sure this is being done by our Supervisors. I believe the Supervisors should appoint an emergency task force of health care advocates, psychologists, professionals, attorneys, nurses, and a couple of community members to dig into this issue and present administrative, management, and financial controls best practrices right away.

A major challenge is the privacy issues related to what is going on. However, darkness has only really created an area for criminals to take advantage of people who need honest help.

If there isn't an emergency task force with professionals who know this issue as I described, then it's not being taken seriously enough and systems flaws will continue to occur.

Actually Scott, I am sure that part of their funding is from federal dollars, especially when it is for the elderly and disabled.

You may remember Ventura County being fined by the federal government $19 million dollars around 1998 or 1999 for reporting medi-cal expenditures for clients of Ventura County Behavioral Health, incorrectly.

It's just a matter of time before the right people champion this cause.

I am also wondering if Area Board IX can somehow become invloved. Read the link I provided to help you understand their role.

If the supervisors sit on their hands, the Ventura County Superior Court could take over.

The stakeholders can already sue the County of Ventura, Public Guardians office and any host of others, including the possibility of suing Larry Matheny directly along with individual employees.

Put it in the hands of the right law firm, it could be ugly, they could possibly even sue the Ventura County Superior Court.

I worked on a case once that was for child in foster care that was a ward of LA County, and there ended up being eleven defendants in all. Five of which were public agencies and the LA Superior Court.

I am also aware of individual civil cases where employees were sued directly in addition to the public agency.

Like I stated earlier, the civil right attorneys, wagons are circling. They won't show their hands until they are ready to hammer the County.

Too bad stakeholders aren't elected into County positions, they could offer very helpful insight to the Public Agencies they represent.

The link to Protection and Advocacy is below.

More FYI in link about abuse, neglect and victimization of elders and people with developmental disabilities.

Note comment from Ventura County District Attoreny 2002 about the lack of knowledge on how to protect/represent the elderly and disabled.

FYI-From the San Diego County Website
About the Public Guardian

The Public Guardian conducts official investigations into conservatorship matters, and serves as the legally appointed guardian for persons, who have been determined by the Courts to be incapable of caring for themselves. These are generally older, frail and vulnerable adults who are at risk or have been a victim of abuse or neglect.

When appointed conservator of the estate, the Public Guardian manages the finances of the conservatee who has been found by the Court to be unable to manage them alone, or is susceptible to being taken advantage of financially by others. In this role, the Public Guardian locates and takes control of the conservatee's assets, collects income, pays debts and taxes and invests funds.

When appointed conservator of the person, the Public Guardian is responsible for making sure the conservatee has proper food, clothing, shelter and health care. Depending on the conservatee's ability to understand and make decisions, the Public Guardian may receive authorization from the Court to make medical decisions for the conservatee as well.

In the County of San Diego, the Public Administrator also serves as the Public Guardian, but the functions of the Public Administrator are distinct from the conservatorship services. Services provided by the Office of the Public Administrator/Public Guardian are authorized by California Statute and monitored by the Probate Division of the Superior Court of California.

In the County of San Diego, the Public Administrator also serves as the Public Guardian, but the functions of the Public Administrator are distinct from the conservatorship duties of the Public Guardian. Services provided by the Office of the Public Administrator/Public Guardian are authorized by California Statute and monitored by the Probate Division of the Superior Court of California.

The Public Administrator/Public Guardian Team

The Public Administrator/Public Guardian Team is comprised of approximately 40 high-energy, compassionate professionals from various disciplines who have been deputized to work on the Public Administrator/Public Guardian's behalf to protect elderly and disabled citizens at risk of abuse and neglect by safeguarding their assets, providing for their personal care and providing expert administration of decedent and conservatorship estates.

Thanks Donna and Scott, you guys really know your stuff.

Below is a link to the 2002 Grand Jury report that documented many of the same problems that the public is now learning about the Public Guardian's Office. What is disturbing is that as far back as 1991 the Auditor-Controller's Office identified many of the same issues concerning a lack of controls and safeguards within that department in protecting client assets. It is amazing that the warning flags were there for so long yet no serious action was taken to address the problems.

Below is another link to the report that Larry Matheney presented to the Board of Supervisors on December 5. What bothers me about his report is that it only refers to problems back to May 2005, when the thefts of client funds was finally discovered. It omits any reference to any previous audits by the Grand Jury and Auditor-Controller's Office that had raised warning flags many years prior to the discovery of the thefts.

