BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    �






                        SENATE COMMITTEE ON VETERANS AFFAIRS
                              Senator Ben Hueso, Chair
                                               


          BILL NO:  AB 1580                  HEARING DATE: 6/24/14
          AUTHOR:   Yamada
          VERSION:  3/19/24
          FISCAL:   Yes
          VOTE:     Majority




                                        SUBJECT  
          
          Veterans' homes: Morale, Welfare, and Recreation (MWR) Fund.



                                      DESCRIPTION  
           
          Existing law:

           1.Provides for establishment and operation of the Veterans Home  
            of California, within the Department of Veterans Affairs  
            (CalVet), at various sites for aged and disabled veterans and  
            their nonveteran spouses, who meet certain eligibility  
            requirements.

          2.Requires that the administrator of each home campus maintain  
            an MWR Fund that shall be used - at the discretion of the  
            administrator and subject to the approval of the secretary -  
            to provide for the general welfare of the veterans.

               (More detail on existing MWR law is contained in the  
                Background  section.)

           
          This bill  institutes review measures and controls on the  
          expenditure of MWR funds.

          More specifically, it requires that for:

            1.  Proposed expenditures of MWR Fund moneys of more than  
              $5,000; and 










            2.  Proposed contracts of:

              -     More than $25,000 per year, or
              -     More than $100,000.

              All of the following shall apply:

              a.    The home administrator proposing the expenditure or  
                contract shall submit the proposal to the CalVet secretary  
                for approval. The secretary shall consider the advisory  
                opinion required in (b) below in and any other relevant  
                information.

              b.    The proposal shall be reviewed by the CalVet legal  
                counsel or other similarly qualified reviewer designated  
                by the secretary. The reviewer shall issue an advisory  
                opinion to the secretary identifying laws and regulations  
                governing approval or execution of such expenditures or  
                contracts.

              c.    Prior to execution of a proposed expenditure or  
                contract:

                 1)       CalVet shall provide written notification in the  
                   form of a draft expenditure proposal to the home's  
                   Allied Council or other body representing the residents  
                   of an affected home. The draft expenditure proposal  
                   shall include, but is not limited to, a description of  
                   the intent of the project that is the subject of the  
                   proposed expenditure or contract, estimated costs, and  
                   an approximate timeline of execution.

                 2)       The Allied Council or other body representing  
                   residents of the affected home or homes shall have the  
                   opportunity to respond to the draft expenditure  
                   proposal and CalVet shall consider any responses  
                   provided.

              d.    Upon execution of the expenditure or contract, CalVet  
                shall provide written notification to the Allied Council  
                or another representative body affected homes. The  
          
          AB 1580 (Yamada)                                            2
          










                notification shall identify the purpose of the project,  
                costs, and who is the recipient or recipients of the  
                moneys distributed from the MWR Fund.


                                      BACKGROUND 
          
          CalVet's Veterans Homes Division provides rehabilitative,  
          residential medical care and services in a homelike environment  
          for all veterans (and eligible veteran spouses) residing in the  
          State's eight veterans homes, which are located in Barstow,  
          Chula Vista, Fresno, Lancaster. Redding, Ventura, West Los  
          Angeles, Redding, and Yountville. As of early 2013, more than  
          1,700 members resided in these veterans homes.

           Morale, Welfare and Recreation Funds

           Existing law:

          1.Authorizes MWR funds to be used for, but not be limited to,  
            the following:

             a.   Operating the Veterans' Home Exchange store, hobby shop,  
               motion picture theater, library, and band, and any other  
               function that is operated for the morale, welfare, and  
               recreation of the veterans;

             b.   Paying for newspapers, chapel expenses, welfare and  
               entertainment expenses, sport activities, celebrations, and  
               any other activity that is for the morale, welfare, and  
               recreation of the veterans.

          2.Prohibits MWR funds from being used for: (1) medical or any  
            related treatment; (2) maintenance of the home's physical  
            plant; or (3) any function, operation, or activity not  
            directly related to the morale, welfare, or recreation of the  
            veterans.

          3.Provides that certain portions of the estates of deceased  
            veteran residents may be recovered by CalVet for obligations  
            owed to CalVet, including costs of a veterans care in excess  
            of the reimbursement for that care made by the United States  
          
          AB 1580 (Yamada)                                            3
          










            Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).

          4.Requires that residents, upon admission to the home and  
            monthly thereafter, be informed about these provisions to  
            recover unreimbursed costs of care.

          5.Provides that the recovered funds are not returned to the  
            State General Fund, but, instead, are deposited into the MWR  
            fund account for the home at which the veteran resided at  
            death.


          The MWR fund obtains its funding from several sources,  
          including:

             a.   The estates of deceased residents, who die without heirs  
               or owing money to the home for the cost of their care.

             b.   Donations from taxpayers when filing their state tax  
               returns.

             c.   Revenues from the issuance of prisonerofwar license  
               plates;

             d.   Other donations;

             e.   Interest earned from investments made with MWR Fund  
               moneys; and

             f.   Revenues from businesses operated using the MWR Fund.

