HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 07191994 - 1.52 1 . 52
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted'this Order on July 19, 1994 by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Smith, Bishop, DeSaubder, Torlakson and Powers
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT: Final Report of the 1993-94 Grand Jury
IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the final report of the
1993-94 Grand Jury is RECEIVED.
I hereby certity that this is a true and correct copy of
an action taken and entered on the minutes of the
Board of Su Iso on the date shown.
ATTESTED: 19. 119
PHIL TCF R. lark of the Board
Of Supervi d Cou ty ministrator
O
By Deputy
CC: County Administrator
County Counsel
Grand Jury
4
��� `✓� ititli .L� ��
♦�-- -- �' �� Bb
���' �sty it tr • I�,�
coin
GRAND
CTR
F.INAL
R]Rpoj?r-r
1993-94
TABLE OF CONTENTS
O Page
Table of Contents i
Dedication Page
Letter from Judge Arnason
Photograph of Judge Arnason iv
Foreman's Letter of Transmittal v
List of Grand Jurors vi
Photograph of Grand Jurors vii
Final Report Title Page viii
Report 9401: Employee Wellness Program and Contra Costa
Club Funds Lack Accountability 1
Report 9402 : Adoption vs Long Term Foster Care 4
Report 9403 : The Public's Right to Know 11
• 'Report 9404 : West County Booking Unit "To Be or Not To Be" 13
Report 9405: Bureaucratic Child Abuse 15
Report 9406: Contra Costa County Supervisors' Mismanagement
of the Merit System 18
Report 9407: Keller Canyon Landfill Contra Costa County's
Cash Cow? 32
Report 9408: Recommendations of and Responses to 1992-93
Grand Jury Reports 36
Report 9409: Selection and Appointment Process of Contra
Costa County's Boards and Commissions 50
Report 9410: County Counsel Legal Debacle 53
Report 9411: Rodeo Sanitary District and All Special
Districts Must Conform to Standards of
Accountability and Good Government 56
Report 9412: Detention Facilities Inspection 59
Report 9413 : The Housing Authority of the County of
Contra Costa 61
• Report 9414: County Leadership Impedes the Work of the
Grand Jury 64
-i-
* 11� _ if
T
I r t ? t .$ + E- n J t.- .t , \ `n t l
S.t+.,.r` ! ',,.. M1-- j - I S } t. I. `4 k ,f ., - , i ,,r ,M r
N \ ,. :,
o = � ,
I
22 x -t,� t - .I t (� 1 i
4 j ell, :The 19.93 94 Grand ,urs Y�eport # ` `
el6 = S �y A�. , C.(- ! i 1. I..'4 lt�1 a 'r ,_+ s k i r I .(`.
4�. 1 4' i , , , . -,,--�Z- --, �-�,''. ,,
(- . J Jr i x
1.
- - I ,�, .. "' :(,
,: ,-, �, � -- . - ,��. -- - . ,,-..,,,, -,�:,,,,f,,� ":,�
�. ,,�, .I-. I'll, ,.;. , - � " '-� - ", , , . - . . 6,
. - . - ol, " � � �1' ;-'!�� . , ': "",�,7� -�.','-',-",�'4'- . , , - , ""r,",- � _ . � -
, 0 , I - ,; �- � I ., .
., . � .., .:., � �, ," .. "'11- . I "� --; - -
� . ;.,��:'- �, -�,��-.�:' .1 � � -,,.-�. I . . --"J, -,,, , , -- I �- -�--�,
, I I - . .I , , .i ", - - .- ,-,;, I -,.- ... . ,
. A" .. -1, .1 I - - , 11 I � ..
:.,
5 1.,: . Dedicated to`the l emon F `
- r. � ,.
"J � a 'ti,-�� r J ''r 1
t x f r
e �` ' j rF 1 s ° $ t t
1.
y i�1 �, 1 r t r ., L 1. , Y C iry ! F.
.,: Bob Hutchison
y ,x. .;r , .,
1.1 r { �,4 e. T r t '' t I:,
2 \ p � I
S
I.
tj a ,� x
., r A - t ,
, '.' v a'.. -' 1 t R• .£ J I t
t ! i Thank1�1. .0 f o1.r,y�o r dedkation '14 =
L I to making li f e,better for all o f uS�
z ,�
`. t- .`i a; F a t. L- r t
}'
.�'. - ,
.. _ .R -..., ..
_ , T r -fix ' .i, �.' r1 l .-.F.
.
W,Pw
�� ya I -�
+I r ` m,"a ��+ k�°` < ..
re }
,: r ; le'11 I miss o11 ur, . -
11. � .,l�,. --- x.
: Kl
� 1
m.
11
- - - - � - -
, _ r 1. - �.-, - , .
� ,,,,, c._ ,1. ,,Li''� �I',�'- �'' .. .t.
,,-,,:' -- ., -., ". ." "I'"' '.
4 �- , , , .,
11 -1 .
I B?.b: ..''.--, . . - -, . �
1., . . Y
. ,
r
-; ,�' ,�":." - .'��.-,,-. . 1
14 ... -.-.L-, , -1�1 -
-- - ,- -� , ,"
-, ,
", , ,,,,- -, ;� r,
-''-:
r r - L. r a �' .c, r . � * .t, I a
,. ___ - �1993�J914 „
�� 1�1, r
r. ��r� 1, �'J d i s 'J + .a s ° t' I I
s t �f ��9iSi ili��i��lu'I 1. .t r 4
- - et Co1ntra�" Costa Count-
- I I .,:-,t�": - ---., w
1.
1
I s 1 f Y i , i" .,." ,
I.
'.
^ . '�' f e � .: �'' 4 ih i
��
� -',
iI ��-, ._�: .�,,, ,
i�l 1,
Ill- ",';, - . 11 ; '1�11� I.;1.
Grand ), , ur -,-',� " ., F ` Y�; -,:.,�,'� . Is }
� ., , � � 1111..."-. 1.1-
, t : , ,,
.- ": , : � �'r
-,�*-,,
� I
,-
;',
, "
� ,,�
41�_ �;
--
..:I .
"l-j .-,
_,�-., „ _ ,,,,
I ,,,,"�*-:
-' -;� - I 4
.- *
" """ " - I-,
1.
--- I �, �
-1
'1�'�- L - �'.� I ,-, � ; I-, I l, I - - I .
.-
� I
wl -- - - I-
� , . _�':-
, �.. �
-� �
, , ""
, ''.., ,
1�� ,., , � . ,,,
'.1-1 ��
I I - !'.;,:.�.- -.,
-,,� -*. *,
.7 , . ,
,.
.... 1. ,
� I -,.
,". , .. ., , -
. ��
,v - '.. "! ,,, . 1,
� � .
, , .
- ..I -.
, ��,--P -, - ,
I ,
,' T f
I 't 1. - -
, .
-!. . - -
�. -?,I;.I ,
- ":"�',,,x'�,�,�,.,: .�,�""","7,�,� o.." �� _ . 1 -
��, -'�,�,,I " I - I—,
, , ,
- - -
- �
. - -1 �
�c - . .
I " , ". I -.,� ��', ": � _ -
II I 1..r 'f F,r '�
��.I ,- -
� I,--I I
-t ---
C.1,1'11- ,
�l,
.�?. �''
-- �,I 'I., 'I,
� �- :` I
.- -, . �-::,,.. "". - t . .
I 'i. �, -,- --..%"',�_�._�!-,-,�, �'-��.,' '' '
" - � --
-.�,.- - .1; - .
,-"* I
1- ,��, ":1.,1.I , 1.,� %. -I'
�, ,
. , . ", - I -W
� ,�.-- ,� -
, .1 - . - ,7�'.N- � - - 1�-,-,I- -.1 I
. _
- . .1 --- . , . " . I
-1,� --,",,--,"..
I , - I.z":"� �' ,:�- . ,, , , -,�:
".. ,k �:,-,- -- .. , , " "' �,"], - �" , , '--�fl-., --,;,;�,','.,.,'-. �
., .
" ,,-,�,*, ) , , -,,,,, -
, l. ;�*., 1.,':..,�"."��-, , .,:, .: -�
."!
:)�'-.�:, �, I , , .�� - . D, ,".
, . I . � .. � I ' ' ' ., �,`, `:'- -'e` �--� �"�- - --, ,"-, - -� ,, . , "" , - I - .- ,,, ,
, . . ..,,, , . �-- ., ", " -
, t*1 ,
. - 11 . . . 41' ,- , ,."- ., -f,I,;,' ,-'. ��"--�e' ,..�':. .-' -- -,
. I; .... , -' . - ' ' ,� ,
;-NI I "I".11 I - �I[� . .----,,-, - , I'.,.- - -.1.1 - .,-... I � � - 11 - - 1. 1 -11 � . , ,�' �
ti 1 'r ! 4 t e r r .� 'S
F �', '`' .-`n y 5 y � ( �� J- -. I I. l y. ., ° - .. _ .y it.. .. . e.2 .'�• _ .
,.%O R CO
IA��
• SUPERIOR COURT
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA
COURTHOUSE
MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA 94553
TELEPHONE:
RICHARD E.ARNASON
(51 O)646.4002
JUDGE June 28, 1994
DEPARTMENT 2 FAX:(5 10)646-1312
Members of the 1993-94 Contra Costa Grand Jury
Courthouse
Martinez, California 94553
Dear Grand Jury Members:
As your days dwindle down to a precious few, I would be sadly'
remiss if I did not tell each of you just how much I have
appreciated your good work. As you embarked on your journey, as a
grand juror, the road ahead was not always smooth and clearly.
marked. It was Disraeli who told us that "travel teaches
toleration. "
• So it has been with this grand jury. Each step you took was
a forward thrust to a better understanding of your fellow servants
and of the frailties from which we all suffer. Yours was always a
willing spirit to do better and to get on with the job at hand.
The end product shows how well you have succeeded. This grand jury
reminds me of Julius Caesar - you came - you saw - you conquered -
In the every day vernacular - you did good. Rudyard Kipling had
people like you in mind when he said in his famous poem "If". -
"If you can meet with triumph and.
Disaster
and treat those two impostors just
the same. . . . "
This you have done.
In closing, permit me to express my personal thanks and good
wishes to each of you. Good luck and God bless you one and all.
P
ncer y ,
cha E. Arnason
•
�
�y>
. �
Honorable Richard s, Amason
Justice of the Superior Court
�
-iv-
Grand J u r } 1020 Ward Street
Y Contra Martinez,California 94553
Costa
County
n. S
.. C'p.; ._ ,•GTS'
Sr'4 COUN•�
June 29, 1994
The Honorable Richard Arnason
Department 2
Superior Court
1020 Ward Street
Martinez, California 94553
Dear Judge Arnason,
It is with pride and relief that I present this Final Report of the
1993-94 Contra Costa Grand Jury to you, the Board of Supervisors
and the citizens of Contra Costa County.
• I am proud of this report. It represents the hard work of a
diverse body of citizen-volunteers who have had to overcome many
obstacles, both internal and external, to bring 'it to fruition.
We were saddened by the death of Bob Hutchison in April. His wise
and calm council have been missed, but we have attempted to carry
on and produce a body of work of which he would be proud.
Your help and guidance has been greatly appreciated. We have tested
your widely-acclaimed ability to arbitrate the most difficult
problems, and you have succeeded.
Sincerely,
Judith M. Mullin, Foreman
•
OTHE 1993-94 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GRAND JURY
OFFICERS
Judith M. Mullin, Foreman
Tito C. Albano, Foreman Pro Tempore
Kathleen M. Day, Recording Secretary
Joann Brooks-Washington, Corresponding Secretary
MEMBERS
Tito C. Albano Nancy D. Kaplan
Hercules Danville
Marcy Bachmann Raul M. Lopez
Danville Concord
John D. Badger Eileen A. Lynch
Rodeo Concord
Robert C. Baskin Judith M. Mullin
Richmond Walnut Creek
Joann Brooks-Washington Cornelius Nichols
El Sobrante Richmond
Kathleen M. Day Marvin L. Pree
Martinez Pittsburg
John R. Hall Linda G. Schmidt
Antioch Richmond
John M. Hunt Eugenia R. Taylor
Danville Martinez
Robert Hutchison Lu Gene Taylor
Antioch Antioch
Lynnette Weinshelbaum
Walnut Creek
O
-vi-
• b
U
A
C
O
r b)
$a j cd
CO .
E
s a
3 ,.4
� rt
z cd
O td
' 0 0
x A
zI .
CI. C
Cd
R G) U
ai Cd
b m
Qa
C
Od
d! r-1
a, a
N$4 cd
n
E
to to
The 1993-94 Contra Costa County
Grand Jury
approved this Final Report
on
June 29, 1994
Judith M. Mullin
Foreman
I accept for filing this Final Report of the
1993-94 Contra Costa County Grand Jury
6 Jun 29, 1994
Richa d E. Arnason
Judge of the Superior Court
-viii-
A REPORT BY
THE 1993-94 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GRAND JURY
1020 Ward Street
Martinez, CA 94553
(510) 646-2345
Report No. 9401
EMPLOYEE WELLNESS PROGRAM
AND CONTRA COSTA CLUB FUNDS
LACK ACCOUNTABILITY
Approved by the Grand Jury:
Date: X12
*Grand
M. Mullin
Jury Foreman
Accepted for Filing:
D e:
�. ,
i Richard E. Amason
Judge of the Superior Court
•
i
SECTION 933 (C) OF THE CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE
§933. Comments and Reports on Grand Jury
Recommendations.
(c) No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits
a final report on the operations of any public agency
subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body
of the public agency shall comment to the presiding
judge of the superior court on the findings and
recommendations pertaining to matters under the control
of the governing body,and every elective county officer
or agency head for which the grand jury has
responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment
within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior
court, with an information copy sent to the board of
supervisors, on the findings and recommendations
pertaining to matters under the control of that county
officer or agency head and any agency or agencies which
that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In
any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on
the findings and recommendations. All such comments
and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding
judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand
jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall
be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and
the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when
applicable,and shall remain on file in those offices. One
copy shall be placed on file with the applicable grand
jury final report by, and in the control of the currently
impaneled grand jury,where it shall be maintained for a
minimum of five years. Leg.H. 1961 ch. 1284, 1963
ch. 674, 1974 chs. 393, 1396, 1977 chs. 107, 187, 1980
ch. 543, 1981 ch. 203, 1982 ch. 1408 §5, 1985 ch. 221
§1, effective July 12, 1985, 1987 ch. 690 §1, 1988 ch.
1297.
Cross-References
Admissible evidence. Penal Code §939.6.
"Grand jury"defined. Penal Code §888.
Grand jury report to be based only on own investigation. Penal
Code §939.9.
OSUMMARY:
Contra Costa County's own health and wellness facility, the Contra Costa Club, located at 627 Ferry
Street in Martinez, has been consistently operating in a deficit mode, with a large share of its
membership being non-County employees. The Club derives a large portion of its operating budget
from the County's Workers' Compensation Trust Fund, through the County's Employee Wellness
Program. The operation is accountably improper, inefficient, and poorly managed.
INTRODUCTION:
The Contra Costa Board of Supervisors approved an Employee Wellness Program [the Program] in
1985. Overall responsibility for the Wellness Program was placed with the Personnel Department in
the Benefits Division. A Wellness Coordinator was appointed in January of 1986, the official
beginning of the Contra Costa Club Employee Weilness Program. As stated in the Program's
Mission Statement: "The Employee Wellness Program seeks to implement cost-effective activities,
drawing upon the resources within the County and the community, with the eventual outcome of
improved personal health for employees and cost savings to the County."
In July, 1990, the Employee Wellness Program opened the County's own health and wellness facility,
the Contra Costa Club[the Club].
According to the August, 1993 Status Report, The Program rationale includes"The belief that
employee wellness programs are cost effective; eventually resulting in decreased absenteeism,
Workers' Compensation claims and health care costs."
•
Club-Draft 2.0 1/19/94 3
According to the Program'sgust Au 1993 Status Report, "The Contra Costa Club is available for a
p
monthly fee to all County employees (permanent, temporary, contract),their spouses and
dependents and County retirees and their spouses. Limited memberships are also available to the
local residents, businesses and.government agencies ...."
"Funding for the Program was approved for inclusion in the Workers' Compensation Budget in as
much as the program was designed to prevent and reduce accidents and illness among County
employees and thus reduce Workers' Compensation costs.", as stated in the August, 1993 Status
Report on the Program.
FINDINGS:
1. Since the Club opened in July of 1990,the reported operating deficit,through the end of FY
1992/1993, has grown to $107,000.
2. Increasingly larger portions of the Club's operating expenditures have been charged to the
Employee Wellness Program, without accountability for these expenditures in the Club's
operating profit/loss financial,reports.
3. The Club does not maintain record keeping procedures as to the revenue and expenses
(profit/loss) attributable to the group of County employee users or to the group of users who
are local residents, businesses and government agencies.
4. The Employee Wellness Program is being charged for costs associated with County
employees located within Club space, but whose functions are not directly associated with
either the Club or the Program.
Club-Draft 2.0 1/19/94 4
5. There is no basis for the statement, "The belief that Employee Wellness Programs are cost
effective; eventually resulting in decreased absenteeism, Workers' Compensation claims
and health care costs", since a formal cost effective benefit analysis to measure decreased
absenteeism, Workers' Compensation claims and health care costs for the County Employee
Wellness Program has not been conducted.