I take exception to the tone of the report, since it gives the reader the impression that the PG Office responded swiftly once problems were discovered in 2005. But the truth is that problems were documented years earlier and yet no action was taken at that time. Still, even after the thefts the PG has only done an internal management audit. Only now does Matheney indicate that he will be initiating a process to have an outside firm conduct an audit.

Too little, too late.

Thanks for all the insights guys. If you write any letters, or see anything related please post it with a link. This way we can all find out more.

Here is an article in the Star from November concerning the recent indictment of Juanita Browne and Hiep Quang Le, who are accused of stealing from disabled people under the care of the PG.

Here is a link to a DA news release on the guilty plea of Esther Torres-Anaya, who embezzled the pension checks of an 85 year old widow and retired teacher under the guardianship of the PG.

Here is another link that details the crimes allegedly committed by Browne and Le.

I'm glad to see people asking the hard questions. The links give a good overview of the situation.

These pitiful abuse stories of those that are most vulnerable amongst us, and woeful lack of oversight by the county, were reported by the Star some time ago.

It seems that it took Matheny's pay raise for most of us to really engage on the subject.

Those of you who have been ahead of the game on this subject, deserve kudos and our thanks.

Now that Peter Foy has won can we expect him to fight for ethics and ask Matheny to resign? I think Peter Foy could do it!

Could he be recalled?

Bubba:

I wouldn't say I know my stuff as well on this subject as you or Donna, but do know that further action beyond what the supervisors have done needs to be taken.

I'm currently debating requesting recall papers on Monday morning and whether we win or lose, it sends a much needed message to the county that we will not tolerate the predicatble disaster we have seen in this regard.

I welcome your thoughts as I feel the Supervisor response does not mitigate or correct the damage that has been done to those that rely on Matheney's programs and to the public trust that has been severely damaged.

I agree with you that further action needs to be taken. There is no doubt that, following the embarassing pay hike to Matheney, the Supervisors will quickly rescind the raise. But tha doesn't address any of the issues about why the PGO has been so slow to initiate reforms and why it took no action in response to the Grand Jury report, something that could have prevented some of these things. It also doesn't address concerns about how Supervisors grant pay raises or whether they are properly reviewing the performance of department heads.

My concern is that the story will quickly go away once the pay raise is rescinded. I'm sure that is what Matheney and the Supervisors are hoping for. However the demands for Matheney's resignation have nothing to do with the pay raise, it is his lack of adequate management and oversight of the PGO. But this issue is also a reflection on the Supervisors themselves, who were aware of these issues and should have demanded reforms years ago, but instead kept jacking up salaries as if everything was fine.

It is important that we don't let this story just disappear like it did last year after Matheney's prior pay hike. I'm in favor of starting a recall petition if there is a process for doing so. I'll volunteer my own time to go door-to-door to gather signatures.

If I'm reading the election code correctly, in order to recall Matheney you would need:

39,107 valid signatures from registered VC voters. (10% of the 391,077 registered voters in the county)

You have 160 days to gather them. The clock starts ticking from the time your recall petition is certified by the clerks office.

The reality of the situation is that you'd need to gather more than that to cover invalid signatures. I don't know if the county uses the sampling plan allowed by the state.

That's a lot of signatures to gather using volunteers. Hired guns to do it are faster, but expensive. I have to tell you that the electorate is pretty burned out on the initiative & recall process.

On the other hand, people will sign just about anything, and a mob does enjoy a good lynching.

Just for fun, if anyone wants to look into recalling Foy, it would take 12,677 signatures (15% of 84,516). To be fair, you have to wait until he's in office for 90 days first... ;-)

Maybe the District Attorney could step up and help out. A felony conviction would remove a public official from office and save the taxpayers the expense of a recall election.

Matheny is a mandated reporter of abuse or suspected abuse, of the conservatees.

If Matheny's actions were negligent is he guilty of a crime, is it a felony?

Congratulations Brian, you probably have the Ventura County Counsel checking out your blog now.

When I was on the Ventura County Mental Health Board there was a series of articles done by Tamara Koehler for the Star (1999) on the state of mental health care in the Ventura County's California Youth Authority. The Grand Jury followed and exposed that only 35% of the wards that were in need of mental health services were receiving them.

