thelog.com


including nearly the entire month of July, which is a high-occupancy time and supposedly not available for the discount program,” the report stated. The audit report added it “could not identify any written policy or any approval by the County Executive Offi ce or the Board of Supervisors to support the discount program for the County harbor employees or their ‘friends and families.’” However the hotel’s general man-


ager circulated an internal memoran- dum to Dana Point Marina Inn staff and personnel outlining specifi c rules of how the discount program was to be used, according to Woolery’s report. “The ‘benefi t of an employee rate is


offered to employee friends and family members coming to visit the area from out of town. The employee rate is not intended for personal use as a ‘vacation’or ‘get-away,’” the memoran- dum allegedly read. “In order to receive an employee


rate, the following criteria must be met,” the memorandum apparently explained to hotel staff, according to Woolery’s report. “The employee requesting the rate must have success- fully passed their 90-day probation- ary period. Some blackout dates may apply. Use common sense and do not request an employee rate during busy time periods, especially weekends in July and August. “The request must be submitted at least one week prior to the arrival date, in writing and prior approval must be granted. Do not ask for exceptions,” the purported discount policy concluded. “All employee room rate reserva- tions must be placed by the General Manager.” Apparently the general manager’s


memorandum, Woolery’s report alleged, instructed hotel staff were to also apply discounts to those with busi- ness relationships with the county. “The memo also states that, ‘County


offi cials have been privy to this special rate and have offered the rate to key business partners in order to reduce direct expenses for services or as a special discount to direct friends and family. Please note that the same pro- cedures apply.” Inadequate oversight and docu- mentation of discount rate reservations was also identifi ed as an area where the county exerted weak control over the operation of an unauthorized program. The audit included a review of hotel


records and the employee discount program between Jan. 1, 2013 and Sept. 30, 2015. Dana Point Harbor Inn received $35,720 for rooms rented out to county employees using the discounted rate program. Those same rooms would have brought in $94,962 in the same time period, based on an average room rate of $102 per night – a difference of $59,242. Woolery’s report stated the discount


program was kyboshed on Oct. 28, 2015. Several more reports and follow-up


audits are in the works through the rest of 2016, according to Woolery’s offi ce. Ideally the results of each audit and report will provide perspectives and


Brian Cleveland Dunn, a county contractor at Dana Point Harbor, was convicted and sentenced for misap- propriation of public funds. Dunn was accused,


Questions loom of how or if the swift retirement of Dana Point Harbor Director Brad Gross will affect the planned revitalization.


clarity of whether any other abuses – or lack thereof – surround operations at Dana Point Harbor. What these reports would ultimately


reveal remains to be seen but this is not the fi rst time Dana Point Harbor has been subject to an abuse of system and fi nances.


arrested, tried and con- victed for falsifying invoices and embezzling about $440,000 in public money. Prosecutors said Dunn started a company in 2008


to purchase landscaping materials for county projects. During the next four years he would mark up the prices of the materials he purchased, sometimes by as much as 100 percent. He would then submit invoices to the county for reimbursements for the marked up


The Log • May 20 - June 2, 2016 • 15


materials. The District Attorney’s offi ce also stated used a company credit card to cover personal expenses, including travel and improvements to his home in Hawaii. About six months ago Dunn was sentenced to one year in jail, three years probation and restitution. The harbor revitalization itself has


been mired in bureaucratic purgatory. When specifi c plans were fi rst revealed in 2003 the estimated budget for design development, permit acquisition and project management services was $6.92 million. County offi cials fi nally began its search for a private vendor to execute revitalization plans earlier this year. The revitalization is now expected to cost about $150 million.


Parimal M. Rohit photo


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52