6. The Club has never applied for a business license from the City of Martinez, in order to
operate as a nonprofit facility.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The Club does not maintain a financial record keeping procedure which provides for a true
representation of actual expenses, inclusive of those expenses charged to the Employee
Wellness Program, and ultimately to the Workers'Compensation Trust Fund.
2. Operational losses associated with the Club are bome by the Workers' Compensation Trust
Fund,through the Employee Wellness Program, even though approximately one-third (1/3)
of the Club's members are local residents, businesses and government agencies.
3. Some costs associated with general County operations are being supported from the
Workers'Compensation Trust Fund, through the Employee Wellness Program, as opposed
to being supported from the County's General Fund.
•
Club-Draft 2.0 1/19/94 5
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The 1993-1994 Contra Costa Grand Jury recommends that:
1. The Board of Supervisors direct the Personnel Department to immediately institute i Club
financial and membership record keeping system which will result in a true reporting of
operational profit/loss.
2. The Board of Supervisors direct the Personnel Department to complete a study, within 60
days, to measure the cost and/or the savings to the Club that would be realized by
eliminating memberships to local residents, businesses and government agencies.
3. The Board of Supervisors direct the Personnel Department to obtain annual bids, beginning
on Jul 1, 1994, from at least two(2) responsible fitness facilities in the private sector, Ifor
Y ( ) P
user services similar to those provided by the Club.
4. The Board of Supervisors direct the Personnel Department to immediately begin to maintain
an on-going comparison of Club costs with costs for similar services provided by, or through,
facilities in the private sector.
i
5. The Board of Supervisors direct the Personnel Department to immediately audit, and to audit
annually thereafter, all charges made to the Employee Wellness Program and to certify that
all such charges are directly related to the Program.
I
I
i
Club-Draft 2.0 1/19/94 6
i
6. The Board of Supervisors direct the Personnel Department to immediately set up a tracking
system designed to evaluate the effectiveness of the Employee Wellness Program. This can
be accomplished by maintaining trend analyses associated with such factors as Employee
Wellness Program expenditures, County employee absenteeism, Workers' Compensation
claims and County employee health care costs.
7. The Board of Supervisors direct the Personnel Department to immediately apply to the City
of Martinez for an exempt business license for operation of the Club.
COMMENTS:
The Club represents one element within the Employee Wellness Program, which receives its funding
from the Workers'Compensation Trust Fund. That being the case, adequate record keeping must
be maintained so that detailed revenue source and expense tracking can be used to substantiate the
need for, and the amount charged to, private non-County users of the Club. Rate-setting for private
non-County users of the Club must verify that this group of users does not contribute to a deficit
operation and does not subsidize the private user from the County Workers'Compensation Trust
Fund. Presently, expenses charged to the Employee Wellness Program are excluded from the
Club's operational financial analysis, distorting the actual financial condition of the Club. This
practice makes it impossible to determine the viability of the Club, as compared to similar services
available within the private sector.
i
Club-Draft 2.0 1/19/94 7
A REPORT BY "
THE 1993-94 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GRAND JURY
1020 Ward Street
Martinez, CA 94553
(510) 646-2345
Report No. 9402
ADOPTION vs LONG TERM FOSTER CARE
"Our Children's Welfare at Stake"
oh! why does the wind blow upon me
so wild?
Is it because I'm nobody's child?
Nobody's Child by Phila Case
Approved by the Grand Jury:
Date: ? /�;
dith M. Mullin
nd Jury Foreman
Accept fo ing:
D e: �-
Richard E. Arnason
Judge of the Superior Court
SECTION 933 (C) OF THE CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE
§933. Comments and Reports on Grand Jury
Recommendations.
(c) No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits
a final report on the operations of any public agency
subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body
of the public agency shall comment to the presiding
judge of the superior court on the findings and
recommendations pertaining to matters under the control
of the governing body,and every elective county officer
or agency head for which the grand jury has
responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment
within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior
court, with an information copy sent to the board of
supervisors, on the findings and recommendations
pertaining to matters under the control of that county
officer or agency head and any agency or agencies which
that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In
any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on
the findings and recommendations. All such comments
and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding
judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand
jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall
be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and
the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when
applicable,and shall remain on file in those offices. One
copy shall be placed on file with the applicable grand
jury final report by, and in the control of the currently
impaneled grand jury,where it shall be maintained for a
minimum of five years. Leg.H. 1961 ch. 1284, 1963
ch. 674, 1974 chs. 393, 1396, 1977 chs. 107, 187, 1980
ch. 543, 1981 ch. 203, 1982 ch. 1408 §5, 1985 ch. 221
§1, effective July 12, 1985, 1987 ch. 690 §1, 1988 ch.
1297.
Cross-References
Admissible evidence. Penal Code §939.6.
"Grand jury"defined. Penal Code §888.
Grand jury report to be based only on own investigation. Penal
Code §939.9.
® INTRODUCTION
More than two thousand children are in Contra Costa County
foster care today, with the majority of these children returning
to their birth parents. The case dispositions of the children
who are not reunited with their parents have three possibilities:
adoption, guardianship,, or foster care. Long-term foster care is
the most common and most expensive choice. This investigation
focuses on the County Social- Services Department's inability to
effectively manage programs designed to objectively assess
children as candidates for adoption, and to successfully place
them in adoptive homes.
Some findings in this report compare relevant adoption and
foster care data from comparable California counties. The
comparable counties have been selected on the basis of a minimum
population of 475, 000 persons, with at least twenty percent (20%)
minority population.
FINDINGS
1. The Child Welfare Division and Adoption Unit was unable
to substantiate claims that the Adoption Unit has experienced
staff reductions in the current year's budget. The Adoption Unit
remains at eleven (11) full time employees.
• 2 . Licensed non-profit adoption agencies have additional
resources available at no extra cost to the County, and qualify
for an additional $3, 500 in State reimbursement to assist the
County in each adoption of a special-needs child. In FY 1991-
1992 , such cooperative placements were only 1. 67% of the sixty
(60) completed adoptions by Contra Costa County. Among fifteen
(15) comparable counties, Contra Costa County ranks fourteen (14)
out of fifteen (15) in the utilization of licensed non-profit
adoption agencies (Exhibit A) .
3 . Adoption workers and supervisors voice inflexible
attitudes toward trans-racial adoptions which work against the
timely placement of minority children, and place the Department
of Social Services in non-compliance with the February 13 , 1992
"All County Letter No. 92-231' ' (which requires a diligent search
for adoptive parents of the same race) and the October 15, 1992
"All County Letter No. 92-92" (which requires adoptive placement
with any suitable family, regardless of race) .
4 . No standards exist for the required Assessment of Adopt-
ability of Children; leaving the adoption workers and their
supervisors without objective tools to guide decision-making in
the assessments. Such assessments are 'a critical part of court
required permanency planning.
5. The Adoption Unit supervisors, managers, and directors,
as well as the executive staff in the County Administrator' s) i
office, were unable to provide evidence that their operational
environment has a clear chain of command or has even the most
fundamental management structure and tools in; place; e.g.
a) no mission statement focusing on its basic
responsibilities,
b) no understandable organizational chart,
c) no annual service plan,
d) no measurable operational objectives, and
e) -no quantifiable adoption placement goals.
6. The County Social Services Department' s Services Bureau
lacks an adequate evaluation system, standards, ,or timetable to
evaluate the effectiveness of its Adoption Unit's program servic-
es ,or the performance of its employees. .
7 . Thirty (30) children, all of whom have been freed for
.adoption by the Juvenile Court, have been labeled as "Red Dot
Cases" resulting in an untenable waiting period--often for
years--before workers are assigned to work toward an adoptive
placement. The lengthy wait requires that these children remain
in long-term foster care instead of adoption. ' The Social Servic-
es Department' s explanation that this "Red Dot" identification is
a result of the lack of staff resources, or workers ' desires too
place these children with relatives cannot be substantiated. •
During the course of this investigation, these,"Red Dot Cases"
were transferred from the Adoption Unit and the status of the
adoption of these children still remains uncertain.
8 . The Adoption Unit uses one full-time social worker to
process step-parent adoptions at the cost ofbacklogged cases
requiring immediate staff attention. They have', not explored
other options for the provision of step-parent adoptions.
9. The percentage of foster care childrenl ('after the
assessment of adoptability) who were recommended to the Juvenile
Court for adoption for the fiscal year ending in June 1992 , was
8. 46%, and ranks fifteen (15) out of fifteen (15) comparable
California counties (Exhibit B) .
10. The Adoption Unit demonstrates a preference to place
children in long-term , foster care instead of adoption. In FY
1992-1993 , ninety-three (93) children--who were legally free for
adoption--were assigned to the Adoption Unit; yet the Adoption
Unit did not actively seek adoptive placements for twenty-three
(23) of these freed children, of whom twenty (20) remained in
long-term foster care after action by the Juvenile Court.
Numerous and reasonable attempts to obtain updated information
from the Department of. Social Services regarding the status of
these children have not resulted in usable, consistent, or •
understandable evidence.
-2-
• 11. Seventy-eight (78) children placed by Contra Costa
County in 1992 saved $479, 340 in annual foster care payments
during the first year of adoptive placement. Since the average
adoptive placement is fourteen (14) years in duration, the
projected savings is $6. 7 million on these placements alone.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The County' s Social Services Department' s Services
Bureau is poorly organized and lacks sufficient accountability to
objectively assess children for adoption and to place these
children in adoptive homes.
2 . Implementation of a more vigorous adoption program will
increase the placement of children and save the County signifi-
cant tax dollars currently being spent on long-term foster care.
3 . Inflexible attitudes toward trans-racial adoptions are
detrimental to the timely and successful placement of children.
4 . Licensed non-profit adoption agencies are not adequately
utilized for cooperative placements of children of special needs.
5. The County Social Services Department's Services
Bureau' s lack of systematic evaluation of services and employees
does not foster performance or program accountability.
• 6. The absence of standards to assess the adoptability of
children encourages inconsistent, subjective, and biased deci-
sions that are often based on the limitations of the child
welfare system, and not the best opportunities or interest of
each child.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The usefulness of the following twelve (12) recommendations
is in their strategic and planning value, and will have little
impact if implemented singularly. Accordingly, the Contra Costa
County Grand Jury recommends:
1. Within ninety (90) days, the Board of Supervisors obtain
from the County Administrator a 180-day timetable and implementa-
tion plan for these recommendations.
2 . Child Welfare Services have a single administrator re-
porting to the Director of Social Services; responsibilities for
other than child welfare services should be assigned elsewhere
within the Social Services Department. This will focus account-
ability.
3 . The supervisor of the Adoption Unit report directly to
• the Child Welfare Services Administrator. This will focus
-3-
accountability that is currently diluted among the three operat-
ing child welfare divisions. I
4 . The Adoption Unit relinquish its involvement andsuper-
vision of all long-term foster care cases in order to focus on
its basic mission of adoption.
5. The Adoption Unit develop a written, quantifiable annual
service plan tied to measurable accomplishments; and the unit'is
and its workers ' performance against this plan be closely evalu-
ated within the framework of professional accountability.
6. Written standards be developed and uniformly applied for
the assessment of adoptability of every child as part of timely
permanency planning recommendations to the Juvenile Court.
7 . The Adoption Unit act in a timely and aggressive manner
in recruiting suitable parents for every child referred to it .for
adoption.
8 . The use of Adoption Unit personnel for step-parent
adoptions be eliminated; step-parents be referred to more appro-
priate public or private sources. `
9. The Adoption Unit proactivelyreach out to additional
private adoption agencies and build collaborative relationships
that will assist in the recruitment and referral of suitable
adoptive parents, thereby increasing the potential for more adop- •
tions each year.
10. Existing cooperative placement arrangements with these
private adoption agencies be explored to reduce the backlog ofl
needed home studies, and to innovatively access the $3 , 500 State
of California placement subsidy.
11. The Adoption Unit fully comply with rules regarding
"diligent search" for suitable adoptive parents `of the same racy;
and when such a search fails within the prescribed time period,
expedite the adoptive placement of the child with a suitable
family regardless of race.
12 . The Adoption Unit cease the informal "Red Dot" case
labelling system and replace it with a formal client tracking'
system that assures each case is continuously monitored and
adoption is expedited.
COMMENTS
Some County services operate in an environment of shrinking
resources, but this need not be the case for improved adoption
services. The long term savings in tax dollars are in the
millions, and the implementation of these recommendations will •
significantly enrich the lives of many hundreds of Contra Costa _
County children.
-4-
The necessary budget reductions that government faces today
cannot be used as an excuse to allow children to languish in the
County's child welfare and foster care limbo. Children caught in
the "wait, a little longer" syndrome become society's problem, and
their opportunities for permanent adoptive homes become dimin-
ished. Let us not allow these children to be "further victim-
ized" on our watch. Action must be taken now.
-5-
EXHIBIT A
(Cooperative Placements*)
San Francisco County 29. 25%
San Joaquin County 19. 39%
Sacramento County 14 .40%
San Mateo County 13 .95%
Kern County 12 . 68%
Orange County 11.20%
Los Angeles County 5. 19%
Fresno County 4 . 88%
Santa Clara County 4. 32%
Riverside County 3 .70%
San Diego County 2 . 58%
Alameda County 2 . 19%
Ventura County 1.78%
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 1.67%
San. Bernardino County 0. 63%
(*State of California Statistical Services Bureau
ADOP 2 -1992-1, Table 4C. )
-6-
EXHIBIT B
• (Children Recommended for Adoption, After As P )
Santa Clara County 49. 68%
San Mateo County 46. 63%
San Francisco County 46. 62%
Orange County 28.97%
, Riverside County 28. 57%
Ventura County 26. 65%
San Joaquin County 23 . 08%
Sacramento County 20. 57%
Fresno County 19.82%
San Diego County 19.22%
Alameda County 18. 60%
Los Angeles County 18 .55%
Kern County 13 . 63%
San Bernardino County 9.99%
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 8.46%
(*State of California Statistical Services Bureau
ADOP 2- 1992 -1, Table 6. )
-7-
A REPORT BY
THE 1993-94 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GRAND JURY
1020 Ward Street
Martinez, CA 94553
(510) 646-2345
Report No. 9403
THE PUBLIC'S RIGHT TO KNOW
(Non-Compliance with the California Public Records Act)
Approved by the Grand Jury:
Date:
ud M. Mullin
Grand Jury Foreman
AdZep ed or Filing:
i
Richard E. Ar son
Judge of the Superior Court
i
SECTION 933 (C) OF THE CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE
i
§933. Comments and Reports on Grand Jury
Recommendations.
(c) No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits
a final report on the operations of any public agency
subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body j
of the public agency shall comment to the presiding
judge of the superior court on the findings and
recommendations pertaining to matters under the control
of the governing body,and every elective county officer
or agency head for which the grand jury has
responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment
within 60 days to the presiding judge of.the superior j
court, with an information copy sent to the board of
supervisors, on the findings and recommendations
pertaining to matters under the control of that county
officer or agency head and any agency or agencies which k
that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In
any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on
the findings and recommendations. All such comments
and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding
judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand
jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall 4
be placed on file v.,ith the clerk of the public agency and
the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when
applicable,and shall remain on file in those offices. One
copy shall be placed on file with the applicable grand
jury final report by, and in the control of the currently
impaneled grand jury,where it shall be maintained for a
minimum of five years. Leg.H. 1961 ch. 1284, 1963
ch. 674, 1974 chs. 393, 1396, 1977 chs. 107, 187, 1980
ch. 543, 1981 ch. 203, 1982 ch. 1408 §5, 1985 ch. 221
§1, effective July 12, 1985, 1987 ch. 690 §1, 1988 ch.
1297.
Cross-References
Admissible evidence. Penal Code §939.6.
"Grand jury"defined. Penal Code §888.
Grand jury report to be based only on own investigation. Penal
i
Code §939.9.
4
i
INTRODUCTION:
It is well established that the public has a right of access
to governmental information generated with taxpayer money--
whether that information is actually produced by the
governmental entity or by its contractor(s) This public
right of access is applicable to Contra Costa County and its
consultants, and is mandated by the provisions of the
California Public Records Act of 1968. Section 6250 of that
Act states, " . . . the Legislature, mindful of the right of
individuals to privacy, finds and declares that access to
information concerning the conduct of the people' s business is
a fundamental and necessary right of every person in this
state. "
FACTS:
1. Contra Costa County has the responsibility for
establishing tipping fees . for Keller Canyon Landfill.
2 . A rate of $49. 08 per ton was established and approved by
the Board of Supervisors on August 11, 1992 .
3 . Since its approval, several governmental entities have
questioned the rate as being excessive and its rationale
• faulty.
4 . The questioned amounts, if found to be improperly
charged, could result in a substantial reduction to the
tipping fee.
5. A number of interested individuals and agencies have
repeatedly asked the County to provide them with the
background documentation and working papers used to
support the current tipping rate.
6. The Public Records Act requires, upon request from the
public, disclosure of all such information.
7 . Included as part of this background documentation and
working papers is one document identified as
"proprietary", which identifies royalty rates received by
Keller Canyon Landfill 's operator for its various (other)
landfills. Disclosure of proprietary information is not
required by the Public Records Act.