When I joined the MHB in January of 1999 we formed a children's committee. The Mental Health Board's Children's Committee (which is still extremely active and strong) took it to task to ameliorate the situation. Within one year 95% of the wards that require mental health services were receiving them. We also designed a triage system for all incoming youth that circumvented their lack of care or missing medications etc. Making sure wards had their meds. while incarcerated helped to keep them from committing further infractions.

The reason I bring this up is, yes a citizens oversight committee can rectify a situation in a years time with the right people that are intelligent, motivated and passionate about their mission.

The Mental Health Board is a public office so the confidentiality issues are not a problem with their oversight. The Area Boards for DDS are also public appoinments by the Governor so again the confidentiality issue is solved.

I like Scott's idea of the VCBOS forming a citizens task force to oversee the Public Guardians office.

My initial thinking is to have
included at least on each;

County Supervisor
Mental Health Board Member
Dept. Developmental Services Area Board Member
Staff from VCBH
Staff from Tri-County Regional Center
Probation Staff
District Attorney staff
Auditor/Controller Staff
County Counsel staff
Stakeholders

Anyone remember the name of the Justices citizens oversight committee that they appoint?

I do not think anyone needs to believe this issue will be buried, there are too many lawsuits pending. It may not be in the press but it has not disappeared.

To all:

I thought about the question last night on a recall. Two counter-arguments will be the public is burned out by elections and the other a special election costs money.

My argument to the first- the public is burned out on incompetence and malfesance in government more than the thought of casting a ballot or adding a signature.

My argument to the second about a waste of money for an election, is we've already lost money as a result of the damage of doing nothing. Without specific reforms to the Guardian's office, vigorous oversight from an independent stakeholder task force, and replacement of leadership, we may lose more than we could have ever spent on a special election.

I view a potential recall to achieve one specific objective.

First, a recall forces the BOS to take action. If they are savvy politicians they will adopt an emergency task force and seek to undercut the moves by a recall comittee. If the BOS does nothing, they look guilty of hiding bad behavior and when words such as "senior financial abuse" and "embezzlement" start getting free media time in the Star and from recall committee members, they will have to act to undercut the movement.

So, even if we do not get a recall on a ballot, it forces the powers to be to act. I view a recall committee in terms of seeking to create a a critical mass on this issue to force action.

Icing on the cake would be actually getting the recall on the ballot.

Just think, they will have to listen to 120 days of regular folks like me banging pots and pans on this issue. Do they really want that. They want what Bubba is writing about; that it'll be a two day story and will go away.

So, even if we don't get it on the ballot, we'll get enough free media time to make the whole situation look worse and worse and worse for the powers that be.

The rule in politics is sometimes when you lose you really win. In this case we want those who have been wronged to win and I'm willing to push a recall action to reimpose government accountability standards back on the county in this case.

BOS must act swiftly or this issue is going to get louder and louder. If they are listening I would act now and nip it in the bud.

If not, we got enough people here to form a committee and get a little louder.

I say we do it! At worst it reminds governments that they should fear their citizens.

Brian Dennert is it okay if we all e-mail are e-mail addresses to you and then you could forward them all to Scott Blough?

Candidate research; http://portal.countyofventura.org/portal/page?_pageid=93,100219&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL

How much money was lost and how much was recovered? Did the thieves ended up in prison. Mistakes were made and they have been fixed.

If you make this into a huge case it is going to help the trial lawyers win even more of our money. I am already upset tax money was wasted once. Don't make it twice with an election and thrice with a pay day for local lawyers!

Some History; Ventura County's Treasurer-Tax Collector also fills the positions of Public Administrator, Public Guardian and Public Conservator. He supervises a staff of approximately 48 employees. The Treasurer, Tax Collector and Public Administrator are each separately designated elected offices that were combined into a single office several years ago. The additional responsibilities of Public Guardian and Public Conservator are assigned by the Board of Supervisors.

So why did the VCBOS turn three elected positions into one, maybe there in lies the problem.

Does anyone remember the history of combining these positions and why it was done.

It does appear that the VCBOS has the last say in Matheny's role and that of the Public Guardian.

When Pittman was in office did he serve in all capacities? Accoring to Matheny's website it was "several years ago" that the office changed. Matheny has been in the office for four years so it appears all the chnages may have accurred under his tenure.

I am also not convinced that a recall is necessary.

I also agree something needs to be done so that the lawyers don't end up being the big winners in this case.

That is why the VCBOS needs to take measures to ameliorate this issue and they apparently can do so.

