For the living, there is neither rest nor peace at the Merced Cemetery District.
The district’s most recent board meeting erupted into a confrontation between board trustees and cemetery employees.
The July 16 meeting included more than an hour of tense exchanges about financial reporting, long-term planning, the authority of the district’s governing board and the role of BBK Law, the firm representing the district.
The chaotic meeting led the law firm to call it quits with the district.
Plus, one employee walked out of the meeting, at least two shed tears, and another was placed on administrative leave – prompting her to resign, then reverse course and vow to get her own legal representation.
Amid the ongoing turmoil, Merced County’s chief executive officer has asked the civil grand jury to investigate complaints and other issues at the cemetery district.
The district manages the Merced Cemetery on B Street and Cavalry Cemetery on Childs Avenue.
Retired educator Dora Crane joined the board in recent months and was elected chair for the four-person board, which also includes trustees Lorena Soto, Ye Thao and Rachelle Abril.
Since becoming chair, Crane has taken a more active role in running meetings and has said she is trying to ensure the board complies with the district’s open-meeting laws.
Tensions between the board and the four employees who work at the district have been a recurring issue for at least two previous meetings attended by a Merced FOCUS reporter.
Legal representation for the district
Employees questioned why the board sought permission to consult Merced County Counsel on issues, even though the district already pays for outside legal representation through BBK, a large firm with several offices throughout California.
Merced County Public Information Officer Mike North said the district may seek advice from County Counsel Forrest Hansen, the county government’s chief legal adviser.
But Crane said the district’s contract with BBK prevents trustees from speaking to Hansen without first receiving district board approval. An item listed on the agenda, she said, was intended only to allow trustees to ask Hansen questions when necessary.
Serena Hernandez, an office assistant with the cemetery district, defended BBK, saying its attorneys had experience with cemetery law and recently helped the district address burial disputes and missing remains, among other specialized issues.
Hernandez also suggested the firm was important if anyone in the district office needed legal representation.
Anna Camacho, another office assistant with the district, then asked whether district employees could seek legal advice from other attorneys if trustees consulted Merced County Counsel Hansen.
Crane questioned why employees would need separate legal representation and said employee concerns should be directed through the governing board and the district’s manager, who was absent from the meeting.
The employees argued if trustees were entitled to consult another attorney, they should be able to do the same.
At one point during the meeting, an employee could be heard outside the room, speaking on speakerphone with the BBK attorney, Brian Hughes.
Crane clarified that the attorney represents the district, not individual employees.
“They work for the will of the board,” Crane said. “They don’t work for you guys.”
Crane said the employee who left should not have been speaking on the phone with Hughes during the meeting.
“(Hughes) should not be taking phone calls right now from a staff member when he works for us,” Crane said.
The board eventually voted to permit trustees to consult Hansen when necessary. Trustees postponed a separate review of the district’s outside legal-services contract because Crane said board members had not received it early enough to review before the meeting.
But a day after the meeting, Crane told The FOCUS she received an email from Hughes, BBK’s attorney who was representing the district, severing ties between the firm and the cemetery district.
Neither Hughes nor the communications team at BBK responded to email inquiries about the law firm’s role with the district before publication.
Quarrelsome meetings
The board meets on the third Thursday of each month at the Merced County Library.
The atmosphere at the July 16 cemetery district meeting apparently was not an anomaly.
Several meeting attendees and people familiar with the district told The Merced FOCUS that board meetings repeatedly devolved into arguments.
It was clear from the opening minutes there was disagreement between Hughes and Crane.
As Crane discussed adding items to the agenda that were requested at a previous meeting, Hughes, who participated by phone, warned that discussing them could violate the Brown Act, California’s open meeting law.
“I’m just trying to protect the district,” Hughes said.
Crane responded that she didn’t recognize Hughes to speak and said he needed to wait until called upon.
There was also no shortage of back-and-forth between district employees and the board. At one point, Crane criticized the employees’ attitudes.
“You guys cannot come in here and be rude at these meetings,” Crane said. “I don’t think you guys are realizing your tone, your body language, and hostility. Because we’re not going to do this anymore.”
Hernandez said she wanted things to improve so they could focus on their jobs.
“I just want to get along with the board,” she said. “I want to make the cemetery better. I want to help families.”