8 . In spite of the Public Records Act disclosure
requirements, the County, even after repeated requests,
has not made the non-proprietary information available to
all parties requesting it.
1
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The County is deliberately ignoring, thereby stone-
walling, the public's requests for information pertaining
to the establishment of tipping fees for the Keller
Canyon Landfill.
2 . Making the requested information available to the public
will allow interested parties to analyze, evaluate, and
contest or confirm the methodology and pricing procedures
used by the County (and its consultant) in setting the
tipping rate.
3 . Such evaluations have the potential for either:
a. saving the ratepayers of Contra Costa County
millions of dollars, or
b. building trust in their County Government because
the rate is shown to_ be fairly and• accurately
based.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The Contra Costa County Grand Jury recommends that the Board
of Supervisors direct the County Administrator to:
1. Immediately comply with the Public Records Act by fully •
disclosing to all parties who have requested it,' the
rationale and non-proprietary supporting documentation
for the County-approved Keller Canyon Landfill tipping
fees.
2 . Immediately issue clear direction and guidance to all
County Departments about the need to adhere to the
requirements of the Public Records Act.
•
2
A REPORT BY
THE 1993-94 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GRAND JURY
1020 Ward Street
Martinez, CA 94553
(510) 646-2345
Report No. 9404
WEST COUNTY BOOKING UNIT
"TO BE OR NOT TO BE"
Approved by the Grand Jury:
Date: _ � 7
udith M. Mullin
Grand Jury Foreman
Accepted for Filing:
®
Dat,�V
Richard E. Arnason
Judge of the Superior Court
II
L
SECTION 933 (C) OF THE CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE
ti
i
s
§933. Comments and Reports on Grand Jury
Recommendations.
i
(c) No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits
a final report on the operations of any public agency
subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body
of the public agency shall comment to the presiding
judge of the superior court on the findings and
recommendations pertaining to matters under the control
of the c-overning body,and every elective county officer
or agency head for which the grand jury has
responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment
within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior
court, with an information copy sent to the board of
supervisors, on the findings and recommendations
pertaining to matters under the control of that county y
officer or a;ency head and any agency or agencies which
that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In
any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on
the findings and recommendations. All such comments
and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding
judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand
jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall
beplaced on file with the clerk of the public agency and
il
the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when
applicable,and shall remain on file in those offices. One
i
copy shall be placed on file with the applicable grand
jury final report by, and in the control of the currently
impaneled grand jury,where it shall be maintained for a
minimum of five years. Leg.H. 1961 ch. 1284, 1963
ch. 674, 1974 chs. 393, 1396, 1977 chs. 107, 187, 1980
ch. 543, 1981 ch. 203, 1982 ch. 1408 §5, 1985 ch. 221
§1, effective July 12, 1985, 1987 ch. 690 §1, 1988 ch.
1297.
i
Cross-References
Admissible evidence. Penal Code §939.6. .
"Grand jury"defined. Penal Code §888.
Grand jury report to be based only on own investigation. Penal 1
Code §939.9.
'I
i
i
I
f
INTRODUCTION
The West County Detention Facility opened in Richmond in mid-
1990. This ultra-modern, program-oriented facility for medium
security prisoners was built at a cost of approximately
$53 , 527 , 904 . Included in this county owned and operated structure
is a state of the art booking unit which was intended to service
the needs of city police forces as well as the Sheriff ' s Department
in the western portion of Contra Costa County. The unused booking
intake unit has never opened and remains empty.
FINDINGS
1. The Martinez Detention Facility is the only booking location
open for adults in Contra Costa County.
2 . Most cities in the county must transport prisoners to the
Martinez Detention Facility for booking.
3 . All prisoners arrested by Sheriff ' s deputies must be
transported to the Martinez Detention Facility for booking.
4 . City police and Sheriff' s deputies are. "off the streets" for
protracted periods of time, due to the need to transport
prisoners to the Martinez Detention Facility.
• 5. City police and Sheriff's deputies frequently experience
lengthy delays booking prisoners at the Martinez Detention
Facility.
6. Actual costs involved in personnel, equipment and stress
caused by not utilizing the Booking Unit at West County
Detention Facility have never been determined.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The necessity of transporting prisoners to the Martinez
Detention Facility creates an unreasonable financial burden on
municipal police services.
2 . A time and/or cost study has never been developed to reflect
actual hours spent and transportation costs involved in having
only one booking location open in the County.
• 1 .
RECOMMENDATIONS
The 1993-1994 Contra Costa Grand Jury recommends that: •
1. The Board of ,Supervisors, within 60 days, complete an analysis
of the actual', costs and hours spent by police departments and
Sheriff 's deputies in transporting and booking prisoners at
the Martinez Detention Facility. -
2 . The Board of Supervisors complete a study, within those same
60 days, to measure the costs and/or savings to the County and
local agencies that could be realized by utilizing the West
County Detention Facility Booking Unit.
COMMENTS
Citizens want! to see more peace officers on the street
protecting lives and property. It has not been determined how many
hours peace officers spend transporting and booking prisoners.
Local communities will benefit if police services are concentrated
on crime suppression. A solution cannot be formulated until the
facts are known.
Too often elected and appointed representatives are concerned
about county money ',vs. city money. Will we utilize taxpayer 's
money more efficiently to make Contra Costa County a safer place to
live. . .that is the question? •
i
•
2
A REPORT BY
THE 1993-94 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GRAND JURY
1020 Ward Street
Martinez, CA 94553
(510) 646-2345
Report No. 9405
BUREAUCRATIC CHILD ABUSE
"Power tends to corrupt;
absolute power corrupts absolutely. "
John Emerich Edward Dalberg,
Lord Acton
Approved by the Grand Jury:
Date: 7/�71
J drith M. Mullin
rand Jury Foreman
Accepted for Filing:
• Riefiard E. Arnason
Judge of the Superior Court
1
1I
1
I
I'
{
I
1'
I
r I
SECTION 933 (C) OF THE CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE
I
I
§933. Comments and Reports on Grand Jury j
Recommendations.
it
(c) No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits
a final report on the operations of any public agency I
subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body j
of the public agency shall comment to the presiding
judge of the superior court on the findings and
recommendations pertaining to matters under the control i
of the governing body,and every elective county officer
or agency head for which the grand jury has
responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment j
within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior
court, with an information copy sent to the board of I
supervisors, on the findings and recommendations i
pertaining to matters under the control of that county
officer or agency head and any agency or agencies which I
that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In
any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on
the findings and recommendations. All such comments
and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding
judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand
jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall
be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and
the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when
applicable,and shall remain on file in those offices. One
copy shall be placed on file with the applicable grand 1
jury final report by, and in the control of the currently
impaneled grand jury,where it shall be maintained for a
minimum of five years. Leg.H. 1961 ch. 1284, 1963
ch. 674, 1974 chs. 393, 1396, 1977 chs. 107, 187, 1980
ch. 543, 1981 ch. 203, 1982 ch. 1408 §5, 1985 ch. 221
§1, effective July 12, 1985, 1987 ch. 690 §1, 1988 ch.
1297. 1
11
Cross-References i
Admissible evidence. Penal Code §939.6.
"Grand jury"defined. Penal Code §888.
Grand jury report to be based only on own investigation. Penal
Code §939.9.
1
I
•I
1
11
I
i
SUMMARY OF INVESTIGATION
The Contra Costa County Grand Jury's investigation of the Social
Service Department, Report No. 9402 on ADOPTION VS LONG TERM FOSTER
CARE, has led to the Grand Jury's discovery of disturbing and
shocking practices. This report shall focus on evidence
demonstrating a brutal pattern of threats, intimidation, and
coercion of select prospective adoptive parents. This has resulted
in bureaucratic child abuse in Contra Costa County.
FINDINGS
1. Due to the Social Service Department' s disorganization (Grand
Jury Report No. 9402 on Adoptions) , the Department lacks focus
on its mission to find homes for Contra Costa children.
2 . ' The Social Service Department confirmed that the County will
lose state funding if it refers children to private adoption
agencies or to other counties.
3 . Many foster parents are routinely threatened with removal of
the children from their foster care home if the foster parents
express a desire to adopt them.
4 . Contra Costa County officials create artificial barriers to
• adoption by repeatedly citing excuses such as:
a. lack of staff
b. reduced funding in the adoption unit
C. lack of clerical support
d. the social worker is on vacation
e. your file is lost
f. the social worker is on leave of absence
g. your social worker took your file home
h. ' it can take as long as ten years to complete an adoption
5. Prospective, qualified adoptive parents, discouraged from
adopting children in Contra Costa County, have frequently
finalized adoptions in other counties.
6. Social workers use intimidation tactics to dissuade
prospective adoptive parents. This is done by disseminating
disinformation that obscures the truth.
7. The Social Service Department's Adoption Unit threatens
prospective adoptive parents with the loss of the County
"safety net" (foster care subsidy and ancillary services) .
1
I
i
t
I
8. The Social Service Department's Adoption Unit negatively
exaggerates some children's limitations by branding them as
"ugly" and having few social skills, thus keeping these
-adoptable children in the more expensive and less nurturing
environment of 'foster care limbo.
9. Prospective adoptive parents and long term foster care parents
have been threatened with the institutionalization of their
children when they question the authority of the Social
Service Department.
10. The Social Service Department staff have demonstrated, and
management has condoned, insensitive and callous behavior
toward prospective adoptive parents and children.
i
11. There is an ongoing practice of complacency by the Social
Service Department' s management toward inappropriate and
unethical behavior.
12 . The current system lacks a process whereby inequities and/or
wrongdoing can be addres-sed. Prospective adoptive parents
wishing to file a grievance against a social worker are
advised that no formal process exists for grievance resolution
in the Social Service Department, contrary to State law.
13 . Every level of management, up to and including the Board of
Supervisors have been informed of numerous problems with t:he
Social Service Department and have failed to act.
CONCLUSIONS
1. It is understood that prospective adoptive parents need to be
apprised of the ramifications of adoption; particularly those
of special needs children. It is clear from the performance
of the Social Service Department staff that they have gone
beyond what is reasonable.
2 . It is abundantly clear that the Social Service Department 's
objective is to hold hostage a high custody count of children
in order to secure state subsidies which enables the
Department to maintain its current staffing.
3 . The Social Service Department has lost sight of its mission,
the care and protection of Contra Costa County's emotionally,
and socially parentless children.
4 . The Board of Supervisors and the County Administrator's
indifference and', lack of concern for child welfare has served
to cloak the adoption nightmare of the Social Service
Department.
j 2
I
I
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The 1993-94 Contra Costa County Grand Jury, because of the urgency
of this matter, recommends that the Board of Supervisors, within 30
days initiate and document in writing a comprehensive program to
correct management and adoption service problems in the Adoption
Unit, and to:
A. Appoint an impartial investigator, reporting to the
County Administrator, to correct management and adoption
service problems.
B. Instruct the impartial investigator to evaluate the job
performance of all directors, managers, supervisors, and
social 'workers responsible for adoption services; and
recommend remedial action including re-assignment,
disciplinary action, dismissal, and if warranted by the
facts, referral to the County District Attorney for
criminal investigation.
C. Immediately initiate, and complete within six months, a
study to determine the viability of the County' s adoption
services being privatized.
D. Immediately initiate, and complete within six months, a
study to determine the viability of the County's adoption
services being transferred to the California State
Department of Social Services; and
E. Immediately upon completion, all reports and studies are
to be .made available to the general public.
COMMENTS:
The 1993-94 Contra Costa County Grand Jury Report Nos. 9402 and
9405 are not meant as an indictment of the entire Social Service
Department. The reports were, however, written and published to
identify the gross misconduct of the Adoption Unit which directly
affects vulnerable, adoptable children of Contra Costa County.
i
I
3
A REPORT BY
THE 1993-94 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GRAND JURY
1020 Ward Street
Martinez, CA 94553
(510) 646-2345
Report No. 9406
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY SUPER''VISORS '
MISMANAGEMENT OF THE MERIT SYSTEM
HIGH-PRICED MEDIOCRITY
"When mediocrity is rewarded at the
same rate as outstanding performance,
it can, over time, become the norm. "
Approved by the Grand Jury:
Date:
Ju 'th M. Mullin
Gran Jury Foreman
Accepted f r iling:
Date
t - Richard 7E. Arnason
Judge of the Superior Court
SECTION 933 (C) OF THE CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE
§933. Comments and Reports on Grand Jury
Recommendations.
(c) No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits
a final report on the operations of any public agency
subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body
of the public agency shall comment to the presiding
J of the superior court on the findings and
recommendations pertaining to matters under the control
of the governing body,and every elective county officer
or agency head for which the grand jury has
responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment
within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior
court, with an information copy sent to the board of
supervisors, on the findings and recommendations
pertaining to matters under the control of that county
officer or agency head and any agency or agencies which
that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In
any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on
the findings and recommendations. All such comments
and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding
judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand
jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall
be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and
the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when
applicable,and shall remain on file in those offices. One
copy shall be placed on file with the applicable grand
jury final report by, and in the control of the currently
impaneled grand jury,where it shall be maintained for a
minimum of five years. Leg.H. 1961 ch. 1284, 1963
ch. 674, 1974 chs. 393, 1396, 1977 chs. 107, 187, 1980
ch. 543, 1981 ch. 203, 1982 ch. 1408 §5, 1985 ch. 221
§1, effective July 12, 1985, 1987 ch. 690 §1, 1988 ch.
1297.
Cross-References
Admissible evidence. Penal Code §939.6.
"Grand jury"defined. Penal Code §888.
Grand jury report to be based only on own investigation. Penal
Code §939.9.
t
SCOPE OF INVESTIGATION
The Grand Jury initiated an investigation to determine if the
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors, in keeping with the
intent of voter-mandated Merit System, has adopted and implemented
policy and procedures requiring that each county employee receive:
• Written annual performance objectives for their position,
• Feedback on their performance throughout the year,
• Written annual performance evaluation that is related to
performance objectives,
® Compensation directly tied to documented performance.
FINDINGS
Merit System Employees
1. In 1980, the voters of Contra Costa County approved a Merit
System Reform Ordinance to modernize the existing thirty-six
year old Civil Service System. The ballot argument in favor
of Merit System Reform was to:
• " . . . fix public accountability for personnel matters
clearly on the Board . . .
• " . provide county department heads with more
O management flexibility while increasing their
accountability to the Board .
• " . . . insure that merit principles form the foundation
for every action and regulation . . . " .
2 . In order for a Merit System employee to advance to the next
higher step in the salary range, Contra Costa County Salary
Regulations §3 .2 and Personnel Management Regulations
(hereinafter "PMR") §1501 and applicable Memoranda of
Understanding (hereinafter "MOU") only require the appointing
authority, e.g. , the department head, to certify that an
employee's performance is satisfactory. The certification is
accomplished by checking a box on the Salary Review Report
that is sent to the Personnel . Department for payroll
processing. Since the Personnel Director may reject a
proposed salary increase without the above referenced box
checked, there appears to be general compliance with this
requirement.
3 . Once an employee has reached the top step of his/her
position's salary range, which is historically obtained within
three and a half years, there is no longer any requirement for
the department to certify the employee's performance as
satisfactory. Subsequent salary increases, such as Cost of
Living Adjustments, (hereinafter "COLA") are given on an
® "across-the-board" basis to all eligible employees.
1
4 . County-wide regulations and applicable MOU's do not require
supervisors of Merit System employees to:
• Establish, with the employee, measurable and written
objectives.
• Evaluate an employee' s performance vs. objectives.
• Document an evaluation of the employee' s performance.
• Obtain approval/concurrence of the proposed evaluation
from their managers.
• Review the performance evaluation with the employee.
• Use the written performance evaluation as the basis for
salary increases.
5. Since there is no county-wide requirement for the above, there
is a wide variance among the departments in priority and
accountability - for ' these personnel management ,
responsibilities.
• Some departments do an outstanding job, requiring that
all employees receive written performance evaluations
every year, regardless of where an individual may be in
the salary range. They do not consider salary "step"
increases or COLA'S as "automatic" and attempt to link
compensation with performance. i
Employees in other departments receive salary "step"
increases without receiving a written evaluation from
their supervisors.
• Personnel in many organizations, once they reach the top
of .their position rate, may not receive a written
performance evaluation for several years. Salary "step"
increases, as well as COLA's, are often viewed by both
management and non-management employees as routine and
expected.
6. Personnel management flexibility may be constrained as a
result of Board approved MOU's with employee bargaining units
which require that performance evaluations and related matters
be negotiated under the "meet. and confer" process. For
example, a typical clause in the MOU states:
"The performance of each employee, except employees
already at the maximum step in the salary range, shall be
reviewed to determine whether the salary of the employee
shall be advanced to the next higher step in the salary
range" (emphasis added) .
•
2
7. Grand Jury Report No. 9312, dated May 20, 1993, made
recommendations to the Board of Supervisors to reaffirm the
• voter-mandated Merit Reform System and the Board' s commitment
to insure that merit principles formed the foundation for all
personnel actions and regulations, specifically by identifying
and resolving conflicting provisions of the MOU's with the
Merit System' s PMR' s. On August 17, 1993 , the Board of
Supervisors accepted all of the recommendations made in Grand
Jury Report No. 9312 and further stated, "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" . The Board
has failed to hold the Chief Administrative Officer
(hereinafter "CAO") and the Personnel Department accountable
for not implementing any of the necessary actions to implement
its directives.