I have always been one to provide mediation and conflict resolution. I've never had to pursue a case to hearing. Once the lawyers become involved all communication dries up and solutions are left in the hands of the courts and lawyers. The community and stakeholders do not win!!!!!!

Let's approach this in a well thought out effective, efficient and expedient manner. Do your research in a well thought out manner to come to conclusions, we do not know the whole story or understand this issue well enough to make a decision on how it is best to proceed.

Never forget that this is about the conservatees, their protection and quality of life is the issue here.

Who said anything about attorneys and trial lawyers? I'm talking about regular citizens petitioning the government.

Everyone else seems to be talking about trial lawyers, but me.

What's wrong with citizens speaking up on an issue and even signing a petition to make sure their is urgency on this issue?

Action always seems to be more persuasive than words.

If he resigns lawyers will use it as proof of wrongdoing in their countless lawsuits. Maybe we should jsut fundraise to buy them a new jag instead. It would be more direct and cheaper too!

Scott,

Unfortunately the lawyers are already involved. I am saying that the VCBOS may be able to take measures that could help us not incur as many attorney fees.

Do you know of someone that would make a good replacement for Matheny?

Do you think the VCBOS would have a golden boy/girl that they would want to replace Matheny with if they made an appointment?

Would our VCBOS appoint someone we all agree upon?

I am just saying thay we are in the discovery process.

If you were serious about a recall effort you would want all 120 days to be productive, not spent in planning.

It also seems that an accountant, MBA or attorney would be best qualified for Treasurer/Tax Collector/Public Guardian position.

Do you think these should be broken down to three or two elected position like it was before?

Follow the link to Election results in 1998 when Harold Pittman was elected to Treasurer/Tax Collector/Public Guardian.

So it would appear it has been more than "Several" years that this was roled into one job.

I think I'd wait and let some of the other information flow out on this situation, although I still agree with Bubba that we don't want to forget the issue either.

We can't wait. Why not just announce that you will be starting a recall drive, get some support and test how much traction it has, and then fill out the paperwork if you get the right answers. Think of it as a presidential exploration committee.

Every day that goes by is a day wasted thinking there are no problems.

Lawyers want this guy to stay. They want to make him the posterchild of the eomployees that STOLE money.

I don't meant to be harsh, but the first thing you guys need to do is pay attention. It's 160 days to gather the signatures, not 120. 1-6-0. One hundred sixty.

The clock starts ticking when the wording of your petition is approved and the proponent (Matheny) is notified. It doesn't start ticking when you pull papers, when you start talking about it, or start making threats.

That's the good news.

The tough part is...

you did understand that you need almost 40,000 VALID REGISTERED VOTERS from the county to sign on? Not 40,000 people that live in VC, who happen to be out for stroll at the mall. 40,000 legible, verifiable, bonafide signatures/addresses on the appropriate, approved petitions. All gathered within the specified period of time, from date x to date x.

There are companies who make a tidy profit gathering sufficient numbers of signatures for initiatives, recalls, etc. They thrive on this sort of thing ,and charge anywhere from $5-$10 per signature. That's a min of 200k just to get the recall on the ballot, and that money has to come from private funds. It isn't paid for up front or after the fact by the taxpayers. This is where it comes in handy to have some fundie nut with deep pockets on a religious crusade, or an oil company looking to protect its profit margin.

That is, of course, unless you can find enough volunteers, and adequately train them, to gather the signatures on your own. If you can, ti saluto.

Have you ever tried to organize a large group of volunteers, who can walk, talk and chew gum, to do something 40,000 times, which involves interaction with other human beings...all on their free time, outside of when they have to work, take care of the kids, sleep, eat, have fun, and so on? In an off election year?

I'm all for tilting at windmills, but even as the resident liberal, I gotta say, I don't see beating the recall drum as a realistic approach in this case. jmho

Ideally this guy will be shamed or pressured into resigning. Certainly he did the right thing by forgoing his raise.

And can we stop bashing lawyers? They are not the problem in this situation.

I think what is needed here is a step-by-step strategy. I'm thinking that we need to keep the threat of a recall petition on the table, but we don't have to use it just yet.

One thing we need to do is our homework; to find out the facts on organizing and carrying out a recall effort. We need to confirm the entire process and, if required, start pulling papers and putting together a group of citizens who are willing to work together to make that happen. Get the facts, but hold off just yet on moving forward with a recall.

