Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 08171993 - IO.4 I .O . 4 0 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SE..L. Contra FROM: Costa Internal Operations Committee _ County�'• Ty J DATE: ?Tri coJK c August 17, 1993 SUBJECT. Proposed Responses to the Reports of the 1992-1993 Grand Jury:. Numbers 9311, 9312, 9314, 9315 and 9316 SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Adopt this report of our Committee as the Board of Supervisors ' responses to the Reports of the 1992-1993 Grand Jury: #9311 - "Use of the Inmate Welfare Fund" #9312- "Contra Costa County' s Merit System" #9314 - "Threat to' the Grand Jury Process" #9315 - "Fire Protection Personnel Costs" #9316 - "Detention Facility Inspections" 2 . Remove this item as a referral to our Committee. , BACKGROUND The 1992-93 Grand Jury filed the above reports which were subsequently referred to the Internal Operations Committee. On August 9, 1993 our Committee met to discuss the recommendations and review proposed responses . At the conclusion of those discussions, we prepared this report utilizing a format suggested by a former Grand Jury, which clearly specifies : A. Whether the .recommendation is accepted or adopted; B. - If the recommendation is accepted, a statement as to who will. be. responsible for. implementation of a definite target date; CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURES : W. McPea S rvisor J. Smith ACTION OF BOARD ON 9 a APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED —_4 OTHER Mike. Price and Henry Warren, representatives of Firefighters Local 1230 spoke on Fire Protection Personnel Costs, # 9315. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE . UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. ATTESTED Contact: PHIL BATCHEL CLERK OF THE BOARD OF CC: SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR SEE PAGE 2. BY DEPUTY -2- C. A delineation of constraints if a recommendation is accepted but cannot be implemented within the calendar year; and D. The reason for not adopting a recommendation. Responses to Grand Jury recommendations coming from our Committee will follow this format as closely as possible. Orig. Dept. : County Administrator cc: Presiding Judge of the Superior Court Grand Jury Foreman County Auditor-Controller County Counsel Personnel Director Merit Board Secretary Sheriff-Coroner Use of the Inmate Welfare Fund Report No. 9311 RECOMMENDATIONS: The 1992-93 Contra Costa Grand Jury recommends that the Sheriff: 1 . Immediately remove four Sheriff Department employees from the Inmate Welfare Fund Committee. RESPONSE: A. This recommendation is accepted for prompt implementation. B. Although the report does not indicate how this recommendation would improve the functioning of the Inmate Welfare Fund Committee, the number of Department employees on the Inmate Welfare Fund Committee will be reduced to one voting member and two non-voting members. 2 . Within the next 90 days recruit both a Municipal and a Superior Court Judge to serve on the Inmate Welfare Fund Committee. RESPONSE: A. This recommendation is accepted with modifications . B. Request the Municipal and Superior Courts to participate on the Inmate Welfare Fund Committee and, if willing to do so, to take such steps as are necessary to insure that no conflict of interest would arise from a participating Judge hearing any future litigation involving the propriety of any expenditure from the Inmate Welfare Fund. 3 . Through the offices of Friends Outside or a similar organization, begin a recruiting process to find two former inmates to serve on the Inmate Welfare Fund Committee. The recruitment and selection of new members should be completed within 120 days . If necessary, arrange that meetings of the Committee be. held in a location that will allow the attendance of former inmates . RESPONSE: A. This recommendation is accepted with modifications . B. The Sheriff will add one former inmate as a member of the Inmate Welfare Fund Committee when one can be identified. The director of Friends Outside advised that Friends Outside has been trying for more than 10 years to find a former inmate to serve on their board, without success . The Sheriff will, however, continue to recruit such an individual. The Board suggests that the Sheriff recruit jointly with Friends Outside for former inmates who may wish to either serve on Friends Outside' s Board of Directors or serve on the Inmate Welfare Fund Committee. The Sheriff is requested to discuss with the Municipal and Superior Courts ways in which the Bench could encourage former inmates to participate on the Inmate Welfare Fund Committee. -3- 4 . Immediately establish an on-going system of review with the County Counsel 's office to assure the Committee that future purchases are for the sole benefit, education, and welfare of the inmates of the County facilities . RESPONSE: A. This recommendation is accepted with modifications . B. The County Counsel 's office is not able to review all Inmate Welfare Fund purchases. The Sheriff will refer any questionable expenditures for County Counsel review. 