8 . The CAO recognized that some department heads did not have
plans to ensure that their employees were evaluated. On a
yearly basis, the CAO sends a memorandum to all department
heads outlining critical issues and the areas that should be
addressed in the departmental goals and objectives for that
year. In the CAO's January 15, 1992, memorandum to all
department heads, "Performance Evaluation" was identified as
one of the priority areas:
"8 . Performance Evaluation
If you have not already done so, please develop plans to
make sure that all of your employees are evaluated.
Please check with the Personnel Office to make sure that
any plans you develop are in accord with current
agreements with employee organizations. "
Most departments, including the CAO's office, remain in non-
compliance with the CAD' s directive.
Department Heads
9. Contra Costa County department heads are exempt from the Merit
System. The Board of Supervisors establishes the salary
compensation program and related personnel management for
these officials by Board resolution. It has been the Board
practice that department heads receive annual salary increases
at the same time and rate as those granted to all other County
employees.
10. The policy for annual performance evaluations for department
heads is embodied in Board Resolution No. 81/1007, 81/007a,
Board Orders of January 12, 1989, March 30, 1989 and August
17, 1993 .
•
3
11. The March 30, 1989, Board Order directed the County
Administrator " . . too complete an evaluation of each
appointed department head and those elected department .heads •
interested in participating in the evaluation program . . . " .
The new Department Head Evaluation Program was designed to
" • .. provide the CAO and the Board with an objective basis
for - determining the extent to which a department head has
achieved goals for which he or she has agreed to during a
given period of time. " The Board approved an evaluation form
for use in evaluating department heads.
12 . The new Department Head Evaluation Program also provided
" . a basis to reward those Department Heads who not only
achieve. their goals but exceed them to a marked extent. " The
Board authorized the CAO to allocate to each department head
an amount not to exceed 5% of the department head' s annual
salary in recognition of outstanding performance based upon
the yearly performance evaluation.
13 . Some thought had been given to extending the evaluation
program to various levels of middle management staff in county
departments. The evaluation program being proposed was viewed
as a pilot program and limited to department heads during
1989. "Depending on the success of the program during 1989
. 11 , the Board would determine, 11 . . . the appropriateness
of extending the program to other managers at various levels
in County government. "
14 . In 1990, "it was determined that the department head evaluation
forms did not provide sufficient linkagebetween the
department head's performance and the goals and objectives of
the department and the evaluation form was discontinued.
15. The Board policy establishing the Department Head Evaluation
Program, sans the "evaluation form", continued for department
heads only and was not extended to other managers in the
County.
16. Procedurally, the CAO views the department heads' annual
evaluation process as a year-long activity -comprised of:
• CAO directives on goals, objectives and performance
standards;
• CAO review/approval of department head's plan to achieve
goals and objectives;
• CAO monitoring of performance during the year;
• CAO letter to department head evaluating performance.
•
4
17 . The Grand Jury audited the CAO's compliance with the Board's
Department Head Evaluation Program for performance rendered in
the years 1990, 1991, 1992 , and 1993 and related salary
increases for said performance periods. These records
revealed:
• Of the 75 opportunities to give annual evaluations, 57%
of the opportunities resulted in written evaluations and
43% resulted in no written evaluation.
• Of the 75 salary increases granted to department heads,
57% had written evaluations and 43% of the increases were
approved without a written evaluation.
(Note: Compensation increases may have been effective in the
same calendar year or in the next calendar year. )
TABLE A summarizes the audit.
18 . Only 1 of the 42 department head evaluations contained any
comments related to the CAO's directive to all department
heads "to make sure that all your employees are evaluated. "
19 . There is no requirement for the CAO's evaluation of department
heads to be reviewed by the Board of Supervisors to ensure
that the department head receives a fair and objective
performance evaluation related to the goals for which he or
• she has agreed to during a given period.
20. On August 17, 1993, the Board approved an order superseding
the March 30, 1989 Board Order and thereby replaced the
Department Head Evaluation Program with a new Performance
Based Incentive Program. The new plan included:
• Identification of measurable performance indicators for
each department. These objectives were to " . . . be
measurable so that anyone could see whether or not they
were achieved. "
• Both unrepresented and represented employees (subject to
meet and confer as appropriate) would be eligible to
received one-time performance incentive pay if they
receive outstanding performance evaluations.
• The performance objectives and evaluation would need to
be specific to a given employee, and departments would
not be permitted to provide "across the board" financial
incentives to all employees.
21. The Board directed the CAO to develop performance indicators
for each department. On December 14, 1993, the CAO responded
to the Board with department performance indicators focused on
outcomes rather than just workloads or activities.
5
• Some of the performance indicators have been classified
as "preliminary" . The CAO believes the "first round" of
indicators will be refined as departments gain more
experience with outcome-oriented evaluation systems.
CAO Executive Staff
22 . The Grand Jury audited the extent to which senior executives
on the CAO's received written performance evaluations for
performances rendered in the years 1990, 1991, 1992 and 1993
and salary increases for said performance periods. These
records revealed:
• Of the 28 opportunities to give annual evaluations, 36%
of the opportunities resulted in written evaluations and
64% resulted in no written evaluations.
• Of the 28 salary lincreases granted to executives on the
CAO's staff, 36% had written evaluations, and 64% of the
salary increases were approved without written
evaluations.
(Note: Compensation increases may have been effective in
the same calendar year or in the next calendar year. )
• 5 of the 7 executives did not receive performance
evaluations for three consecutive years.
TABLE B summarizes thelaudit.
County Administrator
23 . The CAO is exempt from the Merit System and reports directly
to the Board of Supervisors. The Board has sole
responsibility for thel personnel management of the CAO,
including the establishment of a compensation program.
24 . On March 3 , 1992 , the Board approved Resolution No. 92/128
which established a fi��e-year, no-cut employment agreement
with the CAO. The employment agreement specifies that the CAO
shall receive annual salary increases at the same time and
rate as are granted by the Board to all other management and
unrepresented classifications.
25. Neither the CAO's employment agreement or Board policy
requires the Board to:
• Establish or approve annual written performance
objectives for the CAO.
• Give the CAO a writtlen annual performance evaluation.
• Link compensation increases with performance.
6
26. The Grand Jury subpoenaed all documents from the Board related
to the CAO' s performance objectives, performance evaluations,
and salary increases for performance rendered for the years
1990, 1991, 1992 , and 1993 . The response to the subpoena
revealed that the Board of Supervisors:
• Did not establish or approve any written performance
objectives for the CAO for any of the years 1990, 1991,
1992 , or 1993 .
• Did not provide the CAO a written performance evaluation
for any of the years 1990, 1991, 1992 , or 1993 . Although
there was no supporting documentation provided, the Board
indicated they "periodically" gave the CAO informal
verbal feedback in "closed sessions" .
• Awarded the CAO salary increases for services rendered in
1990, 1991, 1992 , and 1993 .
TABLE C summarizes the audit.
CONCLUSIONS
1. An effective performance evaluation , system requires the
commitment of the Board of Supervisors, the CAO, and the
department heads to invest the necessary time to make it
mutually beneficial for the employee and for the County, and
• ultimately for the service recipient and the taxpayer.
'The leadership of an organization must first understand the
"outcomes" it wants to achieve, and then, with each employee,
determine their specific and measurable contribution to said
outcomes. Line supervisors need to monitor progress, provide
and take employees' feedback and take corrective action, as
_ appropriate, throughout the year. The written performance
,. appropriate,
should become the culmination of a year-long
communications process between an employee and the supervisor.
It should link compensation with performance and set the stage
for what needs to be accomplished in an annual evaluation
period.
With fewer resources, Contra Costa County, now more than ever,
must clearly direct its attention to meeting the demands of
its citizens and taxpayers. A performance evaluation process
and system is absolutely essential as a tool for, establishing
priorities and directing attention among the work force, from
entry level personnel to the senior management team. The
leadership of Contra Costa County must commit to make this
strategic investment.
2 . The voter-mandated merit principles and fundamental personnel
management practices have been compromised by the Board of
Supervisors, the CAO, and many department heads and management
• employees. Employees, at all levels, can go several years
without ever receiving:
7
• Written performance objectives for which they are
responsible and accountable.
• Written performance evaluations based on previously •
established objictives
. while still continuing to receive increases in salary
which may not be linked to their performance results.
3 . The county's personnel management policies and practices are
deficient for both Inew employees, as well as those who
typically reach the top of their salary range in 3 1/2 years.
Prior to an employee reaching the top step of their salary
range, the regulations at least require the department to
certify that an employee' s performance is satisfactory before
their salary is increased. This certification can be met,
however, by merely checking a box on the Salary Review Report,
since there is no explicit requirement for establishing
Written objectives, (evaluating performance against those
objectives, communicating the evaluation in writing to the
employee, or linking the salary increase to the employee's
performance.
This personnel management deficiency is further compounded,
however, once the employee reaches the top step in his/her
salary range, since at this point, there is no longer any
county-wide policy or procedure compelling any review of the
employee's performance~. •
4 . Since many MOU's state that the performance of each employee
shall be reviewed, "except employees already at the maximum
step in the salary range" , management has put itself in a
position to negotiate with the employee bargaining units to
expand performance evaluations. The need to "meet and confer"
on what would seem to be a clear management prerogative can
constrain a departments initiative to evaluate performance
beyond the first 3 1/2 years of an employee's career.
5. Since there is questionable linkage between performance and
increases in salary as aIn employee advances to the top step in
the salary range, and non linkage required or implied from that
point forward, step increases in salary, and particularly
COLA's tend to be viewed as "automatic". This can result in
serious consequences. The whole notion of "merit"-based
compensation providing �an incentive for an individual to
increase his/her productivity and professionalism was one of
the expected benefits oflreplacing the old civil service with
a 'merit system. Such benefits become jeopardized, however,
when there is ' little or no substantive differentiation in
financial rewards among lthe work force. When mediocrity is
rewarded at the same rate as outstanding performance, it can,
over time, become the norm.
•
8
6. The voters mandated that the civil service system be replaced
and have trusted that their elected representatives and the
County's senior management team have effectively implemented
a merit system over the past 14 years. Regretfully, the
public' s trust has not been justified. Corrective policies by
the Board can, however, restore the intent and expectations of
the voters.
For example, the Board' s new Performance Based Incentive
Program recognizes that past practices of providing "across
the board" financial incentives to all employees will not be
permitted in the new program. This is a positive step, since
recognizing a problem is a prerequisite to finding a solution.
The new Performance Based Incentive Program only applies to
one-time performance incentive pay. It does not address the
problem of granting across-the-board COLA's to all employees.
The very term, "cost-of-living adjustment, " tends to
perpetuate the stereotypical mindset of "automatic pay
increases" prevalent under the previous civil service system
and should be eliminated.
7 . Accordingly, any increase in compensation, whether it be the
result of progression within the steps of the salary range, or
the periodic expansion of the .salary range, or one-time bonus
pay, should all be based on merit alone and directly linked to
an individual 's performance. As a good employer, Contra Costa
County offers salary ranges that are highly competitive with
the marketplace, and which can provide the desired financial
incentive for outstanding performance. What is required
however, is a paradigm shift on the part of the Board and the
management team to fully accept and implement a merit-based
system. In a true merit system, . the upper end of a position's
salary range should be reserved for the top performers and
increasing the top of the range should not result in all
employees "automatically" having their salary increased to the
higher top.
8. The Board's current practice, of granting the CAO and
department heads annual increases at the sametime and rate as
are granted to all other county employees, creates a conflict
of interest for the CAO and the senior management team. With
labor costs representing 85% of the budget, it is critical for
management to exercise prudent control as they negotiate
salary increases with employee bargaining units to ensure the
delivery of quality services at the lowest possible cost.
Such control, however, will have a direct and immediate impact
on their own salary, since whatever salary increase is
granted, or not granted, to county employees, is also granted,
or not granted, to them. The taxpayer is not well served with
the management team having such an inherent conflict of
interest in the outcome of salary negotiations.
9
9. In addition to the absence of explicit county-wide policies
requiring a performance evaluation system for all employees,
the limitations of current MOU's, the county' s practice of
automatic "across the board" salary increases, and an inherent
conflict of interest in negotiating salary increases, there .
also appears to be a major deficiency in leadership and
accountability in the county.
There is one employee classification, department heads, for
which there currently exists an explicit policy requiring that
they be evaluated annually, and that increases in compensation
be directly linked to their individual performance. Yet,
although salary increases were granted, 43% of the time
written evaluations were not given to the department heads.
Additionally, 64% of the time, the CAO' s Executive Staff did
not receive written performance evaluations.
The CAO directed the department heads to make sure that all of
their employees were evaluated. It is not surprising that
there is wide variance among the department heads in their
compliance with the CAO's directive, when the CAO, himself, is
out of compliance with the Board's policy.
The CAO and department heads, as an executive team, are well
compensated, with most costing the taxpayers over $100, 000 a
year. They are paid to perform and are expected to perform.
There is no acceptable excuse for department heads not being
100% in compliance with the CAO's directive or the CAO not
being in 100% compliance with the Board's policy on the •
Department Head Evaluation Program—
The lack of leadership is also demonstrated by our elected
representatives, the Board of Supervisors. The Board has
stated they want all employees to have written performance
evaluations based on written performance objectives and that
compensation increases should be directly linked to'
performance. Yet, they have consistently failed to perform
these fundamental management and merit principles in
fulfilling their personnel management responsibilities with
the CAO.
Mixed messages are coming from the Board of Supervisors and
the CAO and department heads. Until their actions are "in
_sync" with their words, the current deficiencies identified in
this investigation will continue and the public trust will
continue to be violated.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The 1993-94 Contra Costa County Grand Jury recommends that the
Board of Supervisors, within 60 days:
1. Develop and approve a county-wide performance evaluation and
compensation policy that explicitly contains the following
provisions:
10
a. Applies to all employees (represented and unrepresented) .
® b. Recognizes that all compensation is to be merit-based and
accordingly:
• Performance objectives, evaluation and earned
compensation must be specific to a given employee.
• "Across the board" salary increases or other
financial incentives will not be permitted. cost
of living adjustments will be eliminated for all
management employees effective, January 1, 1995 and
"phased out" for represented employees when current
MOU' s terminate with the respective employee
bargaining units.
• Salary ranges for all positions will be sufficient
to attract and retain qualified employees and will
continueto be monitored to ensure their
competitiveness within the marketplace.
• To be eligible for compensation at the top of a
position's salary range, or to receive performance
incentive pay, will require that an employee
receive an "Outstanding" rating on his./her
performance evaluation. A rating of "Completely
Satisfactory" will enable an employee to be,
compensated up to 80% of the position's top salary.
® This will be effective for all management employees
effective January 1, 1995 and "phased in" for
represented employees when current MOU's terminate
with the respective employee bargaining units.
C. Require each supervisor to:
• Establish, with each employee, measurable and
written objectives for a given period.
• Provide feedback to employees throughout the year
on their performance compared to the objectives.
• Prepare an annual written performance evaluation
for each employee.
• Obtain approval of the proposed evaluation from the
respective department head.
• Review the approved performance evaluation with
each employee.
• Use the performance evaluation as the basis for
granting any salary increase.
11
2 . Eliminate the current practice, and the resulting conflict of
interest, of having the CAO and department head salary
increases tied to the same rate that is granted for all county
employees. Instead, provide the senior management team the
financial incentive to provide quality service at the lowest
possible cost.
3 . Create a Personnel Committee of the Board whose
responsibilities would include, but are not limited to:
• Overseeing the development of policies and procedures
required to implement these Grand Jury recommendations
and monitoring the implementation and compliance of same.
• Developing performance objectives with the CAO, and
presenting same to the total Board for approval in open
session.
• Monitoring performance objectives and providing quarterly
reports to the Board in open session.
• Drafting a proposed performance evaluation for the CAO to
be approved by the total Board and, reviewed with the CAO
in closed session.
• Recommending proposed compensation changes for the CAO to
the Board for approval in open session.
• Proposing to the Board modifications in the CAO's •
employment agreement to incorporate the applicable Grand
Jury recommendations contained in this Report.
• Reviewing and approving the CAO's proposed performance
evaluations of department heads and CAO Executive Staff
in closed session. Reviewing and approving the CAO's
proposed compensation increases for department heads and
the CAO Executive Staff for the total Board to approve in
open session.
4. Issue a resolution to never again allow itself to negotiate
employment agreements which will obligate the county to pay
for long-term no-cut contracts.
5. Direct the CAO and the Personnel Department to immediately
comply with the August 17, 1993 Board directive in order for
the County to comply with the voter mandate on the Merit
System.
12
TABLE A
DEPARTMENT HEAD EVALUATIONS &COMPENSATION
ANNUAL
• DEPARTMENT COMPENSATION* BENEFITS TOTAL '90 '91 '92 '93
HEALTH SERVICES $142,456 $38,880 $181,336 NIS Y/$ N/$ Y/$
COUNSEL $128,369 $34,935 $163,304 Y/$ N/$ N/$ Y/$
PUBLIC DEFENDER $124,692 $33,906 $158,598 Y/$ Y/$ N/$ Y/$
GMEDA $118,784 $32,252 $157,036 NA N/$ N/$ Y/$
PUBLIC WORKS $109,715 $29,712 $139,427 Y/$ Y/$ N/$ Y/$ .