          As of June 30, 2012, the amount of money held in the MWR funds  
          maintained by six veterans homes (less Fresno and Redding)  
          totaled more than $8 million. Approximately $5 million was held  
          in the MWR fund of Yountville, the oldest and largest home  
          campus.

          Although MVC � 1047 allows a home administrator to spend MWR  
          moneys for the benefit of the residents of the home, other state  
          laws impose requirements on the manner in which this is done,  
          particularly when it entails leasing stateowned land.

          
          AB 1580 (Yamada)                                            4
          










           Recent Controversy and Audit

           In October 2013 the California State Auditor released an  
          investigative report (i2011-0837) entitled, Wastefulness,  
          Failure to Comply With State Contracting Requirements, and  
          Inexcusable Neglect of Duty. The report revealed that over a  
          two-year period from January 2010 to December 2011, the  
          Yountville Veterans Home administrator executed two contracts  
          using MWR funds without consulting CalVet executive office  
          officials, appropriate legal counsel, or residents of the Home. 

          These contracts included a zip line adventure park for use by  
          the public and residents of the home and a tavern that did not  
          comply with state leasing requirements. In the construction of  
          the adventure park, the contract included provisions which  
          leased over 200 acres of state land for one dollar per year and  
          involved the clearing of untouched natural lands without a CEQA  
          review. Under the contract executed by the administrator, the  
          home would receive 10 percent of any net income generated from  
          operating the park after subtracting all operating expenses  
          including salaries with no revenue guaranteed if revenues did  
          not exceed expenses. Once the contract was discovered by CalVet  
          officials, it cost the state $228,612 to extricate itself from  
          the contract and to dismantle the nearly completed zip line  
          tour. When the administrator pursued the second contract leasing  
          the on-sight tavern, she failed to initiate a process to solicit  
          competitive bids, eventually resulting in a contract by which  
          the Veterans Home paid an outside management company $75,000 per  
          year to manage the tavern. Included in the deal, MWR funds were  
          used to cover all start-up costs for the venture and any monthly  
          expenses not covered by sales for the first year of the  
          contract. Only 25 percent of the profits generated from the  
          enterprise would be deposited into the MWR fund after all other  
          expenses were covered; however there was no guarantee the  
          venture would be profitable. In exchange for being permitted to  
          establish a business on state property, the vendor was paid and  
          subsidized with state-controlled funds. When the terms of the  
          contract were discovered and terminated by CalVet officials a  
          year and a half later, the home had paid the vendor $424,307.

          The report discovered both contracts violated state contracting  
          practices and little or no information had been shared between  
          
          AB 1580 (Yamada)                                            5
          










          the administrator of the home and CalVet headquarters prior to  
          the execution of the contracts. Further, the Department of  
          General Services was not consulted in its role as the agency  
          overseeing state leasing requirements.  In total, $652,919 were  
          wasted in state-managed funds.

          The report highlighted several deficiencies in the  
          administration of MWR funds. Though the administrator is  
          authorized to use MWR funds with the approval of the CalVet  
          Secretary, home administrators have historically been granted  
          sole authority over decision making regarding the use of the  
          fund. Further, each contract was executed with little or no  
          legal oversight, which presumably would have discovered both  
          contracts violated state law and required review by General  
          Services. Finally, residents of the home were unaware of the two  
          contracts being executed involving MWR funds; only discovering  
          the construction of the adventure park, nominally built for  
          their benefit, when helicopters were seen flying overhead with  
          construction material. 


                                        COMMENT  
          
           Committee staff comments  :

          1.This bill requires CalVet's legal counsel or similarly  
            situated individual to review home-generated expenditure  
            proposals. CalVet already has a process in place for all its  
            other purchasing and contract review actions. Is that existing  
            review process adequate, perhaps even superior, for this  
            bill's purposes? 

          2.Although not derived from tax or fee payers, MWR funds are  
            state funds. Traditionally, MWR accounts have been maintained  
            in local banks near each campus and managed locally, often  
            with a single local authorized signatory at each home. This  
            approach opens the door to fraud or unchecked error; indeed,  
            it might be considered an administrative relic that does not  
            reflect current best accounting practices. Should this bill do  
            more to ensure that these funds receive additional,  
            professional oversight and security? 

          
          AB 1580 (Yamada)                                            6
          











           Related Legislation  

             AB 1739 (Allen, Ch. 95, Stats. 2012)  allows the administrator  
            of a state veterans' home to enter into an agreement with the  
            home's allied council to authorize the council to operate MWR  
            Fund activities such as a hobby shop, movie theater, library,  
            band, and to pay for such things as newspapers, entertainment,  
            sports activities, celebrations and other activities for the  
            benefit of the veterans.

             SB 10 (Evans, Ch. 265, Stats. 2011)  establishes a Veterans'  
            Home Allied Council for each of California's Veterans Homes  
            and permits each council to represent veterans who reside in  
            the veterans' homes in matters before the Legislature if each  
            council, in the course of providing that representation,  
            complies with certain requirements.


                                       POSITIONS  
          
          Sponsor:  Author.

          Support:  Veterans Caucus of the California Democratic Party

          Oppose:   None on file.
          
          Analysis by: Wade Cooper Teasdale














          
          AB 1580 (Yamada)                                            7