As the meeting continued, Addie Mojica, a bilingual office assistant with the district, said Hughes advised staff members that they did not have to remain at a meeting if they felt uncomfortable or believed they were being mistreated. Mojica left the meeting afterward.
Disagreements over finances and planning
The board and employees in attendance also disagreed about financial reports that trustees said they didn’t receive in time to review.
“The stack of papers that we just received should be in board members’ hands a week before the meeting, so we have a chance to read them,” Crane said, noting she previously raised the issue to cemetery employees.
Crane asked them to continue to prepare monthly expense reports.
Camacho said employees received conflicting instructions from the board and county.
“You guys tell us one thing, kind of, and then we get something from the county saying a different thing,” Camacho said. “We’re just doing whatever you guys ask, whatever the county has.”
Shortly afterward, the board entered closed session. When it returned from closed session, Crane announced the board voted to investigate an employee’s actions and place them on paid administrative leave.
Crane identified Camacho as the employee under investigation and requested her keys.
Camacho repeatedly demanded to know why she was being placed on leave. Crane said the district would provide a reason privately but would not discuss it publicly because doing so could violate her rights.
Camacho initially responded by resigning.
“I quit. I’m out,” Camacho said. “I quit, and I’ll talk to a lawyer. What they’re doing to me is wrong.”
But when Soto asked the board to accept the resignation, Camacho immediately reversed her position.
“No, I’m not quitting. I’m going to get a lawyer,” Camacho said. “…I’ve been there over 12 years. I’ve worked my butt off. I’ve done so much stuff.”
Camacho ultimately accepted the paid leave while continuing to dispute the board’s refusal to publicly state the reason for its action.
The district would hold a special board meeting, Crane said, after the findings concluded and Camacho was notified in writing.
The board then adjourned.
Grand Jury investigation
North, the county’s public information officer, said county officials were made aware of unusual financial issues, received multiple complaints about the cemetery district’s operations and asked the civil grand jury on April 13 to investigate the district.
In the request, County Executive Officer Mark Hendrickson cited concerns about the potential misuse of public resources, questionable financial management practices and inadequate fiscal oversight.
The letter also referenced allegations of possible nepotism, concerns about service delivery and professionalism, and questions about whether the district was meeting public-sector standards for accountability and transparency.
The county additionally asked the grand jury to examine reports alleging that access to cemetery services and facilities was improperly restricted and to determine whether the district complied with open-meeting requirements.
Hendrickson wrote that the concerns could reflect a potential pattern that may undermine public trust and confidence and said an independent review could determine whether corrective action or additional oversight was warranted.
A Merced County Civil Grand Jury report published on June 30 did not indicate the grand jury investigated the matter, likely because much of the grand jury’s investigative work occurred prior to Hendrickson’s April letter, according to summaries cited in the report.
The Merced FOCUS tried but was unable to reach the grand jury foreperson for comment for this story.
Role of cemetery districts
In California, public cemetery districts are special districts created to operate and maintain cemeteries, preserve community history and provide more affordable burial services, according to Kyle Packham, chief advocacy and external affairs officer for the California Special Districts Association.
Many were formed after cemeteries originally established by churches, clubs or other organizations needed a permanent public entity to care for them as communities changed.
These districts are generally formed through the county’s Local Agency Formation Commission, or LAFCO. They are governed by three to five trustees appointed by the Merced County Board of Supervisors to staggered four-year terms.
The trustees set policy and oversee the district, while a general manager handles daily operations and supervises employees. The Merced Cemetery District’s general manager was unavailable to comment for this story.
Districts are funded through property tax revenue and fees collected from burials. Like other public agencies, cemetery districts must comply with transparency laws, including the Brown Act and California Public Records Act.
The cemetery district, North said, is not a department of the county, but it’s governed by the county’s Health and Safety Code. The county does not manage any day-to-day operations, personnel, finance, or governance issues, he said.
“The Board of Supervisors is responsible for appointing trustees to the district’s governing board in accordance with applicable law,” he said. “The Board does not supervise trustees or district employees. Any authority regarding removal of trustees is governed by state law and applicable legal procedures.”
The cemetery district, North said, is responsible for its own management and personnel decisions but must submit audits to the county.