SOCIAL SERVICE $109,406 $29,626 $139,032 Y/$ Y/$ N/$ Y/$
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT $102,749 $27,762 $130,511 Y/$ Y/$ N/$ Y/$
GENERAL SERVICES $96083 $26,147 $123,130 Y/$ Y/$ N/$ Y/$
PERSONNEL $95,861 $25,833 $121,694 Y/$ N/$ N/$ Y/$
LIBRARIAN $93,771 $25,248 $119,019 N/$ N/$ N/$ Y/$
BUILDING INSPECTION $91,810 $240699 $116,509 Y/$ Y/$ N/$ Y/$
PROBATION $91,449 $24,598 $116,047 Y/$ N/$ N/$ Y/$
COMMUNITY SERVICES $77,943 $20,816 $98,757 N/$ N/$ N/$ Y/$
WEIGHTS&MEASURE $76,911 $20,527 $97,438 Y/$ Y/$ N/$ Y/$
EMERGENCY SERVICES $76,046 $20,285 $96,331 N/$ N/$ Y/$ Y/$
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION $75,982 $20,267 $96,249 N/$ N/$ Y/$ Y/$
ANIMAL SERVICES $75,892 $20,242 $96,134 Y/$ N/$ Y/$ Y/$
AGING $69,222 $18,374 $87,596 Y/$ N/$ Y/$ N/$
VETERAN SERVICES $57,109 $14,983 $72,092 Y/$ Y/$ N/$ Y/$
* The annual compensation package plus the estimated cost of employee benefits equals the taxpayers'expense for these
positions. Annual Compensation includes Base Salary(Board-approved Top Step effective 1/1/95),Management Longevity
Pay,and Executive Automobile Allowance. It does not include Performance Incentive Pay,which can be up to 5%of the
department head's base salary.
LEGEND
Y- A written evaluation based on performance rendered during the previous 12 months was completed. Evaluation may have been given in
the same calendar year or the following calendar year,i,e.,performance evaluation could have been given in January, 1994 for
performance rendered in 1993.
N- A written evaluation was not given for performance rendered during the previous 12 months.
® 5= (Increased compensation(salary step increase,COLA,or Department Head Bonus Pay)was given for performance rendered during the
1 previous 12 months. Compensation increase may have been effective in same calendar year or in the next.calendar year. For example,
salary was increased increased in October, 1990 for performance rendered in 1990;salary was increased in February,1992 for
performance rendered in 1991;salary was increased in April, 1994 for services rendered in 1993.
13
TABLE B
CAO EXECUTIVE STAFF EVALUATIONS &COMPENSATION
ANNUAL
TITLE COMPENSATION* BENEFITS TOTAL '90 191 '92 19
CHIEF ASSISTANT $98,956 $27,708 $126,664 N/S NJ$ NJ$ Y/$
ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR $95,073 $26,620 $121,693 N/$ N/$ N/$ Y/$
SENIOR DEPUTY $82,521 $23,106 $105,627 Y/$ NJ$ N/$ Y/$
SENIOR DEPUTY $76,071 $21,300 $97,371 N/$ N/$ N/$ Y/$
SENIOR DEPUTY $76,071 $21,300 $97,371 N/$ N/$ Y/$ Y/$
DEPUTY $72,372 $20,264 $92,636 N/$ N/$ Y/$ Y/$
DEPUTY $72,372 $20,264 $92,636 NJ$ N/$ NJ$ Y/$
* The annual compensation package plus the estimated cost of employee benefits equals the taxpayers'expense for these
positions. Annual Compensation includes Base Salary, (Board-approved Top Step effective 1/1/95)and Management Longevity
Pay.
TABLE C
CAO EVALUATIONS &COMPENSATION
ANNUAL COMPENSATION* BENEFITS TOTAL 190 '91 '92 '93
$152,447 $40,575 $193,022 NJ$ NJ$ NJ$ N/$
I
* The annual compensation package plus the estimated cost of CAO benefits equals the taxpayers expense for this position.
Annual Compensation includes Base Salary(Employment Agreement plus `90 increases approved by the Board through 1/1/95),
Management Longevity Pay,Lump-Sum Deferred Compensation,and Executive Automobile Allowance.
LEGEND
Y= A written evaluation based on performance rendered during the previous 12 months was completed. Evaluation may have been given in
die same calendar year or the following calendar year,i.e,performance evaluation could have been given in January, 1994 for
performance rendered in 1993.
N= A written evaluation was not given for performance rendered during the previous 12
months.
S- Increased compensation(salary step increase,COLA,or Department Head Bonus Pay)was given for performance rendered during the
previous 12 months. Compensation increase may have been effective in same calendar year or in the next calendar year. For
example, Salary was increased increased in October,1990 for performance rendered in 1990;salary was increased in February,1992'
for performance rendered in 1991;salary was increased in April, 1994 for services rendered in 1993.
14
A REPORT BY
THE 1993-94 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GRAND JURY
1020 Ward Street
Martinez, CA 94553
(510) 646-2345
Report No. 9407
KELLER CANYON LANDFILL
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY' S CASH COW?
Approved by the Grand Jury:
Date:
Judith- M. Mullin
Grand Jury Foreman
Accepted for Filing:
Date C
ichard E. Arnason
Judge of the Superior Court
SECTION 933 (C) OF THE CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE
§933. Comments and Reports on Grand Jury
Recommendations.
(c) No later than 90 days after the brand jury submits
a final report on the operations of any public agency
subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body
of the public agency shall comment to the presiding
judge of the superior court on the findings and
recommendations pertaining to matters under the control
of the governing body,and every elective county officer
or agency head for which the grand jury has
responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment
within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior
court, with an information copy sent to the board of
supervisors, on the findings and recommendations
pertaining to matters under the control of that county
officer or agency head and any agency or agencies which
that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In
any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on
the findings and recommendations. All such comments •
and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding
judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand
jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall
be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and
the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when
applicable,and shall remain on file in those offices. One
copy shall be placed on file with the applicable grand
jury final report by, and in the control of the currently
impaneled grand jury,where it shall be maintained for a
minimum of five years. Leg.H. 1961 ch. 1284, 1963
ch. 674, 1974 chs. 393, 1396, 1977 chs. 107, 187, 1980
ch. 543, 1981 ch. 203, 1982 ch. 1408 §5, 1985 ch. 221
§1, effective July 12, 1985, 1987 ch. 690 §1, 1988 ch.
1297.
Cross-References
Admissible evidence. Penal Code §939.6.
"Grand jury"defined. Penal Code§888.
Grand jury report to be based only on own investigation. Penal
Code §939.9.
•
INTRODUCTION:
• The base rate for Keller Canyon Landfill was not set in the best
interest of rate-payers and provides an exorbitant profit for
Browning Ferris Industries-Keller Canyon Landfill Company (BFI-
KCLC) . The Grand Jury further notes that current negotiations with
BFI-KCLC to guarantee a long-term waste stream .are ill-advised,
until all waste disposal alternatives are explored and considered.
FINDINGS:
1. Contra Costa County rate-payers are charged one of the highest
per ton dumping or tipping rates in the State at $75 . 95 per
ton, of which $49 . 08 is the base rate at Keller Canyon
Landfill. The balance of the tipping fee goes to Acme Fill
Corporation to operate the Acme Transfer Station.
2 . Contra Costa County has responsibility for establishing
tipping fees. The Board of Supervisors approved the current
base rate of $49 . 08 for Keller Canyon Landfill on August 11,
1992 . Of this amount, $38 . 48 goes directly to BFI-KCLC;
$3 . 85, charged as 10% of the base rate, goes to the County as
a surcharge; $6..00 goes to the County in mitigation fees; and
$. 75 goes to the State. (Table A lists all fees/charges
assessed by all governmental entities at the transfer station
and landfill. )
® 3 . Current tonnage for Keller Canyon Landfill is between 250,000
to 300, 000 tons per year.
4 . As stated in Grand Jury Report No. 9403 : (1) Since its
approval, several governmental entities have questioned the
base rate as being excessive and have claimed that the rate' s
rationale is faulty; (2) The questioned amounts, if found to
be improperly charged, could result in a substantial reduction
to the tipping fee; and (3) Interested parties have repeatedly
requested background documentation and working papers used to
support the current rate.
5. Contrary to requirements of the Public Records Act, the County
continues to stonewall release -of certain background
documentation, specifically, the work papers held at the rate-
setting consultant's facilities (any reputable accounting
consulting firm routinely prepares a set of work papers which
supports its conclusions and recommendations; such work papers
would include spreadsheets, calculations, documents, and
correspondence) .
6. The reasonableness of the established rate is questionable in
that among other factors: (1) it includes an accelerated
formula for return of capital investment to BFI-KCLC; and, (2)
it used a pricing model applicable to a competitive market
place rather than to a lower-risk regulated environment.
1
7. Use of the Keller Canyon Landfill was considered, by those
originally involved inlsetting the rate, to be primarily the
County's only garbage solid waste option. There is currently •
no legal or binding obligation to use Keller Canyon Landfill.
Other options have become known and are being seriously
considered by other governmental entities within the County.
8 . Recent U: S. Supreme Court decisions have ruled that waste is
free to be transported from county to county and state to
state.
9 . The waste-by-rail-to-landfill option is actively pursued in
other counties in the State. Rail-haul to neighboring states
is considered viable and cost effective.
10 . BFI-KCLC has made an offer to the County to lower its rate and
to indemnify the County from the Acme Landfill closure lawsuit
in return for a guar�anteecl waste stream. The County is
currently negotiating I with BFI-KCLC on such an arrangement.
The current rate' s questionable rationale, together with an
uncertain estimate for the Acme closure lawsuit, are being
used as the basis from Iwhich to negotiate with BFI-KCLC on the
new rate and guaranteed waste stream.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. Since the County has been remiss in releasing the rate-setting
consultant's work papers that were paid for with taxpayers'
money, it may be concluded that accusations of the rate being
excessive are correct
2 . Because the County collects a 10% surcharge on the base rate,
there is an incentive for the Board of Supervisors to approve
a higher rate. The higher the base rate, the more dollars
filling the County coffers with a hidden tax.
3 . Agreement by the County to a guaranteed waste stream
effectively removes all other disposal options which may be
more cost effective to rate-payers.
4. It is inappropriate to negotiate away all competitive options
by ' guaranteeing a long-term waste stream to Keller Canyon
Landfill until a fair and reasonable basis for Keller Canyon
Landfill base rate, and a reliable estimate for costs related
to the Acme Landfill closure, can be established.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors:
1. Immediately provide to all requesting parties all documents
related to the basis for establishing the current base rate, •
including those maintained at the rate-setting consultant's
facilities.
2
2. Immediately seek expert advice and public input to determine
the best available, viable, cost-effective options, including
those involving shipping solid waste out of the County.
3 . Immediately suspend all current negotiations with BFI-KCLC
until Recommendation #2 above is accomplished.
4 . Within sixty (60) days, develop a policy to eliminate possible
improprieties whenever a County fee is assessed. Direct that
it be done on the basis of a fixed dollar amount, rather than
the standard practice of percentages.
COMMENTS:
Conflicts of interest abound in the County ' s handling of solid
waste management. The Board of Supervisors must carefully look at
hidden motives and conflicts when it considers a fair and reason-
able price for garbage disposal. For example, if one is paying
$100 for a service when the fair and reasonable price is $50, a
price reduction to $75 should not be considered a good "deal" .
•
•
3
TABLE A-
FEES/CHARGES PER TON CHARGED BY GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES AT
KELLER CANYON LANDFILL AND ACME TRANSFER STATION r
AMOUNT GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY PURPOSE
$3 .85 Contra Costa County Surcharge (Franchise Fee)
(charged as 10%. of Keller
Canyon Landfill base rate)
$2 . 12 Contra Costa County Household Hazardous Waste Fee
(increased from $ . 41 on July
1, 1993)
$2 . 00 Contra Costa County Open .Space and Agricultural
Preservation Mitigation Fee
$2 . 00 Contra Costa County Transportation Mitigation Fee
$2 . 00 Contra Costa County Host Community Mitigation Fee
$1. 00 Contra Costa County Local Enforcement Agency Fee
$1. 00 Contra Costa County Resource Recovery Fee
$.95 Contra Costa County/ AB 939 Fee--collected by the •
East and Central the County ($. 15 goes to the
County Cities County; $. 80 goes to East and
Central County cities)
$.75 State of California Solid Waste Disposal Site
Cleanup and Maintenance Fee
(Eastin Fee) --increases to
$1. 34 on July 1, 1994
$.45 Contra Costa County Rate Review Consultant Fee
$. 05 Contra Costa County County Landfill Development
Coordinator.
4
A REPORT BY
THE 1993-94 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GRAND JURY
1020 Ward Street
Martinez, CA 94553
(510) 646-2345
Report No. 9408
RECOMMENDATIONS OF
AND RESPONSES TO
1992-93 GRAND JURY REPORTS
Approved by the Grand Jury:
Date:
u i h M. Mullin
Grand Jury Foreman
Accepted for Filing:
i
D e: �1"f , - — _
Richard E. Amason
Judge of the Superior Court
SECTION 933(c) OF THE CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE
Sec. 933. Findings and recommendations; comment of
governing bodies, elective officers, or agency heads.
(c) No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a
final report on the operations of any public agency subject
to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public
agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior
court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to
matters under the control of the governing body, and every
elective county officer or agency head for which the grand
jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall
comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the
superior court, with an information copy sent to the board
of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations
pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer
or agency head and any agency or agencies which that
officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city
and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings
and recommendations. All such comments and reports shall •
forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior
court who impaneled the grand jury. A copy of all
responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with
the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county
clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file
in those offices. One copy shall be placed on file with the
applicable grand jury final report by, and in the control of
the currently impaneled grand jury, where it shall be
maintained for a minimum of five years. (Added by Stats.
1961, c. 1284, § 1. Amended by Stats. 1963, c. 674, § 1;
Stats. 1974, c. 393, § 6; Stats. 1974, c. 1396, § 3; Stats.
1977, c. 107, § 6; Stats. 1977, c. 187, § 1; Stats. 1980, c.
543, § 1; Stats. 1981, c. 203, § 1; Stats. 1982, c. 1408, §S;
Stats. 1985, c. 221, § 1; Stats. 1987, c. 690, § 1; Stats.
1988, c. 1297, §5.)
Former § 933, added by Stats. 1982, c. 1408, § 6, amended by Stats.
1985,c. 221, § 2, operative Jan. 1, 1989, was repealed by Stats. 1987,
c.690, § 2.
Former § 933, added by Stats. 1959, c. 501, § 2, was repealed by
Stats. 1959,c. 1812, § 3. •
INTRODUCTION:
The Contra Costa County Grand Jury's primary role is to enhance the public's awareness of the
activities of its local government and many special districts. To attain that goal, the Grand Jury
publishes papers commenting on various aspects of governmental activities and offering
recommendations. In accordance with Section 933(c) of the California Penal Code,the
governing body of a public agency or its designated administrator must respond to these
recommendations to the presiding judge within ninety days. Elected officials must respond to
recommendations within sixty days. These responses are a matter of public record. The
recommendations and responses to the 1992-93 Grand Jury reports are included in this report.
Analysis of Responses to Grand Jury
Year Total Accept Accept/ Accept/ Non-response Reject
As Modified Partial
1990-91 389 287 67 35
1991-92 75 43 9 2 1 20
1992-93 60 32 14 8 6
a
EXPLANATION OF CODE WORDS USED
Code Word Meaning
1.Accept(A) Recommendation was/will.be implemented.
2.Accept/As Modified(AM) Essence of recommendation was agreed to, but
wastwill be implemented in a different manner.
3.Accept/Partial(AP) Part of the recommendation was accepted and
was/will be implemented and part was rejected
and will not be implemented.
4.No Response(N) No response to the recommendation.
5.Non-response(NR) A response was received but did not
adequately address the recommendation.
6.Reject(R) Recommendation will not be implemented.
1
I
Report Number Title i Agency Status
9301 Hazardous Materials Board of Supervisors(BOS)
Program Violates Public Trust
Recommendation#1: I Accept/As Modified
Ifnmediately relieve the Health Services Department of responsibility for implementation of
Section 25500 of the Health and Safety Code.
Response:
As noted in the attached Plan of Correction,the County Administrator has directed that an
identified individual be assigned responsibility for accomplishing each of the responses to the
eleven identified issues and to do so by specified date.The County Administrator has also
directed that detailed sheets be prepared on each issue in order to provide the status, on a bi-
weekly basis, of the progress toward accomplishing each of the identified objectives. We assume
that underlying the Grand Jury's recommendation was the basic interest in getting the identified
problems "fixed".
At this time, it appears to the Board of Supervisors that satisfactory progress is being made on
each of the identified issues. The bi-weekly meetings are continuing for the indefinite future.
Whether it will eventually be necessary to remove the Hazardous Materials Programs from the
Health Services Department will depend on the continued progress which is made in the coming
months. It is important to note that the Hazardous Materials Programs need to be coordinated
closely with Public Health and the general Environmental Health Programs."
Recommendation#2. II Accept/As Modified
Immediately reassign the Hazardous Materials Division, on an Interim basis, to the office of the
County Administrator pending a complete assessment of corrective actions necessary to bring •
the County into compliance with AB 2185.