5 . Immediately stop the use of Inmate Welfare Funds for facility maintenance. RESPONSE: A. This recommendation is accepted with modifications . B. The Board acknowledges that the Sheriff believed that the expenditures were consistent with the intent of State law. The Board agrees that the proceeds of the Inmate Welfare Fund should be used for the welfare of the inmates . The Board believes that where equipment or supplies are either destroyed by inmates or have worn out because of use by inmates, and funds do not otherwise exist to replace the equipment or supplies, expenditures from the Inmate Welfare Fund for replacements are appropriate. All future uses of the Inmate Welfare Fund will conform to State law in existence at the time of the expenditure. 6 . Within 60 days design, promote, and institute a formal method for inmate suggestions to be forwarded for consideration by the Inmate Welfare Fund Committee. The system should include a process for decisions made by the Committee to be communicated back to the inmate making the suggestion. RESPONSE: A. This recommendation is accepted for prompt implementation. B. The Inmate Welfare Fund Committee does receive program suggestions and requests from inmates . However, the Sheriff believes a better job can be done of letting inmates know that their requests and suggestions are welcomed and that they are taken seriously, and has directed that such a mechanism be designed and instituted no later than the Inmate Welfare Fund Committee meeting in October, 1993 . 7 . Through proper over-sight and supervision, be certain the Committee is following its own policies and procedures governing meetings, posting of minutes, and capital purchases . RESPONSE: A. This recommendation is accepted for prompt implementation. B. The Sheriff has specifically directed that, starting immediately, the Inmate Welfare Fund Committee shall meet at least quarterly, that announcements of all Inmate Welfare Fund Committee meetings be posted, and that minutes of the Inmate Welfare Fund Committee meetings be made available for public scrutiny. -4- Contra Costa County's Merit System Report No. 9312 RECOMMENDATIONS: The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors reaffirm the intent and spirit of the voter-mandated Merit Reform System and the Board's commitment to insure that merit principles form the foundation for all personnel action and regulations by: 1 . Within 60 days, require the County Administrator: A. Identify for the Board all provisions of the respective Memoranda of Understanding which are now in conflict with the Merit System's Personnel Management Regulations . B. Resolve the identified conflicts by recommending to the Board whether the PMR should prevail or be amended to accommodate the existing provision within the MOU. ♦ Decision criteria should include: (a) complying with merit principles, (b) maintaining management prerogatives, and (c) serving the public interest. RESPONSE: A. This recommendation is accepted. B. Personnel Department staff are comparing the Personnel Management Regulations (PMR' s) against the various Memoranda of Understanding (MOU's) to identify any differences in language between the two documents . The Personnel Department is directed to file a report with the Board by October 15, 1993, outlining those areas where the PMR's and MOU's are in conflict. Meet and confer discussions should be undertaken as soon as possible after these differences have been identified. .The Board's general position is that the PMR's should be followed and that the MOU' s should be amended to conform to the PMR's . 2 . Resolve that in the future, provisions of the PMR and MOU shall be in agreement. . ♦ Direct the County Administrator to incorporate the recommended resolution in all Memoranda of Understanding at the time of future contract negotiations with the respective unions. RESPONSE: A. This recommendation is accepted. B. Once agreement is reached with employee organizations through the meet and confer process, changes will be reflected in the PMR's and/or MOU's . -5- 3 . Immediately agree to utilization of PMR §1701 to make any amendments to the PMR, giving appropriate notice and voting in public session. RESPONSE: A. This recommendation is accepted. B. Any proposed changes in the PMR' s resulting from the meet and confer process will be submitted to the Board of Supervisors . This action will be listed on the Board of Supervisors Agenda giving appropriate notice and action in public session. r -6- Threat to the Grand Jury Process Report No. 9314 RECOMMENDATIONS: The 1992-93 Contra Costa Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors : 1 . Accept the proposed $107,800 1993-94 Grand Jury Budget: RESPONSE: A. This recommendation is not accepted. B. On Friday, July 30, the Board of Supervisors adopted the final 1993-94 County budget which included Phase II budget deficit cuts of $29 million. In June Phase I cuts related. to the budget were $20.5 million. Thus, Phase I and Phase II cuts relating to