More importantly, we need to make noise with the Board of Supervisors. That starts by writing letters and calling their office to demand that they put pressure on Matheney to resign. We need people to show up at Tuesday's Board Meeting (the day they are voting to rescind Matheney's raise) to fill out speaker cards and express their anger at the situation, demanding Matheney's resignation. Also, talk to your neighbors and others in the community, get them angry and ask them to write their Supervisor and also write letters to the Star. A key to winning this is to keep the story from going away. That means keeping it on the Supervisor's agenda and keeping it in the paper.

If we can put enough public pressure on Matheney perhaps he will resign. If not, then we can consider starting a recall petition to up the ante. Even the threat of a recall can keep pressure on the Supervisors since they just want the issue to go away, and a recall effort could keep this issue alive and very public for six months to a year.

One more thing...

The point of all this is to improve the situation at the Public Guardian's Office. Even if we fail at removing Matheney, he and the Board of Supervisors will be under tremendous pressure to implement reforms. And basically that is what this is about. If we let this issue go away then we are truly failing the most vulnerable of our citizens, the ones who are the real victims here. The public had an opportunity in May, 2005 when this story first broke, but we failed to act. The result was business as usual, with Matheney getting a 9% pay raise at the end of 2005 and another 9% pay raise in 2006.

So what I'm saying is that removing Matheney from office is a secondary goal. It would be nice to hold him accountable for these failures, but we can still accomplish our primary mission whether he stays or goes.

I tend to agree with Donna and Bubba on keeping the story alive and keeping all options on the table. Is there a meeting tomorrow on the raise?

Laura, sorry I said 120 instead of 160. I didn't realize you'd get so angry. :) It was an oversight on my part.

Laura thank you for the reality check and correcting my error from 120-160.

I do not believe there has been any lawyer bashing other than the Jaguar joke. I know how attorneys work because I consult for trial lawyers and understand case strategy.

I also believe that the conservatees are owed restitution and therefore attorneys are necessary and appreciated. I do believe that the more action the VCBOS takes to mitigate this situation it will help everyone to keep additional attorney fees under control.

The entire nature of the PGO is conservatorships hence we are working with the courts, judicial system, attorneys.

Yes, there is a meeting tomorrow at 8:30 a.m. where the Supervisors will vote on whether to rescind Matheney's pay raise (click on the link below). It is item #51 on the Agenda. Anyone wanting to speak on the issue should get there early to fill out a speaker card. Don't forget that items are also sometimes taken out of order, so don't be late if you plan to attend. Unfortunately I have a scheduling conflict and won't be able to be there, but it would be nice if as many people as possible showed up to comment on this item.

The issue to make here is that it is not enough for the Supervisors to simply rescind the pay raise. The Supervisors also need to demonstrate leadership and accountability by asking for Matheney's resignation. Furthermore, the Supervisors need to abolish the practice of awarding pay increases based solely on salary surveys, without consideration of performance. Which means that the Supervisors should take action to rescind all pay raises granted exclusively through salary surveys, including the 9% increases given to Bob Brooks and Greg Totten. It makes no sense that departments are understaffed because of tight budgets yet, simultaneously, highly paid elected officials continue to receive generous pay raises that have no link whatsoever to job performance. We should also demand that a public oversight committee be established to make recommendations and monitor the reforms of the PGO.

If you do speak don't forget to be professional and courteous. Being angry and rude to the Supervisors is counter-productive.

Bubba Kidd is right on target. Matheney, although a nice guy, is a very weak department head and needs to go. Retracting still another raise is not going far enough. Matheney has been aware of court cases against his staff for more than a year and has done absolutely nothing to provide the leadership for which he is paid. If he doesn't have the class to step down, Matheney should face a recall.

Bubba,
I couldn't agree with you more. Even the cities grant pay increases based on what other cities are doing regardless of the quality of work, number of complaints, etc. I wish our lawmakers in Sacramento would pass legistration prohibiting cities from doing this.

I really wish BOS meetings were at night like most other public meetings.

I sent off many email inquiries today on this subject. I know it's not enough, but want to at least try and start to get on record and get as much info as possible.

I am anxiously waiting for what type of action will be taken tomorrow.

Scott,

Maybe we should ask Peter Foy to try to move the meetings. Even late afternoons could be better for many. I don't think Peter Foy would have a problem with it.