Response: t
"The County Administrator and Health Services Director will be responsible for continuing to
assess the corrective actions which are necessary to bring the County into compliance with AB
2185.
It appears that the important objectivie here is to give the identified problems a high priority for
resolution,to develop a realistic action plan, and then to closely monitor progress toward
achieving the identified objectives. We do not believe that an immediate organizational
reassignment to the County Administrator's Office is necessary in order to achieve these
objectives. The increased involvement of the County Administrator through bi-weekly meetings
with Health Services staff and the on-going involvement of the County Administrator,who chairs
the Hazardous Materials Council, are believed to be sufficient to insure rapid progress in
resolving the identified problems.The County Administrator will continue to evaluate the need
for any other organizational changes.The Board of Supervisors believes the progress which is
being made, as is evidenced by the Plan of Correction, accomplishes the Grand Jury's
underlying goal."
i
Recommendation#3: I Accept
Immediately authorize new position, Director of Hazardous Materials, to be funded from AB 2185
revenues and direct the County Administrator to fill the position within sixty days of the
authorization. Responsibilities of the Director of Hazardous Materials should include developing
and instituting standard operating procedures supervise staff to insure the Hazardous Materials
operations comply,with all county and state mandates.
Response: Accept j
•
2
Recommendation#4: Accept/As Modified
Concurrently, appoint a Hazardous Materials Task Force comprised of community, business,
local government, and fire district representatives. The Task Force will evaluate organizational
models including, but not limited to, decentralization, integration within local fire districts of
inspection and emergency responses services as well as privatization of these services.
a. Within 120 days of appointment,the Task Force present its recommendations for a
proposed Area Plan and Inspection Plan to the Board of Supervisors. Funding required
to support the Task Force to be paid from AB 2185 revenues.
b. Within 30 days of receiving the recommendations of the Hazardous Materials Task
Force, The Board of Supervisors approve the updated Area Plan and Inspection Plan
and submit them to the State of California for certification.
Reser oonnse:
"The Hazardous Materials Commission will be responsible for evaluating alternative
organizational structures for the Hazardous Materials Division and for providing their
recommendations to the Internal Operations Committee...'
The Hazardous Materials Commission is also asked to consider the wisdom of making changes
to the membership of the Commission in order to provide additional seats for individuals
representing those communities which are most likely to be impacted by hazardous materials
and hazardous waste releases and to report their conclusions and recommendations to the
Internal Operations Committee.
The Health Services Director will be responsible for insuring that the Area Plan and Inspection
Plan are presented to the Hazardous Materials Commission for the Commission's review in a
timely manner...."
• Recommendation#5: Accept
Immediately establish a method for continuous monitoring of the performance of the Hazardous
Materials Division to assure citizens of compliance with all county and state Hazardous Materials
mandates.
Response: Accept
Report Number Title Agency Status
9302 Consultant costs- CCWD
Contra Costa Water District CCWD
Recommendation#1: Reject
Within thirty days, adopt a policy prohibiting the hiring of retired members of the Board of
Directors as paid consultants.
Res oonnse:
"The Board of Directors does not agree with this recommendation. It is the Board's position that
there may be occasions where it is necessary, as a result of the unique experience, background,
and other qualifications of an individual, that retention would be to the benefit of the CCWD for
limited term.
The Board has, however, directed staff to prepare an amendment to the Code of Regulations
providing for specific criteria which would be considered with respect to the use of a former
employee as a consultant. It is expected that the Board of Directors will consider an amendment
• to the Code of Regulations within the next 30 days. The policy will contain criteria to be used in
3
deciding on their qualifications for retention, requirements for a specific scope of work in the
contracts, and a limit for the contract."
Recommendation#2: Accept
Within thirty days, amend its policy to include a specific justifiable time limit in the use of former
employees as consultants.
Responses: Accept
Recommendation#3: Accept
Within thirty days, develop implement apolicy to insure that all consultant contracts be specific
in scope of service.
Response: Accept
Recommendation#4: Accept
Direct the Internal Auditor to immediately include in his examination all consulting expenses.
Response: Accept
Recommendation #5: Reject
Immediately comply with its own Code of Ethics.
Response:
"The Board of Directors disagrees with the premise of this recommendation. It is the opinion of
the Board of Directors that they are in compliance with the CCWD Code of Ethics and no action
is required."
Recommendation#6: Reject
Immediately exercise its option to terminate the contracts of the two consultants.
Response:
"The 1992-93 contracts for Messrs. Devito and Randall expired June 30, 1993. The 1993-94
contracts will be considered by the Board of Directors in the immediate future. The Board's
decision with respect to either will be consistent with the policy direction set forth in
Recommendations No. 1 and 2 herein..."
Report Number Title Agency Status
9303 Summary Report Of Responses
to the 1992-93IGrand Jury Reports
No recommendations were made.
Report Number Title Agency Status
9304 The Need for Managerial BOS
Audits in Contra Costa County
Recommendation#1: Non-response r
Within six months, establish a Management Audit Program that insures that monies expended
will result in a net saving to the county) •
4
Response:
"This response is accepted.
The Board of Supervisors is in favor of management audits if by management audits the Grand
Jury has in mind the fixing of the purpose of a department or program, agreeing on a set of
objectives and measurable outcomes and then periodically reviewing the progress of the
department or program in achieving each of the agreed-upon objectives.
On April 22,1993,the Board of Supervisors adopted the ... guidelines for a Performance-Based
Budget,which includes the identification of the 3-5 most important measurable service outcomes
and performance standards for each department. In addition,Performance Objectives should be
adopted for each department,these Performance Objectives include the identified service
outcomes and performance standards, but also include other management objectives, such as
affirmative action and the delivery of courteous service to the public.
The formulation of such a Performance-Based Budget and the periodic review of the extent of
the extent to which the Performance Objectives are being achieved in each department is the
essence of the type of management audit which we believe the Grand Jury has in mind...."
Recommendation #2: Accept
The recommendations of the Management Audit Program should be made to the highest
possible level of responsibility.
Response: Accept
Report Number Title Agency Status
9305 Process Used to Inform BOS
Voters of Proposed
Benefit Assessments
Recommendation#1: Accept
The Board of Supervisors immediately adopt a policy that requires the presentation of complete
information concerning protests of assessments that can be imposed without a vote of the
people.
This proposed policy should include mailings, press releases and any other avenue used by the
Board of Supervisors in providing information to the voters.
Response: Accept
Report Number Title Agency Status
9306 Status of the County BOS
Fleet Management
Recommendation#1: Accept
Direct Fleet Management to complete a study to measure the saving that would be realized by
its owning all county vehicles and leasing them to the various general-funded departments. The
study should incorporate departments being charged on a depreciation schedule that would allow
savings over the life of individual vehicles for replacement costs. The study should be completed
before January 1994.
5
Response: Accept
Recommendation#2: Accept/As modified
"Require that Fleet Management costs be compared, on an ongoing basis, to private garages,
and when similar services can be provided by private vendors at less cost,work be let out by
contract based on the lowest responsible bid."
Response:
Currently, some of the fleet Management work is contracted out. Engine and transmission
overhauls, large welding jobs, body work, and radiator recores are contracted out. Cost
comparisons will continue to be made.Any further contracting out of work is a "meet and confer"
process with the employee organization. Furthermore, Government Code 31000, regarding
contracting out of maintenance, must be considered.... Sheriff patrol vehicles and public works
equipment receive top priority from Fleet Management. We cannot be assured of meeting the
same priority, particularly on an emergency basis, if the services for these vehicles are
contracted out."
Recommendation#3: Accept
Explore more efficient assignment of Itasks such as having mechanics assigned to service similar
make vehicles on a routine basis rather than rotating assignments based on arrival of vehicles.
Response: Accept
Recommendation#4: Accept
Enjoin Fleet Management to expedite installation of the new computer program for record
maintenance.
Response: Accept
I
Recommendation#5: I Accept/As Modified
Acknowledged experts should be engaged to consult with Architectural Services in the design of
the new garage to insure inclusion of all recent advances made in garage architecture., Plans for
the new garage should incorporate planning for the growth of the County's fleet needs for the
next 20 years.
Response:
"The Architectural Services Division has been working on a pre-design for a new Fleet Service
Center in the event that the Shell Avenue Corporation Yard is sold. A new facility will be based
on available funding. A new Shop will be combined with Building Maintenance, offering
economies of scale by having the two General Services divisions co-located to the fueling
facility." j
I
Recommendation#6: Accept
Expedite planning and construction of the garage to increase efficiency and cost-effectiveness of
the Fleet Management.
Response: Accept
Recommendation#7: Accept
Establish industry-based standards of productivity for Fleet Management mechanics.
I
Response: Accept
Recommendation#8• ;; Accept
•
I
f
I 6
i
Explore alternative providers for the routine oil change and service of vehicles by Fleet
Management mechanics.
Response: Accept
Report Number Title Agency Status
9307 Contra Costa County BOS
Alternative Defender Office(ADO)
Recommendation#1: Accept
Continue its support and overseeing of the Alternative Defender Office of the Public Defender.
es op nse: Accept
Recommendation #2: Reject
Evaluate granting official departmental status to the ADO.
Response*
"Departmental status is contrary to the concept of an Alternate Defender Office. The ADO must
be part of the Public Defender's Office and organized pursuant to guidelines established by
relevant case law."
Recommendation#3: Accept
Require the monitoring of case decisions arising out of ADO-defended cases, either in this
. county or elsewhere in the state.
Response: Accept
Report Number Title Agency Status
9309 Management of Pittsburg Pittsburg
Police Department City Council
Recommendation#1: Accept
The City Manager and the Chief of Police aggressively enforce Policy#86.001 to ensure that all
employees have a clear understanding of how to report sexual harassment complaints without
fear of retaliation; and to protect employees against sexual harassment.
Response: Accept
Recommendation#2: Accept
The City Manager and the Chief of Police immediately apply to the Commission on Police
Officers Standards and Training(POST) for an in-depth management study.
Response: Accept
Recommendation#3: Accept
The City Manager direct the Chief of Police to complete the implementation of.the Career_
Development Program.
esponse& Accept
7
Recommendation#4: Non-response
The City Manager immediately develop a formal contract with the Management Consultant that
outlines expectations and time frames for specific projects.
•Require a monthly progress report on specific
projects.
Re$ ou nse: . Non-response
Recommendation#5: Accept
Within 90 Days the City Manager review and evaluate Police.Department Policies and
Procedures.
Response: Accept
Recommendation#6: Non-response
Within 90 days the City Manager put in place a system to enforce compliance with these Policies
and Procedures.
Response: Non-response
Recommendation#7: Accept/As Modified
Within 90 days the City Manager re-open and aggressively pursue follow-up on cases involving
drug-buy money and narcotics.
Response:
"The Grand Jury's recommendation on"Drug Buy" cases was to vague to answer specifically.
However,we would like to reiterate the City aggressively pursues any evidence of illegal conduct •
on the part of employees."
Recommendation#8: Non-response
Within 90 days the City Manager require the Chief of Police to submit written monthly, quarterly
and annual reports to the City Manager.
Responses Non-response
Recommendation#9: . Non-response
The Chief of Police require monthly, quarterly and annual written reports from each Division
Commander.
Res oq nsee Non-response
Recommendation#10: Non-response
The Chief of Police immediately create a retrieval system for all memos and documents,
including requests, suggestions, concerns and complaints. In addition, a written response, when
appropriate, should be directed to the originator.
Response: Non-response
Recommendation#11: Non-response
Within 90 days, the Chief of Police require accountability and follow-up for the handling of
search warrants.
Response: Non-response
•
8
Recommendation#12: Accept
Within 90 days,the Chief of Police require that a support services supervisor be readily available
for support services staff.
Response: Accept
Recommendation#13: Non-response
The Chief of Police hold quarterly meetings with support services staff.
Response: Non-response
Report Number Title Agency Status
9310 KPMG Peat Marwick County Administrator
Audit Report
Recommendation: Accept
The County Administrator work with the Auditor/Controller to insure the timely completion of the
Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. If necessary, the assignment of additional personnel
should be considered to assist in accomplishing its timely completion.
Response: Accept
®
Report Number Title Agency Status
P 9 Y
9311 Use of Inmate Welfare Fund County Sheriff
Recommendation #1: Accept
Immediately remove three Sheriff Department employees from the Inmate Welfare Fund
Committee.
Response: Accept
Recommendation#2: Accept/As Modified
Within the next 90 days recruit and select both a Municipal and a Superior Court Judge to serve
on the Inmate Welfare Fund Committee.
Response:
"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."
Recommendation#3: Accept/As Modified
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.
Responsea
® "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
9
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."
Recommendation#4: I Accept/As Modified
Immediately establish an on-going system of review with the County Counsel's office to assure
the Committee that future purchases are the sole benefit, education, and welfare of the inmates
of the County facilities.
Response:
The County Counsel's Office is not able to review all Inmate Welfare Fund purchases. The
Sheriff will refer any questionable expenditures for Count Counsel review."
Recommendation #5: I Accept/As Modified
Immediately stop the use of Inmate Welfare Funds for facility maintenance.
Response:
The 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."
Recommendation#6: Accept •
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: Accept
Recommendation#7: I Accept
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: Accept
Report Number Title Agency Status
9312 Contra Costa County's BOS
Merit System ?
Recommendation#1: Accept
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 Systeim's Personnel •
Management Regulations.
B. Resolve the identified conflicts by recommending
10
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: Accept
Recommendation#2: Accept
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 tome of future contract negotiations with the
respective unions.
Response: Accept
Recommendation #3: Accept
Immediately agree to utilization of PMR 1701 to make any amendments to the PMR, giving
notice and voting in public session.
Response: Accept
Report Number Title Agency Status
9313 City of Concord Board of Directors
Redevelopment Agency Concord Redevelopment Agency
Recommendation#1: Accept
Direct the Agency to compile a report for each completed project which would include, but not
limited to the following:
a. Projected vs. actual expenditures.
b. Projected vs. actual revenues.
c. Evaluation as to whether anticipated goals were met.
d. The value of the project to the community.
e. Evaluation as to whether the project is meeting current
debt service.
Response: Accept
Recommendation#2: Accept
These reports should be made available to the Board of Directors,the Agency's Advisory
Committee and the public.
Response: Accept
Recommendation#3: Accept
These reports should be accessible on a current basis and compiled in an annual report.
Response: Accept
11
Report Number Title Agency Status •
9314 Threat to the Grand BOS
Jury Process
Recommendation#1: Reject
Accept the proposed $107,800 1993-93 Grand Budget.
Response:
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.... 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 previous year. No other funs
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 status of its budget and recommend appropriate adjustments to its
budget."
Recommendation#2: Accept
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.
Res o{� nse: Accept
•
Report Number Title Agency Status
9315 Fire Protection BOS
Personnel Costs
Recommendation#1: Accept/As Modified
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.
Responsev
"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.
I
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."
Recommendation#2: Accepted/As Modified
Eliminate in future contracts clauses that provide premium pay for work that,is not, in fact,
performed. I -
Response:
"It is clearly in the best 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 j
public interest which justifies the inclusion of such provisions in the contract.
12
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
formal meet and conifer process as part of an overall package regarding compensation and
working conditions."
Recommendation#3: Accepted/As Modified
Restore to management the responsibility and the authority to establish prudent staffing
requirements.
Response:
"Management has continuously retained the responsibility and the 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
formal meet and confer process as part of an overall package regarding compensation and
working conditions."
Recommendation#4: Reject
Consider the County's present financial crisis an emergency as defined in Government Code
3504.5, 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:
"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 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 be not 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."
Report Number Title Agency Status
9316 Detention Facilities County Sheriffs
Inspection Department and
the General Services'
Department
Recommendation#1: Accept
The Sheriff and Chiefs of Police continue to comply with State standards.
Response: Accept
Recommendation#2: Agree/As Modified
is 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.
13
Response:
"Unacceptable time lags for completion of maintenance and repairs are not 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 Sheriffs Department receives top priority for services, along with Juvenile Hall and the
Courts....However, maintenance problems involving capital improvements will not be completely
resolved until funding becomes availaile."
RECOMMENDATION:
The 1993-94 Contra Costa County Grand Jury recommends to the 1994-95 Grand Jury that the
recommendations and responses to the 1993-94 Jury be included in its annual report so that the
public will be aware of the recent opinions and actions of their local government. This action will
also serve to provide continuity between juries and assure that responses to Grand Jury reports
will be publicly available.
14
A REPORT BY
THE 1993-94 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GRAND JURY
1020 Ward Street
Martinez, CA 94553
(510) 646-2345
Report No. 9409
SELECT.T- ON AND APPOINTMENT PROCESS OF
CONTRA COSTA, COUNTY'S BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
". a vast and largely untapped reservoir of talent exists
among the citizenry of the State of California . . ."
The Maddy Act of 1975
Approved by the Grand Jury:
Date:
' J� h M. Mullin
rand Jury Foreman
Accepted for Filing:
Da C
• ichard E Arnason
of the
udge Superior Court
•
SECTION 933 (C) OF THE CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE
§933. Comments and Reports on Grand Jury
Recommendations.