adoption of this year' s budget were $49 .5 million. In addition, approximately another $38 million of cuts in County government will have to be made in November if the Statewide one-half cent sales tax is not approved by the voters on November 2 . Therefore, because of the County' s draconian fiscal situation and the need for all agencies to make the most out of scarce fiscal and human resources, the County Administrator' s Office had to recommend to the Board of Supervisors a Grand Jury budget for FY 1993/94 of $55,429, the same as the approved budget for the prior year. No other funds could be found to allocate for this purpose. We do, however, recognize the important role that the Grand Jury plays in the democratic process and we shall do our best to assist the Grand Jury to accomplish that mission. We are prepared to request the County Administrator to review with the Grand Jury at mid-year the status of its budget and recommend appropriate adjustments to the Board. 2 . Reaffirm the policy that Grand Jury members will receive compensation and will be reimbursed for mileage and meal expenses at the same rate as county employees . RESPONSE: A. This recommendation is accepted. B. Grand Jury members currently receive reimbursement as County Commissioners pursuant to County Ordinance 28- 4 . 002 . This includes expense reimbursement for general meeting fees and mileage to and from court meetings at 28 cents a mile. Please note that these expenditures are permissive and are not mandated. The California Penal Code Section 890 states, "Unless a higher fee or rate of mileage is otherwise provided by county ordinances, the fees for grand jurors are ten dollars ($10) a day for each day' s attendance as a grand juror, and fifteen cents ($0. 15) a mile, in going only (one way) , for each mile actually traveled in attending court as a grand juror. " If the Grand Jury chose to follow the expenditure limits of the Penal Code for mileage rather than the County Ordinance, approximately $40,000 savings could be made. We would encourage the Grand Jury to reevaluate what reimbursement policy it chooses to follow so that the maximum benefit can be received from the current year Grand Jury appropriation. -7- Fire Protection Personnel Costs Report No. 9315 RECOMMENDATIONS: The 1992-93 Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors: 1 . Not agree to any labor contract that contains a formula which ties employee salaries to an index which is beyond the control of the Board and which does not contain a maximum allowable increase in salary either yearly or during the life of the contract. RESPONSE: A. This recommendation is accepted with modifications . B. The Board of Supervisors should be cautious about entering into any multi-year contracts which include formulas unless the formula includes a "cap" on the amount of the increase which is permitted or a revenue source is identified to cover the potential increase in costs. The Grand Jury recommendation is understood. However, unilateral action by the County cannot be implemented. The Grand Jury recommendations have merit and are being pursued through the formal meet and confer process as part of an overall package regarding compensation and working conditions. 2 . Eliminate in future contracts clauses that provide premium pay for work that is not, in fact, performed. RESPONSE: A. This recommendation is accepted with modifications . B. It is clearly in the interest of the taxpayer that on- call or premium pay not be provided for in a contract. If such provisions are included in future contracts, there should be an overriding public interest which justifies the inclusion of such provisions in the contract (MOU) . The Grand Jury recommendation is understood. However, unilateral action by the County cannot be implemented. The Grand Jury recommendations have merit and are being pursued through the formal meet and confer process as part of an overall package regarding compensation and working conditions . -g- 3 . Restore to management the responsibility and the authority to establish prudent staffing requirements . RESPONSE: A. This recommendation is accepted with modifications . B. Management has continuously retained the responsibility and authority to establish prudent staffing patterns . The establishment of management performance standards and evaluations should focus on establishing what are appropriate staffing patterns . The Grand Jury recommendation is understood. However, unilateral action by the County cannot be implemented. The Grand Jury recommendations have merit and are being pursued through the formal meet and confer process as part of an overall package regarding compensation and working conditions . 