I think moving the Supervisor meetings to late afternoon or evening would greatly improve pubic access. You can't have a worse time than 8:30 a.m. on Tuesdays. Scott is correct that most other public meetings are held at night so the public has more opportunity to participate. We should ask Peter Foy if he is willing to fight for moving the meeting time.

Why waste your time asking Foy to change the meeting times? Go to his handlers the Strickland's and ask them to tell Foy to do it. Seems like a more direct way of doing it.

I think we should take it a step further and have the meetings rotate to meet at a different district at least once a month. that would mean that each district would have at least 2-3 meetings in their area annually. Of course they should make those meetings at night for accessibility to all.

According to the article in the paper today Matheny's answer to inquiries is "I don't recall" If he has a cognitive deficit he should have it checked out by a doctor.

I met with my daughter's social worker today, they wanted us to fill out paperwork with all our financial statement's on it, account numbers, W2's etc. so they could receive some kind of federal reimbursement. Yeah right, do you think I am crazy! We are expected to provide our entire portfolio to the County even though services are not contingent on our financial condition. If they want to make us pay a share of costs, I feel that is better insurance than having my financial sitution shared with the County of Ventura.

Truth is they never have services available when they are needed anyway. We forfeited an entire years respite care last year because there were no service providers.

It seems like social workers are the only people that benefit from my child's disability.

This is how it works.
1-You have a child with a disability,
2-you inquire about receiving social services
3-the government hires an employee that becomes responsible for explaining to you why there are no services available to you in your home.
4-You receive no help unless you are willing to put your child in a group home
5-The County receives federal funding when you place your child outside of your home

I pray to God my daughter will never be at the mercy of the Public Guardian.

I pity those that rely upon the Public Guardian and place their trust in the PGO.

I am glad the issue is over and bloggers are leaving the guy alone to do his job. He makes more money then you guys do. If you understood how people in high ranking positions DELEGATE maybe you would leave him alone. His equals on the board know he is doing his job. Peter Foy knows he is doing his job. Even Jim Dantona is silent. They all know he did nothing wrong. Peter Foy knows him and he knows he is doing just fine.

Go away-

Don't confuse silence on the blog, to inactivity. Many are simply taking a hard look at the whole issue.

I will say that with new laws coming on the books on January 1st and with someone who can't remember what he signs, we may really need a serious oversight task force to ensure new state laws and guidelines are followed to the letter.

This issue is not going away anytime soon. My expectation is that even more damaging information is going to come out during the trial of Juanita Browne and the upcoming external audit of the PGO.

It is interesting that Matheney waited 1-1/2 years to even look into an external audit and only planned to budget $25,000 for the consulting firm. That isn't a very serious audit. Fortunately the Board of Supervisors looks to be expanding the scope of the audit now that they are under pressure to do so.

The other troubling issue is that Matheney was aware of the Grand Jury report in 2002 and seems to have taken no action to address the findings. Had he taken steps back then he should have been able to prevent much of what happened over the past few years. Yes, a lot of this stuff was going on before he took office, but at the same time he seems to have done nothing during his tenure to fix these problems, even after he was made aware of serious problems under his watch.

Another troubling thing that was recently disclosed was a statement by a retiring worker that she had told Matheney of missing funds before she retired in 2004. According to her statement to authorities Matheney told her not to worry about it and have a happy retirement. Matheney also seems to be having memory lapses since he cannot seem to recall having signed signature cards that were used to set up bank accounts for conservatees. Nobody should have been setting up outside accounts for conservatees, and it was Matheney's signature on these cards that opened the door for a lot of this fraud to occur. And suddenly Matheney cannot seem to recall ever signing those cards, even though he acknowledges that it is his signature, nor does he seem to want to discuss anything prior to 2005.

I'm also bothered that Janita Browne still had access to client files, even after the scandal broke in May, 2005. At that point Matheney knew that there was an ongoing investigation and that crimes had been committed in his department. At that point he should have moved immediately to gather and audit all client files. Instead he did nothing. Then in September Janita Browne, who has now been indicted in this case, reported that she had accidentally "lost" ten of her client files. Having these files suddenly disappear makes it difficult if not impossible to uncover much of the thefts. Matheney left Browne and others full access to these files and allowed them the opportunity to destroy evidence that was part of a criminal investigation. For that reason alone he should be thrown out of office.

