Editorial: County employee’s costly mishap reflects larger issue

A county employee showed inconceivable neglect by failing to file in-home support services claims for state reimbursements totaling nearly $400,000, but the error points to a larger management problem and a need for officials to establish a more reliable system of checks and balances to ensure another serious misstep doesn’t happen again.
County officials recently revealed the mistake in a supervisors meeting, but the seemingly incidental problem also comes on the heels of other financial mishaps that have cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars – such as an err announced two years ago that involved a temporary employee exceeding a limit for hours that meant the county was on the hook for around $470,000 in CalPERS payments.
In the most recent instance, the county neglected to file timely claims for the 2007-08 or 2009-10 fiscal years, while the state honored the reimbursements for 2010-11.
It is inexcusable altogether that an individual with the responsibility of filing these claims could show such a level of incompetence and carelessness, but even more important is that county officials resolve the lack of proper oversight that has led to habitual errors resulting in financial losses, especially at a time when leaders are being forced to slash away at the budget, at a time when employees are faced with continued prospects for layoffs. 
In the same discussion regarding the late claims and underscoring the urgency, supervisors also learned about a separate $200,000 loss this year from the state. The county behavioral health department had anticipated the funds for local CalWorks mental health and substance abuse services. The state health and human services department decided not to give out the money for the programs, after the supervisors had adopted the final budget in September.
When pressed by supervisors during the Nov. 14 meeting, specifically about the late claims, County Administrative Officer Rich Inman merely stated that the “identification of the problem is done” and that the “department is trying to find ways to make up the money.”
That response is not good enough and reflects the top-to-bottom nature of this attitude problem. This is not an isolated “oops” and should be recognized as such. It is up to county supervisors to demand that managers take steps to prevent this from happening again. They should require a detailed report examining how it occurred and how the county plans to fix it, along with inspecting other potentially time-sensitive liabilities on the books.
We can only imagine, it now appears, how much more taxpayer money potentially could be lost to ineptitude.