4 . Consider the County's present financial crisis an emergency as defined in Government Code 53504.5, and pass a resolution to immediately and unilaterally reduce wages, benefits, and present minimum staffing requirements while continuing to provide an adequate level of fire protection and emergency medical services to the public. RESPONSE: . A. This recommendation is not accepted. B. The Grand Jury recommendation is understood. However, unilateral action by the County cannot be implemented. The Grand Jury recommendations have merit and are being pursued through the formal meet and confer process as part of an overall package regarding compensation and working conditions . All of the Grand Jury' s suggestion have merit. However, the Board of Supervisors is obligated by State law to meet and confer in good faith on these issues . If, after the completion of the meet and confer process, an MOU with an employee organization representing fire service personnel includes any of the provisions identified by the Grand Jury as ones which should not be included in MOU's, a written explanation of the rationale for the inclusion of the item will be released by the Board of Supervisors at the time the MOU is approved by the Board of Supervisors . -9- i Detention Facilities Inspection Report No. 9316 RECOMMENDATIONS: The 1992-93 Contra Costa Grand Jury recommends that: 1 . The Sheriff and Chiefs of Police continue to comply with State standards . RESPONSE: A. This recommendation is accepted. 2 . The Director of GSD declare the Ranch an off-site facility, as permitted by Government Code 33000, in order to have repairs performed by independent contractors . RESPONSE: A. This recommendation is accepted with modifications . B. Unacceptable time lags for completion of maintenance and repairs are not as a result of lack of expertise in the General Services Department but rather from a lack of funding. This lack of funding precludes contracting for services, even if contracting were preferred. Nonetheless, a contract has been entered into with a service company to respond to emergency plumbing requests. The Sheriff's Department receives top priority for services, along with Juvenile Hall and the Courts . While some projects are already underway, the Sheriff 's Department and General Services Department are finalizing an agreement which will provide for certain maintenance by Sheriff ' s staff and inmates under the direction of General Services craft persons. This innovation should reduce the time-lag for much of the maintenance and repairs . However, maintenance problems involving capital improvements will not be completely resolved until funding becomes available. -10- SHERIFF-CORONER'S DEPARTMENT Contra Costa County Administration Division 646-2402 Date: August S, 1993 To: Scott Tandy, hief ssistant Co ty Administrator From: Warre up S -Coroner Subject: Respons Grand,Jury Report 9311, Page 75 Attached are my responses to recommendations made by the Grand Jury in Report Number 9311 on page 75. Although in some respects I may disagree with the Grand Jury's findings or recommendations, I support, without qualification,the Grand Jury's inspection of how we conduct our business. Their scruitny is a necessary test of government activities. WER:mjf Attach. • 1 USE OF THE INMATE WELFARE FUND -REPORT 9311 - PAGE 75 Recommendation No. 1 Immediately remove three Sheriff Department Employees from the Inmate Welfare Fund Committee. es onse A. This recommendation is accepted for prompt implementation. B. Although the report does not indicate how this would improve the functioning of the Inmate Welfare Fund Committee, we will reduce the number of Department employees on the Inmate Welfare Fund Committee to one voting member and two non-voting members. Recommendation No. 2 Within the next 90 days, recruit both a Municipal and a Superior Court Judge to serve on the Inmate Welfare Fund Committee. Response A. This recommendation is not accepted. B. The Sheriff is reluctant to ask two superior or municipal court judges from the court that would be the final trier of fact in an Inmate Welfare Fund dispute. Recommendation No. 3 Through the offices of Friends Outside or a similar organization, begin a recruiting process to find two former inmates to serve on the Inmate Welfare Fund Committee. The recruitment and selection of new members should be completed within 120 days. Response A. This recommendation is accepted with modifications. B. The Sheriff will add one former inmate as a member of the Inmate Welfare Fund Committee when one can be identified. The director of Friends Outside advised us that Friends Outside has been trying for more than 10 years to find a former inmate to serve on their board, without success. We will, however, continue to recruit such an individual. • ------------------ Recommendation No. 4 Immediately establish an on-going system of review with the County Counsel's office to assure the Committee that future purchases are for the sole benefit, education, and welfare of the inmates of the County facilities. Response A. This recommendation has been accepted with modification. B. The County Counsel's office is not able to review all Inmate Welfare Fund purchases. The Sheriff will refer any questionable expenditures for County Counsel review. Recommendation No. 5 Immediately stop the use of Inmate Welfare Funds for facility maintenance. Response A. This recommendation