For anybody to claim that Matheney "did nothing wrong" simply has their head in the sand. It is more accurate to say he "did nothing" even after he became aware of serious problems and thefts in the PGO.

I was also taken aback by the snob comment made by "Go away" that Matheney makes more money than others on this blog. I suppose that is meant to imply that the little people who aren't high-paid executives cannot possibly comprehend this situation and therefore are not in a position to judge or have an opinion on the subject.

First of all, you don't have to make over $150,000 per year to understand the issues or to know right from wrong. And just because someone makes a good salary does not automatically make them right or more intelligent than the rest of us. But, for the record, I make more than Larry Matheney, so I guess that give me the right to call him an incompetent jackass.

Go Away, you are clueless.

In high level positions a leader leads and surronds himself with people he can delegate to. Peter Foy knows this as he built up a large company with this basic principle. George W. Bush also understands delegation. Larry Matheney also delegates. He doesn't get to hire and fire all of his employees. Maybe it is their fault. Ever thought of that. One of these low level $12 an hour government workers falls for temptation because they want the big league life. Well guess what? They haven't earned it. Matheney needs to be given more power so he can get ahold of the problem.

It is up to Matheney to set up the checks and balances in his system in order to prevent these types of thefts. That is his job and not something he can simply delegate to others. Any competent manager takes immediate steps to investigate and clean up problems when they come to their attention, not wait around and do nothing and then act surprised after crimes have been committed under their watch. The bottom line is that the buck stops with Matheney. He knew about the problems years earlier and didn't take any action until after there were criminal indictments, and even then his actions were insufficient and nothing more than to try and cover his own butt.

Matheney is incompetent and his actions, or lack thereof, directly contributed to the ability of PGO employees to commit crimes and later cover their trail. There are no excuses for what happened. Matheney needs to share in the responsibility for this mess and he should be removed from office.

He gave back his pay raise. The people who stole money are on their way to jail. What mroe do you want? Your current supervisor, your new supervisor, and the runner up to the supervisor have never spoken ill about the man. The new supervisor even was endorsed by him. I am sure if given time this whole thing will blow over.

Stop making recall threats you don't intend to move on with. It is just decaying the chances of the people that know what they are doing to work together. At least give them a chance. I am sure in a few months you will move on to the next "scandal".

I never thought I'd say this, but am I the only one that loves to watch Bubba kick some ass on this subject?

He sounds more Dem every day. He's demanding accountability from our elected officials. He's speaking out on behalf of those who have no voice, and were taken advantage of by the very people in the county entrusted with their care.

Next thing you know, he'll be talking about "two Americas".

Slippery blue slope Bubba...you're coming over from the Dark Side. Slowly, but surely.

I'll be happy to personally help you fill out a new voter registration card. Free kicking donkey pin, while supplies last. ;-)

Here's the answer: NO ONE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ANYTHING!

No one was asleep on guard duty prior to 9/11.
No one botched the entire war in Iraq.
No one mishandled the Katrina disaster.
And the beat goes on . . .

No one at the county level is apparently responsible for anything either:
-- Not for mismanaged local growth & traffic;
-- Not for mishandling legal guardianship;
-- Not for the continuing poisons from Rocketdyne;
-- Not for WMI dump expansion plans; and
-- Not for playing politics with the public trust.

Sergeant Schultz (from Hogan's Heroes) motto is the new mantra for governmental leadership in the 21st century:

"I know nothing! I see nothing! I say nothing!"

Why don't you people hold onto your horses. New leadership is on the way. I bet dollars to donuts you will see change with Peter Foy.

Jan.5 here we come!

Hold our horses? Maybe. Hold our breath? No.

Brian,
Fellow caring citizens,
Ventura County Division of the F.B.I.,

This is more than a breach of trust. This is an attack on the people that rely on trust the most.
Don't let them get away with it. Don't leave it up to people in the Ventura County District Attorneys office.

So what is going on with this Public Guardian thing in Ventura now? Just ran across your blog and this is a spooky situation. There is already so little concern, care and court supervision of the persons and estates of the elderly and mentally ill and no assistance for family members willing to act on loved ones’ behalf. Even lawyers claim the conservatorship process is too complicated and expensive and recommend alternatives such as waivers and power of attorney. Yet how can the incapacitated be legally competent to waive their own rights? It seems public officials and other state employees feel that money spent on the care of those they are entrusted to serve and protect is not only a waste but is coming out of their own pockets!

Mady,

Look on the front page for an update.