(c) No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits
a final report on the operations of any public agency
subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body
of the public agency shall comment to the presiding
judge .of the superior court on the findings and
rocommendations pertaining to matters under the control
of the governing body,and every elective county officer
or agency head for which the grand jury has
responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment
within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior
court, with an information copy sent to the board of
supervisors, on the findings and recommendations
pertaining to matters under the control of that county
officer or agency head and any agency or agencies which
that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In
any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on •
the findings and recommendations. All such comments
and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding
judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand
jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall
be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and
the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when
applicable,and shall remain on file in those offices. One
copy shall be placed on file with the applicable grand
jury final report by, and in the control of the currently
impaneled grand jury,where it shall be maintained for a
minimum of five years. Leg.H. 1961 ch. 1284, 1963
ch. 674, 1974 chs. 393, 1396, 1977 chs. 107, 187, 1980
ch. 543, 1981 ch. 203, 1982 ch. 1408 §5, 1985 ch. 221
§1, effective July 12, 1985, 1987 ch. 690 §1, 1988 ch.
1297.
Cross-References
Admissible evidence. Penal Code §939.6.
"Grand jury"defined. Penal Code §888.
Grand jury report to be based only on own investigation. Penal
Code §939.9.
SCOPE OF INVESTIGATION
The 1993-94 Contra Costa County Grand Jury, in this report, addresses
its concerns regarding the composition of Contra Costa County's
appointed boards and commissions. This investigation focuses on the
recruitment and selection process for filling vacancies on boards and
commissions. Better representation through more diverse and multi-
cultural membership promises more responsive government.
FINDINGS
1. There are over 100 boards and- commissions existing within Contra
Costa County whose purpose, in most cases, is to research policy
questions and issues for the Board of Supervisors.
2 . Government Code, Chapter 11, beginning with section 54970 (Maddy
Act of 1975) , directs the County to publish, on or before December
31st of each year, the terms of appointed members on boards and
commissions that expire in the coming calendar year.
3 . For Contra Costa County, a current membership list for boards and
commissions is the responsibility of the County Administrator.
4. This membership list is frequently incomplete and, out of date.
5. This membership list contains insufficient research data regarding
general information to understand ethnic, gender, and physically-
challenged compositions on Contra Costa boards and commissions.
6. Maddy Act language does not prohibit Contra Costa County from
implementing affirmative action strategies to assure broader
representation.
7. Previously untapped human resources are readily-available to serve
on and better diversify Contra Costa County's boards and
commissions.
8. No uniform methods exist to acknowledge receipt of applications,
or the status of appointments, to Contra Costa County boards and
commissions.
9. Selection committees often do not represent Contra Costa County's
ethnic, gender, and physically-challenged mix and frequently do
not consider for selection a cross-section of the community
served.
10. Contra Costa County's marketing approach and public information
strategy for recruitment and community outreach is not linked to
a diverse applicant pool and remains untested for effectiveness.
• 11. Key selection criteria is not codified and often includes factors
such as familiarity and acquaintanceship with members of the
appointing authority.
1
12 . Multi-cultural organizations inthe community are readily-
available to assist in the County's recruitment process.
13 . County employees with (self interests and personal agendas
frequently serve as voting members on boards and commissions.
14 . Boards and commissions in Contra Costa County have no written
policy regarding limitation of terms of service.
CONCLUSIONS
1. Implementation of the Maddy Act, as legislated, is deficient
because it fails to achieve diverse representation on boards and
. commissions. I
2 . The current make-up of ;the County's many boards and commissions
has not taken advantage of the "vast and largely untapped
reservoir of talent" that exists in Contra Costa County.
3 . Lack of an effective outreach policy has made it difficult to
adequately inform and encourage the public to apply for vacancies
which occur on boards and commissions.
4 . Representation on boards and commissions is inappropriately
controlled, often at the selection committee level, thus ensuring •
the continual under-representation of segments of the community.
5. Lack of a procedural method that acknowledges receipt of
applications and the status of appointments hampers and
discourages many members of the community from participating 'on
boards and commissions.
6. By setting selection criteria based on personal relationships and
blind trust, patterns and practices develop that impede under-
represented populations from serving in membership and leadership
roles in boards and commissions.
7. The appointment of county employees with self interests and
personal agendas as voting members on board and commissions gives
County government undue influence in appearance and in fact, that
leads to decision making that was not in the best interests of the
community. I
8. The absence of a written policy on term limits for boards and
commissions in Contra Costa County discourages community
participation for an adequate applicant pool.
I
I
I
2
• RECOMMENDATIONS
The 1993-94 Contra Costa County Grand Jury recommends that the Board of
Supervisors:
1. Immediately eliminate a major barrier in the existing selection
process by ceasing the practice of using close relationships of
applicants with the appointing authorities as a key factor in
selecting representatives for boards and commissions.
2 . Within sixty (60) days, declare by board resolution a
reaffirmation of the spirit and intent of the Maddy Act, and issue
an order to all boards and commissions that they strictly adhere
to the principles of inclusion and broad community representation
as intended by the Maddy Act.
3 . Within sixty (60) days., issue a policy limiting county employees
who serve on boards and commissions to non-voting staff roles.
4 . Within sixty (60) days, develop and issue in writing communication
methods that will, in a courteous and timely manner, acknowledge
the receipt of each application and the status of each appointment
to boards and commissions.
5. Within sixty (60) days, develop constructive and legal methods to
survey and report the ethnic, gender, and physically-challenged
representation on boards and commissions; and to instruct the
County Administrator to publicly .present the reports to the Board
of Supervisors each calendar quarter.
6. Within sixty (60) days, produce and effect written policy
requiring each supervisorial district to assure that:
a. Board and commission selection committee members reflect the
ethnic, gender, -and physically-challenged make-up of each
district; and
b. Each supervisor search out and then coordinate with multi-
cultural and other community organizations in his/her
district for assistance in community-wide outreach and
recruitment tactics. `
7. Immediately implement a policy clearly stating the limits of
service on boards and commissions to allow a larger number of
individuals the opportunity to participate.
•
3
• A REPORT BY
THE 1993-94 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GRAND JURY
1020 Ward Street
Martinez, CA 94553
(510) 646-2345
Report No. 9410
COUNTY COUNSEL
LEGAL DEBACLE
"No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we
ask any man's permission when we require him to obey it.
Theodore Roosevelt
Approved by the Grand Jury:
Date:
udith M. Mullin
and Jury Foreman
Accepted for Filing: j
Date:C `'�^�
• /'� Richard E. Arnason
�` Judge of the Superior Court
SECTION 933 (C) OF THE CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE
§933. Comments and Reports on Grand Jury
Recommendations.
(c) No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits
a final report on the operations of any public agency
subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body
of the public agency shall comment to the presiding
judge of the superior court on the findings and
recommendations pertaining to matters under the control
of the governing body,and every elective county officer
or agency head for which the grand jury has
responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment
within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior
court, with an information copy sent to the board of
supervisors, on the findings and recommendations
pertaining to matters under the control of that county
officer or agency head and any agency or agencies which
that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In
any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on •
the findings and recommendations. All such comments
and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding
judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand
jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall
be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and
the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when
applicable,and shall remain on file in those offices. One
copy shall be placed on file with the applicable grand
jury final report by, and in the control of the currently
impaneled grand jury,where it shall be maintained for a
minimum of five years. Leg.H. 1961 ch. 1284, 1963
ch.674, 1974 chs. 393, 1396, 1977 chs. 107, 187, 1980
ch. 543, 1981 ch. 203, 1982 ch. 1408 §5, 1985 ch. 221
§1, effective July 12, 1985, 1987 ch. 690 §1, 1988 ch.
1297.
Cross-References
Admissible evidence. Penal Code §939.6.
"Grand jury"defined. Penal Code §888.
Grand jury report to be based only on own investigation. Penal
Code §939.9.
•
INTRODUCTION:
• The 1993-94 Contra Costa County- Grand Jury acknowledges that the
Board of Supervisors is free to act contrary to legal advice.
SCOPE OF INVESTIGATION:
Public outcries regarding secret settlements and the $40, 000 The
Regional Institute of the Bay Area (TRIBA) donation controversy,
triggered an investigation into the Office of County Counsel 's conduct
and operations and examined the Counsel's relationship with the Board
of Supervisors.
FINDINGS:
1. The County Counsel is appointed by the Board of Supervisors and
shall serve four years from the time of appointment and until a
successor is appointed (Government Code §27640 and §27641) . The
incumbent County Counsel for Contra Costa was initially appointed
in 1984.
2 . The County Counsel is the legal adviser to the Board of
Supervisors and shall oppose all claims against the County and
shall prosecute all civil actions and proceedings on behalf of the
County (Government Code §26526) .
• 3 . The Board of Supervisors establishes compensation, job duties, and
performance standards not otherwise mandated by law for County
Counsel.
4. The County Counsel's salary and benefits package totals more than
$160, 000 annually.
5. It is not clear to whom County Counsel is accountable and to whom
County Counsel reports from an organizational perspective. Is it
the Board, the County.Administrator or both?
6. The Office of Risk Management, under the direct supervision of the
County Administrator, approved secret settlements based on
recommendations from highly-paid independent legal counsel, hired
to defend County government. County Counsel did not question this
process.
7. The Board of Supervisors knew that there was no agreement between
the County Counsel's Office and the Office of Risk Management to
overview risk management.
8. In December 1991, Pipes Trade Council 51 donated $40, 000 to TRIBA,
a non-profit organization founded and chaired. by Supervisor Tom
Powers.
9. There was a clear understanding and assurance that the $40,000
• . from the labor union would, in turn, be gifted by TRIBA to Contra
Costa County to assist the County in its legal battle defending a
local prevailing wage.
1,
10. County Counsel was aware of the conditional nature of the gift and
the need to disguise the source; i.e, fear of public outcry that •
it was the unions, not the County, defending the ordinance.
11. The District Attorney' s investigation of this incident found that
the act was not "money laundering" as defined by California law,
as it was not paid in furtherance of any illegal activity. The
District Attorney concluded that although the true source of the
gift and the specific reason for the gift was disguised, the
conduct was not, illegal, but rather a matter of ethics and
politics.
12 . By statute, County Counsel may be removed at any time by the Board
of Supervisors for neglect of duty, malfeasance, misconduct in
office or other good cause shown.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. Public respect and confidence were eroded by the various charges
of misconduct, perpetuated with the Board of Supervisors ' apparent
acquiescence, if not concurrence.
2. ,County Counsel neglected to intervene early in resolving the
conflicts that resulted in secret settlements.
3 . It is inexcusable for any attorney, let alone the County's. chief
legal adviser, not to analyze evidence and apply a curve for
decision consequences. •
4 . County Counsel's failure to intervene on critical legal matters
was a neglect of his responsibilities.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Due to the critical role County Counsel plays in the daily
governmental operation, the. 1993-94 Contra Costa County Grand Jury
recommends that the Board of Supervisors, within 30 days:
1. Publicly reaffirm its responsibilities to supervise, direct, and
control all County legal Tatters.
2. Implement a comprehensive assessment of the County Counsel's
ability to provide the Board with competent legal advice.
3. Publicly act upon and execute options provided to the Board, based .
on assessment findings.
4. Re-establish the accountability of County Counsel and thereby
restore credibility with the public.
COMMENTS:
Confidentiality clauses. in lawsuits, settled with public funds, •
can breed a stealth environment for incompetence.
2
Elected and public officials and employees must be held
accountable for consequences stemming from acts and omissions.
County government is an awesome responsibility entrusted by the
people for the benefit of an organized and humane society.
The Board of Supervisors should demand straightforward and
apolitical legal advice that can be trusted with unflagging confidence
and without reservation.
3
• A REPORT BY
THE 1993-94 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GRAND JURY
1020 Ward Street
Martinez, CA 94553
(510) 646-2345
Report No. 9411
RODEO SANITARY DISTRICT AND ALL SPECIAL DISTRICTS
MUST CONFORM TO STANDARDS OF ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOOD GOVERNMENT
•
Approved by the Grand Jury:
Date: c �-
udith M. Mullin
Grand Jury Foreman
Accepted for Filing:
l
Date: I '
Richard E. Arnason
Judge of the Superior Court
•
SECTION 933 (C) OF THE CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE
§933. Comments and Reports on Grand Jury
Recommendations.
(c) No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits
a final report on the operations of any public agency
subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body
of the public agency shall comment to the presiding
judge of the superior court on the findings and
recommendations pertaining to matters under the control
of the governing body,and every elective county officer
or agency head for which the grand jury has
responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment
within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior
court, with an information copy sent to the board of
supervisors, on the findings and recommendations
pertaining to matters under the control of that county
officer or agency head and any agency or agencies which
that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In
any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on
the findings and recommendations. All such comments •
and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding
judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand
jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall
be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and
the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when
applicable,and shall remain on file in those offices. One
copy shall be placed on file with the applicable grand
jury final report by, and in the control of the currently
impaneled grand jury,where it shall be maintained for a
minimum of five years. Leg.H. 1961 ch. 1284, 1963
ch. 674, 1974 chs. 393, 1396, 1977 chs. 107, 187, 1980
ch. 543, 1981 ch. 203, 1982 ch. 1408 §5, 1985 ch. 221
§1, effective July 12, 1985, 1987 ch. 690 §1, 1988 ch.
1297.
Cross-References
Admissible evidence. Penal Code §939.6.
"Grand jury"defined. Penal Code §888.
Grand jury report to be based only on own investigation. Penal
Code §939.9.
INTRODUCTION:
The Grand Jury is empowered to examine the policies and practices
of special districts in Contra Costa County. It has examined three
concerns regarding the Rodeo Sanitary District on these matters:
o lack of sufficient policies on the bidding process for
vendors in providing materials and services,
• unfair application of rules on sewer rates for businesses,
and
• confusion over the sphere of influence of the District and
its boundaries in regard to the discharge of sewage along and
near San Pablo Bay.
FINDINGS:
These findings are based on sworn testimony of witnesses, field
observations, and attendance at, and review of, the minutes of meetings
of the Rodeo Sanitary District Board of Directors, and the examination
of District records. The findings are:
1. The Rodeo Sanitary District lacks sufficient policy to direct the
District Manager and the Board of Directors on the preparation and
announcement of bids for materials/services provided by vendors.
• 2 . The Board of Directors allows the District Manager independent
judgement in the definition of types of businesses and the
application of sewer rates.
3. Many San .Pablo Bay waterfront properties adjacent to the Rodeo
Sanitary District boundaries and within a few hundred yards of the
District's sewage treatment plant are not part of the District's
legal boundaries, and currently rely upon unconventional and
outdated sewage disposal methods.
4. The District has a multi-year contract for solid waste disposal
with BFI Pleasant Hill-Bayshore Disposal Inc. that covers areas
adjacent to its legal boundaries.
CONCLUSIONS:
The Rodeo Sanitary District lacks accountability in standardizing
policies and practices for contracting with outside vendors,
discriminates in the application of its sewer rates, and ignores envi-
ronmental protection issues at its doorstep and within its obvious
sphere of influence; specifically:
1. It approves bids for services that are not governed by board
policy or by commonly-recognized sound business practices for
government agencies, thus disregarding the best interests of the
rate-payers in the District.
2. The Board of Directors and the District Manager do not
consistently apply the sewer rates to businesses.
2
3 . The District has improperly disavowed responsibility for outdated
and harmful sewage discharge practices in an area adjacent to its
boundaries. •
4 . The District's domestic and commercial solid waste disposal
contract with BFI Pleasant Hill-Bayshore Disposal Inc. creates a
sphere of influence over properties that are adjacent to the Dis-
trict boundaries, and establishes a responsibility of the District
to work towards the enactment of contemporary standards to protect
the environment of the District and San Pablo Bay.
5. The Board of Supervisors, through the Building Inspection and
Health Services Departments, neglected its responsibility for
eliminating these health and environmental protection hazards
within Contra Costa County.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The 1993-94 Contra Costa County Grand Jury recommends that:
A. The Rodeo Sanitary District Board of Directors immediately:
1. Establish sound) standards and procedures for procuring
materials/services in excess of $5, 000, and to instruct the
District Manager to implement those policies.
2 . Direct the District Manager to cease and desist any
unilateral action in defining types of businesses and to
strictly apply the prevailing District ordinance on sewer •
rates, and to
a. Consult with the County Health Department and the State
of California Alcohol Beverage Control office, to assure
uniformity in the definition of types of businesses,
b. EstablishJwritten appeal procedures for any rate-payer
seeking adjustment for unsubstantiated billing for the
last five years.
3 . Write, and accept as policy, a statement that prescribes the
sphere of influence of the District in relationship to its
legal boundaries.
4. Align its legal boundaries to its sphere of influence,
especially with regard to all properties adjacent to San
Pablo Bay and along Parker Avenue, and/or within a few
hundred yardslofthe District's sewage treatment plant.
5. Affirm .a District goal, with a definite time frame, for the
connection of sewage discharges from Rodeo's environmentally-
sensitive areas along San Pablo Bay and Parker Avenue to the
District's sewage treatment plant..
6. Establish a budget, and seek internal and external sources of
funding, to connect all properties within the District's
proposed legal boundaries to its sewage treatment plant.
3
B. The Board of Supervisors take the leadership role in resolving
these environmental and public health hazards.
•
COMMENTS:
The Board of Supervisors and the boards of director of' all special
districts must be accountable in all matters and become more responsive
to . the standards of good government and the issues and means of
environmental protection.
•
•
4
A REPORT BY
THE 1993-94 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GRAND JURY
1020 Ward Street
Martinez, CA 94553
(510) 646-2345
Report No. 9412
DETENTION FACILITIES INSPECTION
•
Approved by the Grand Jury:
Date: � 4A c
di th M. Mullin
Grand Jury Foreman
Accepted for Filing:
Da _
` Richard E. Arnason
Judge of the Superior Court
•
SECTION 933 (C) OF THE CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE
§933. Comments and Reports on Grand Jury
Recommendations.
(c) No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits
a final report on the operations of any public agency
subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body
of the public agency shall comment to the presiding
judge of the superior court on the findings and
recommendations pertaining to matters under the control
of the governing body,and every elective county officer
or agency head for which the grand jury has
responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment
within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior
court, with an information copy sent to the board of
supervisors, on the findings and recommendations
pertaining to matters under the control of that county
officer or agency head and any agency or agencies which
that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In
any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on
the findings and recommendations. All such comments •
and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding
judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand
jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall
be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and
the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when
applicable,and shall remain on file in those offices. One
copy shall be placed on file with the applicable grand
jury final report by, and in the control of the currently
impaneled grand jury,where it shall be maintained for a
minimum of five years. Leg.H. 1961 ch. 1284, 1963
ch.674, 1974 chs. 393, 1396, 1977 chs. 107, 187, 1980
ch. 543, 1981 ch. 203, 1982 ch. 1408 §5, 1985 ch. 221
§1, effective July 12, 1985, 1987 ch. 690 §1, 1988 ch.
1297.
Cross-References
Admissible evidence. Penal Code §939.6.
"Grand jury"defined. Penal Code §888.
Grand jury report to be based only on own investigation. Penal
Code §939.9.
INTRODUCTION:
California Penal Code §919b states: "The Grand Jury shall
• inquire into the condition of the public prisons within the
county. " This includes temporary holding facilities found in
police agencies.
California Penal Code §925 allows the Grand Jury to
investigate the operations of the Probation Department. . This
includes juvenile holding and detention facilities.
FINDINGS:
1. The Contra Costa County Sheriff Department operates three
adult detention facilities in Contra Costa County: .
* Martinez Detention Facility (MDF) is rated as a maximum-
security facility located in downtown Martinez.
* West County Detention Facility (WCDF) is rated as a medium
security facility located near Point Pinole. The booking
section is not utilized due to budgetary restraints.
* Marsh Creek Detention Facility (MCDF) is rated as a minimum-
security facility located near Clayton. This facility is
now being assigned higher-risk- inmates.
2 . The Probation Department operates two juvenile facilities in
• Contra Costa County:
* Juvenile Hall (Hall) . This is a locked holding. facility
located in Martinez.
* Byron Boys' Ranch (Ranch) . This is an unlocked detention
facility located east of Byron.
3. These facilities, as well as holding facilities at police
departments, have been inspected and are in compliance with
State of California standards.
4. Populations and incidents at these five facilities are:
MDF WCDF MCDF Hall Ranch
Present state-rated capacity 515 *816 300 160 74
Average monthly population 587 491 240 133 70
(May 93-April 94)
Escapes (past 12 months) 3 1 4 0 **41
Deaths in custody (past 12 months) 0 0 .0 0 0
Assaults on staff .(past 12 months) 61 22 1 N/A 0
• * WCDF rated capacity was originally 608. Effective January 1, 1994, due to
female housing program improvements, the Board of Corrections changed the
approved rating to 816.
** This figure represents a fifty percent increase in escapees from the Ranch as
compared to last years report.
1
i
I
5. Statistics on assaults Ion staff are not compiled for Juvenile
Hall. i •
6. Population at MDF exceeds the number for rated capacity.
7 . Juvenile Hall and Byron Boys Ranch are being sent a higher-
risk population than previously.
i
8. The General Services Department of the county does not respond
in a reasonable time to requests for maintenance and repairs
at Byron Boys Ranch.
j
CONCLUSIONS
1. On the dates of the Jurors' inspections, all facilities were
in compliance with state standards.
2 . There is an unacceptable time-lag for completion of
maintenance and repairs at Byron Boys Ranch.
3 . There is an intolerablei amount of deferred maintenance at both
Juvenile Hall and Byron Boys Ranch.
ja
RECOMMENDATIONS
I
The 1993-1994 Contra Costa County Grand Jury recommends that the
Board of Supervisors, Superior Court, Sheriff's Office, and the
Probation Department jointly accept the responsibility for the •
following recommendations:
1. Statistics on assaults', on staff be maintained for Juvenile
Hall as they are for all other facilities.
2. This Grand Jury reiterates the, recommendation of the 1992-93
Grand Jury (Report No. 9316) to declare the Ranch an off-site
facility, as permittedlby Government Code 33000, in order to
have repairs performed !by independent contractors.
3 . Establish and monitor a schedule that will resolve the repair
and maintenance problems at Byron Boys Ranch and Juvenile
Hall. I
4. The Board of Supervisors take the leadership role in resolving
the deficiencies at these facilities.
i
I
I
i
i
I
2
A REPORT BY
THE 1993-94 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GRAND JURY
1020 Ward Street
Martinez, CA 94553
(510) 646-2345
Report No. 9413
THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA
The Housing Authority Requires Independent Status
and Must be Set Free of County Politics -
Approved by the Grand Jury:
Date:
udi M. Mullin
;Richard
d ury Foreman
Accept for Filing: ;
Date:
E. Arnason
Judge of the Superior Court
SECTION 933 (C) OF THE CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE
§933. Comments and Reports on Grand Jury
Recommendations.
(c) No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits
a final report on the operations of any public agency
subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body
of the public agency shall comment to the presiding
judge of the superior court on the findings and
recommendations pertaining to matters under the control
of the governing body,and every elective county officer
or agency head for which the grand jury has
responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment
within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior
court, with an information copy sent to the board of
supervisors, on the findings and recommendations
pertaining to matters under the control of that county
officer or agency head and any agency or agencies which
that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In
any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on
the findings and recommendations. All such comments
and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding
judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand
jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall
be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and
the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when
applicable,and shall remain on file in those offices. One
copy shall be placed on file with the applicable grand
jury final report by, and in the control of the currently
impaneled grand jury,where it shall be maintained for a
minimum of five years. Leg.H. 1961 ch. 1284, 1963
ch. 674, 1974 chs. 393, 1396, 1977 chs. 107, 187, 1980
ch. 543, 1981 ch. 203, 1982 ch. 1408 §5, 1985 ch. 221
§1, effective July 12, 1985, 1987 ch. 690 §1, 1988 ch.
1297.
Cross-References
Admissible evidence. Penal Code §939.6.
"Grand jury"defined. Penal Code §888.
Grand jury report to be based only on own investigation. Penal
Code §939.9.
•
• INTRODUCTION:
The Contra Costa County Housing Authority was an autonomous
political subdivision of the State of California until its legal
acquisition by county government on November 17, 1981. The 1982-83
Grand Jury recommended that the commission be re-instated as the
independent Housing Commission. More than a decade later,
unanswered concerns continue to be raised by the public about the
Contra Costa County Housing Authority, including . . .
• The level of its independence,
• The motivation and competence of its Advisory Board,
The lengthy terms of some Advisory Board members,
• The hiring procedure for its executive director.
SCOPE OF THE INVESTIGATION:
The Contra Costa County Grand Jury responded to the public's
concern by launching an investigation into the operation of the
Housing Authority, its Advisory Board, and the methods applied by
the Board of Supervisors in conducting Housing Authority business.
• FINDINGS:
1.. The Board of Supervisors, acting as the Housing Commission,
approves most Housing Authority business on the basis of
expediency and interdependence; the Housing. Authority has no
independent voice.
2 . The Board of Supervisors, acting as the Housing Commission,
channels Housing Authority general funds to county departments
for services rendered.
3 . The Board of Supervisors, acting as the Housing Commission,
does not currently meet each calendar quarter with the Housing
Authority Advisory Board as required by law.
4 . The by-laws of the Housing Authority Advisory Board do not
address an effective procedure for notifying the public of its
regular and special meetings.
5. Several members of the Housing Authority Advisory Board have
demonstrated a lack of knowledge regarding their official
duties and responsibilities. 4.
6. Members of the Housing Authority Advisory Board are often
reappointed for many terms, while many other citizens wait an
opportunity to serve on this board.
2
7. The Board of Supervisors, acting as the Housing Commission, •
authorized county staff I, at a cost of approximately $10, 000,
to manage the recruitment for the Housing Authority Executive
Director. position.
8. The County Administrator traveled out of state to meet with
twenty-two (22) individuals as part of a background check on
a candidate for the Executive Director position, who was not
hired.
9. The Board of Supervisors, acting as the Housing Commission,
lowered the educational requirement for the Executive Director
position. This action favored the Acting Director.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The Board of Supervisors lacks the time and resources to
provide leadership and to properly oversee the Contra Costa
County Housing Authority.
2 . The Board of Supervisors, acting as the Housing Commission,
disregards the policy that requires quarterly meetings between
the Commissioners and Ithe Housing Authority. Advisory Board.
The absence of these meetings severely restricts the
efficiency and effectiveness of the Housing Authority, its •
Commissioners, and the Housing Authority Advisory Board.
3 . Many members of the Housing Authority Advisory Board -- even
after serving many years -- have difficulty understanding
basic Housing Authority programs and finances, are unable to
focus on problems, and1 seldom make viable recommendations.
4 . The lack of a term 1limitation rule makes it difficult to
appoint new -- and prospectively better -- members to the
Advisory Board, and stifles any opportunity for broad-based
community representation.
5. It was imprudent for the Board of Supervisors, acting as the
Housing Commission, to spend excessive funds and the County
Administrator's time onan executive director recruitment
effort. Clearly the Board of Supervisors was committed to
hiring the Acting ,Director. An open and more judicious
approach to the appointment would have avoided the perception
of "special treatment" and saved the taxpayers $10, 000.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The 1993-94 Contra Costa County Grand Jury recommends that the
Board of Supervisors:
3
1. Immediately implement the 1982-83 Grand Jury report
O recommending that independence be restored to the Housing
Authority, reaffirming that the Housing Authority must be set
free of county politics.
2 . Immediately reestablish the Housing Authority Commission to
independent status.
• Institute term limitation policies for members of the
Housing Authority Advisory Board.
• Direct the Housing Authority's Executive Director to
assess the training needs of the members of the Housing
Authority Advisory Board, and to plan and fully implement
a suitable training program.
• Address and establish firm personnel, practices.
COMMENTS:
It is widely recognized within any government, political, military,
or other .institutional environment that the span of control of any
one unit or individual is limited. Excellent management is
necessary to maintain accountability. One can reason that the span
of control of the Board of Supervisors and the County Administrator
have similar limitations and require close scrutiny.
• The Housing Authority '-- like many other charges of the Board of
Supervisors and the County Administrator -- has escaped scrutiny.
The absence of a reasonable level of surveillance for ethical
conduct, for efficient services, and for effective government is a
cause for alarm.
•
4
• A REPORT BY
THE 1993-94 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GRAND JURY
1020 Ward Street
Martinez, CA 94553
(510) 646-2345
Report No. 9414
COUNTY LEADERSHIP IMPEDES THE WORK OF THE GRAND JURY
"All authority belongs to the people. "
Thomas Jefferson
Approved by the Grand Jury:
Date:
dM. Mullin
n4
Grand Jury Foreman
Accepted for Filing:
Date: sCon
RichardE.
Arna
Judge of the Superior Court
r
SECTION 933 (C) OF THE CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE
§933. Comments and Reports on Grand Jury
Recommendations.
(c) No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits
a final report on the operations of any public agency
subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body
of the public agency shall comment to the presiding
judge of the superior court on the findings and
recommendations pertaining to matters under the control
of the governing body,and every elective county officer
or agency head for which the grand jury has
responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment
within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior
court, with an information copy sent to the board of
supervisors, on the findings and recommendations
pertaining to matters under the control of that county
officer or agency head and any agency or agencies which
that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In
any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on
the findings and recommendations. All such comments
and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding
judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand
jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall
be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and
the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when
applicable,and shall remain on file in those offices. One
copy shall be placed on file with the applicable grand
jury final report by, and in the control of the currently
impaneled grand jury,where it shall be maintained for a
minimum of five years. Leg.H. 1961 ch. 1284, 1963
ch. 674, 1974 chs. 393, 1396, 1977 chs. 107, 187, 1980
ch. 543, 1981 ch. 203, 1982 ch. 1408 §5, 1985 ch. 221
§1, effective July 12, 1985, 1987 ch. 690 §1, 1988 ch.
1297.
Cross-References
Admissible evidence. Penal Code §939.6.
"Grand jury"defined. Penal Code §888.
Grand jury report to be based only on own investigation. Penal
Code §939.9.
INTRODUCTION:
Section 888, et. seq. , of the California Penal Code allows the
establishment of a Grand Jury in each county. Contra Costa County
impanels nineteen citizen-volunteers annually to act as an independent
body in ensuring that the best interests of all county residents are
being served by their governmental bodies.
FINDINGS:
Grand Jury Facilities
1. The Contra Costa County Grand Jury is allocated space in the old
County Courthouse. The area, approximately 400 sq. ft. , serves
as a meeting/conference room for the nineteen Grand Jurors. It
also acts as a filing and a storage room. Statutory regulations
require that Grand Jury reports, including documentary materials
and evidence used in those reports, be sealed and kept for five
years.
2 . The Grand Jury room has only one entrance/exit door. One other
door, identified as a "fire door" , leads from the District
Attorney's offices and is locked from that side, leaving the Grand
Jury with no emergency exit.
3 . Grand Jurors' deliberations, as well as witness' testimony, are
required to be confidential.
4. Over the years, the Grand Jury has requested more suitable meeting
facilities in close proximity to the Superior Court, and county
government has not responded with suitable alternatives.
Responses to Grand Jury Reports
5. When asked for comments by the press upon publication of Grand
Jury reports, instead of addressing information contained in the
reports, some county leaders attack the credibility of Grand
Jurors. Standard responses are: "They don't know how the system
works. " , or "They are dead wrong. " Grand Jurors obtain their.
facts and figures from the County through sworn testimony or
through information provided to the Grand Jury under subpoena.
6. 1992-93 Grand Jury Report No. 9304, on 'the need for management
audits in Contra Costa County, recommended that the Board of
Supervisors, ". . . establish �a Management Audit Program that
insures monies expended will result in a net saving to the
County. " This Grand Jury report explained in detail the
components of management audits; their purpose of investigating
whether an operating unit is meeting its objectives in the most
efficient, economical manner; and the basic objective of improving
performance and/or reducing costs. The Board of Supervisors
accepted this recommendation but failed to implement it.
• 1
7. 1992-93 Grand Jury Report No. 9312, on the County's Merit System,
published in May 1993, recommended that the Board of Supervisors
require the County Administrator to, "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. " The Board of Supervisors accepted the
recommendation, establishing a deadline of October 15, 1993, to
receive such a report. The County Administrator failed to meet
this deadline by more than eight months.
Grand Jury Operations
8.1 It is the Grand Jury's duty to investigate County operations;
nevertheless the County Administrator complained to the Grand Jury
Judge about Grand Jury investigations into County business.
9. The Grand Jury Judge asked the Grand Jury Foreman to confer with
the County Administrator regarding Grand Jury procedures.
10. Complaints reached the District Attorney's office regarding Grand
Jury investigations and (techniques, resulting in a conference
between the Grand Jury and the District Attorney's office.
11. "Papering" -- providing excessive amounts. of paper and extraneous
material in response to Grand Jury inquiries -- and other
disinformation techniques are often used by county officials which
obfuscate facts and confuse the truth.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The County has consistently failed to provide adequate, safe, and
secure facilities for the Grand Jury to conduct its business.
2. County leaders often givelip service in responding to Grand Jury
recommendations, however,+ when the heat of publicity cools, it's
back to business as usual.
3. Attempts by County leaders to dilute and discredit the Grand Jury
process, and thus the work of the Grand Jury, are beneath the
dignity of their offices.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The 1993-94 Contra Costa County Grand Jury recommends that the Board of
Supervisors:
1. Immediately instruct county officers to cease and desist attempts
to interfere, obstruct, impede or otherwise influence the Grand
Jury panel. v
2. Immediately formulate a county-wide policy to objectively evaluate
and seriously consider all present and future Grand Jury
recommendations.
2
3 . Within six months, provide the Grand Jury with facilities that are
suitable for conducting its business.
COMMENTS:
The acts and omissions of Contra Costa County leaders regarding the
Grand Jury are obvious and inappropriate attempts to influence the
Grand Jury. These attempts obstruct the Grand Jury in its discharge of
duty in their administration, investigation, and deliberation.
Sadly, county officials often dismiss the work of the Grand Jury with
statements such as, "These matters are too complex for Grand Jurors to
understand because they are just part-time volunteers. "
Contra Costa County leaders should not regard the County Grand Jury as
an adversary. Citizens who volunteer to invest a year of their lives
do so because they sincerely believe in making Contra Costa County a
better place for everyone. Rather than feeling threatened, County
leaders should welcome the contributions of the Grand Jury as
paralleling their own stated mission of serving the community.
3