is accepted. B. I believe that carpeting the module at Martinez Detention Facility and paving the parking lot at Marsh Creek Detention Facility were for exclusive use of the inmates and their families and not facility maintenance. I fully respect the view of the Grand Jury that the Inmate Welfare Fund appropriations for recarpeting inmate housing units at the Martinez Detention Facility and for building a parking lot for inmate visitors at the Marsh Creek Detention Facility were questionable. In any situation where a committee of persons is charged with making decisions, there will always be some calls that are debatable. The members of the Inmate Welfare Fund Committee are always mindful of their responsibilities to the inmates, but others, perhaps not as familiar with the needs of a jail inmate population may, from time to time, not understand or agree with the members of the Inmate Welfare Fund Committee regarding each and every expenditure. Recommendation No. 6 Within 60 days, design, promote, and institute a formal method for inmate suggestions to be forwarded for consideration by the Inmate Welfare Fund Committee. The system should include a process for decisions made by the Committee to be communicated back to the inmate making the suggestion. Response A. This recommendation is accepted for prompt implementation. r Recommendation No. 4 Immediately establish an on-going system of review with the County Counsel's office to assure the Committee that future purchases are for the sole benefit, education, and welfare of the inmates of the County facilities. Response A. This recommendation has been accepted with modification. B. The County Counsel's office is not able to review all Inmate Welfare Fund purchases. The Sheriff will refer any questionable expenditures for County Counsel review. Recommendation No. 5 Immediately stop the use of Inmate Welfare Funds for facility maintenance. Response A. This recommendation is accepted. B. I believe that carpeting the module at Martinez Detention Facility and paving the parking lot at Marsh Creek Detention Facility were for exclusive use of the inmates and their families and not facility maintenance. I fully respect the view of the Grand Jury that the Inmate Welfare Fund appropriations for recarpeting inmate housing units at the Martinez Detention Facility and for building a parking lot for inmate visitors at the Marsh Creek Detention Facility were questionable. In any situation where a committee of persons is charged with making decisions, there will always be some calls that are debatable. The members of the Inmate Welfare Fund Committee are always mindful of their responsibilities to the inmates, but others, perhaps not as familiar with the needs of a jail inmate population may, from time to time, not understand or agree with the members of the Inmate Welfare Fund Committee regarding each and every expenditure. Recommendation No. 6 Within 60 days, design, promote, and institute a formal method for inmate suggestions to be forwarded for consideration by the Inmate Welfare Fund Committee. The system should include a process for decisions made by the Committee to be communicated back to the inmate making the suggestion. Response A. This recommendation is accepted for prompt implementation. SHERIFF-CORONER'S DEPAR MENT Contra Costa County Administration Division 646-2402 Date. August S, 1993 To: Scott Tandy, Chief Assi nt County Administrator From: Wa en u 'ff-Coroner Subject: Response to Grand Jury Report 9316 Attached is my response to the recommendation made by the Grand Jury in Report Number 9316. Although in some respects I may disagree with the Grand Jury's findings or recommendations, I support, without qualification,the Grand Jury's inspection of how we conduct our business. Their scruitny is a necessary test of government activities. WER:mjf Attach. s DETENTION FACII.ITIES INSPECTION - REPORT 9316 Recommendation No. 1 The Sheriff and Chiefs of Police continue to comply with State standards. Response A. This recommendation is accepted. B. The Sheriff has very strict facility inspection standards and will continue to comply with _ state standards. DATE: &/17 l l REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM (THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. NAME: PHONE: ADDRESS: t,V C P-I pCre CITY: VkaZ I am speaking formyself OR organization: .Ft tt-crFl&eMAI CQ Ckt-- I a-3-V Check one: (NAME OF ORGANIZNTION) ✓ I wish to speak on Agenda Item # — y . My comments will be: general for against I wish to speak on the subject of I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider. A44 NAIL 1 DATE: REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM (THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Bl o�a'rd. �LC NAME: / f'C� i PHONE: ��JG�3E� ADDRESS: / � `lam [�� h D6' CITY: -�-- I am speaking formyself OR organization: Check one: (NAME OFORGANIZNTION) I wish to speak on Agenda Item # . My comments will be: general for against I wish to. speak on the subject of I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider.