HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 07091996 - C78 C.78
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on July 9, 1996 by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Rogers, Bishop, DeSaulnier, Torlakson, Smith
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT: Grand Jury Reports
IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that Grand Jury Reports 9610 "Political
Activities in Contra Costa County Buildings", 9611 "County
Computing Evolution", 9612 "Business Operations of the Contra Costa
County Employees Retirement Board and 9613 "Compliance and Review
Committee Report", is REFERRED to the County Administrator and the
Internal Operations Committee.
I hereby certify that this is a true
and correct copy of an action taken and
entered on the minutes of the Board of
Supervisors on the date shown.
ATTESTED: July 9, 1996
PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk of the Board
of Supervisors and County Administrator
By " ', SI ,Deputy
cc: County Administrator
Internal Operations Committee
Grand Jury
RECEIVED
JUN 2 01996
A REPORT BY CLERK BOARD OF StJPERViSORS
CONTRA COSTA CG.
THE 1995-96 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GRAND JURY
1020 Ward Street
Martinez, California 94553
(510) 646-2345
Report No. 9610
POLITICAL ACTIVITIES IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BUILDINGS
APPROVED BY THE GRAND JURY: �' J
DATE:
O AROSPA
GRAND4MY FOREMAN
ACCEPTED FOR FILING:
DATE: -------- --- '� .
JOHN F. VAN DE POEL
JUDGE;DF THE SUPERIOR COURT
POLITICAL ACTIVITIES IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BUILDINGS
SUMMARY
Many public agencies in California have acted under Government Code Section 3207 to regulate
political activities by civil service employees during working hours and on agency premises.
The 1995/96 Contra Costa County Grand Jury has not discovered any policy mandated by Contra
Costa County Board of Supervisors regulating activities of employees for political purposes during
working hours.
FINDINGS
1. California Government Code Section 3207 states:
"Any city, county, or city and county charter or, in the absence of a charter provision, the
governing body of any local agency and any agency not subject to Section 19251 by
establishing rules and regulations, may prohibit or otherwise restrict the following:
(a) Officers and employees engaging in political activity during working hours.
(b) Political activities on the premises of the local agency."
2. The Board of Supervisors has not adopted a policy under the authority of Government Code
Section 3207 regulating employee activities during working hours.
3. Recent public disclosures have demonstrated that some County employees and officials
blatantly disregarded good judgment when dealing with political activities during working
hours.
4. Contra Costa County Administrative Memorandum 405.1, dated August 23, 1976, regarding
political activities is poorly distributed and vague. The County's regulations on political
activities by employees are left to department heads, both elected and appointed, for
distribution and enforcement.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The 1995/96 Contra Costa County Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors:
1. Adopt a policy in conformance with the California Government Code, Section 3207
regulating the political activities of all County employees during working hours. The policy
is also to address the use of County property, equipment and facilities for political activities.
2. Require that a copy be signed by every employee and retained in their official personnel file.
.71
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 impan-
eled 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 §S, 1985 ch. 222 §1,
effective July 12, 1985. 1987 ch. 690 §1, 1988 ch. 1297.
Crass-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.
R EIVED
JUN 2 0:1996:]
A REPORT BY CLEROC BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
CONTRA COSTA CO.
THE 1995-96 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GRAND JURY
1020 Ward Street
Martinez, California 94553
(510) 646-2345
Report No. 9611
COUNTY COMPUTING EVOLUTION
APPROVED BY THE GRAND JURY:
DATE:
rGRAND
MIlZ OSEMENA
JURY FOREMAN
ACCEPTED FOR FILING:
DATE:
JOHN F. VAN DE POE
JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
COUNTY COMPUTING EVOLUTION
SUMMARY
This report focuses on the trend to change computer systems from centralized mainframe to
geographically distributed processors within user departments of Contra Costa County. The
1995-96 Contra Costa County Grand Jury is concerned that a strategy and appropriate controls
be in place for achieving the best possible working relationship between the two information
processing approaches and for protecting Contra Costa County's computer-related assets (data,
software and hardware).
FINDINGS
1. GENERAL:
a) Contra Costa County's data processing functions are becoming more diverse and
widespread. Mainframe operations continue to be maintained for computer
applications that apply to multiple departments; whereas, department-specific
applications are generally opting for their own hardware and software; thus
assuming all the inherent responsibilities.
b) The Contra Costa County Information Technology Steering Committee(ITSC)
was recently formed to provide leadership in information technology development.
TRENDS
a) The ITSC, comprised of numerous County department representatives, has been
established to.oversee the County information processing functions; however, the
ITSC functions, responsibilities and authorities is not well defined.
b) Some systems that are on the County mainframe computer are being replaced by
systems that will be under user department control.
c) New computer systems are being developed outside the County for user
department implementation. For example, the State of California is implementing
the Child Welfare/Case Management System (CWS/CMS)for Contra Costa
County, requiring that the County and the State controlled mainframes be
interfaced.
3. STANDARDS
a) Computer centers are now located in multiple locations, but county-wide safety
1
and security standards are not in place for computer sites.
b) Each department is responsible for its own Disaster Recovery Plan for computers
and data.
c) Written procedures for using some system applications are not in place.
4. CONTROLS
a) An overall plan(e.g. a five(5)year plan) which incorporates all County proposals
for new systems and maintenance requirements of existing systems is not in place.
b) The existing central mainframe facility has the capacity to house the hardware for
many of the client/server systems of County user entities.
c) The approved Electronic Data Processing(EDP) Auditor position in the County
Auditor/Controller department remains vacant.
d) A formal procedure for defining, developing/acquiring and maintaining computer
software, known as an System Development Life Cycle(SDLC), is not in place.
e) Project management procedures and supporting software are not standardized for
control of new system development.
f) Security measures designed to protect County computers were found to be
bypassed, thus allowing virus infections to enter County systems.
g) Programmers employed by County departments have a tendency to modify
acquired software packages without the suppliers' approval. Such source code
modifications invalidate warrantees, increase maintenance costs and risk software
failures.
CONCLUSIONS
1. In order,to maintain optimal processing controls and security, there is a need for
centralized coordination.
2. Some of the County's computers are at risk due to the lack of adherence to standardized
safety and security measures.
a) security of the computer rooms is compromised due to the apparent lack of
adherence to standards.
2
C.79
b) safety of computer hardware is at risk due to the general lack of awareness of
environmental requirements.
3. The lack of a five(5)year plan which shows all maintenance and development
commitments for the County, limits the decision making ability of key decision makers,
including the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors.
4. The County is exposed to excessive costs as a result of the absence of assigned
responsibility for enforcing generally accepted computer practices.
5. The function, responsibility and authority of the ITSC must be clearly defined in writing so
that all County entities can support its leadership.
6. System deficiencies and errors are likely to occur because standard practices of
development (e.g., SDLC and standard Project Management techniques) are not
consistently followed.
7. County funds are placed in jeopardy by allowing in-house modifications to packaged
software.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The 1995-96 Contra Costa County Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors:
1. Formally establish the Information Technology Steering Committee(ITSC)with the
following responsibilities.
a) ensure that the ITSC represents the computer interests of all departments.
b) adopt procedures for a model client/server operation.
C) develop a client/server model for physical and environmental characteristics needed
for departmental computer operations.
d) develop and maintain, for critical areas, a common disaster recovery plan,
including off-site storage of data at Hot Sites(standby systems).
e) adopt and maintain a Systems Development Life Cycle (SDLC) procedure which is
applicable to all systems: purchased, externally acquired or internally developed.
f) adopt a standard for project management of new systems.
2. Formally support:
a) filling of the currently vacant EDP Auditor position.
3
b) validating of all computer systems by the EDP Auditor against this report's
recommendations and current EDP auditing standards.
C) housing of departmental computers in the County mainframe facility, whenever
feasible.
3. Direct the development of administrative procedures to cover:
a) provisions for updated, written administrative procedures for using all system
products and applications.
b) enforcement of standards (e.g., automatic virus checking)to validate outside
access to County computers and by limiting activities to official business only.
c) restriction of source code modifications to purchased products.
COMMENTS
The ITSC has an opportunity to provide guidance and organization to the County's overall
planning of computer and communication systems. A draft of the Information Technology
Strategy has been submitted to the ITSC but not yet presented to the Board of Supervisors.
This strategy sets forth general guidelines that would be a positive step to ensure a desirable
working relationship among the geographically distributed processors and the mainframe
computers.
4
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 pertairting 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 findines 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 respbnses 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 impan-
eled grand jury, where it shall be maintained for a
minimum of five years. Lea,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.
Cioss-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.
-
RECEIVE®
JM 2 61996
CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
A REPORT BY CONTRA COSTA CO.
THE 1995-96 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GRAND JURY
1020 Ward Street
Martinez, California 94553
(510)646-2345
Report No. 9612
BUSINESS OPERATIONS OF THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT BOARD
APPROVED BY THE GRAND JURY:
DATE:
*VOREMAN
ACCEPTED FOR FILING:
DATE: ��
*GOF
E POET}
SUPERIOR COURT
1,
A REPORT BY
THE 1995-96 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GRAND JURY
1020 Ward Street
Martinez, California 94553
(510) 646-2345
Report No. 9612
BUSINESS OPERATIONS OF THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT BOARD
APPROVED BY THE GRAND JURY:
DATE:
RAMIRO AROSEMENA
GRAND JURY FOREMAN
ACCEPTED FOR FILING:
DATE:
JOHN F. VAN DE POEI
JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
71
BUSINESS OPERATIONS OF THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT BOARD
SUMMARY
The County Employees Retirement Act of 1937 provides retirement benefits for permanent, fall-
time county employees and participating special districts which are funded by
employee/employer contributions and earnings on investment monies in the retirement fund.
The current practice of the Contra Costa County Employees Retirement Board of Directors
(Board)to return investment gains,beyond its needs, to contributing employees, employers and
retirees is acceptable.
INTRODUCTION
Has the Board of Directors of Contra Costa County Employees Retirement Association
(CCCERA)violated the law and breached their fiduciary duty to retirement system members and
their beneficiaries by distributing excess earnings to reduce employeetemployer contributions?
Or as suggested by several critics, should the Board have credited the total excess earnings
against possible fiscal deficiencies in subsequent years?
BINDINGS
1. Before 1959, §31592 of the California Government Code(Cal.Govt.Code)required that
suLplus earnings remain in the retirement fund as a reserve against contingencies. In
1959,that Section was amended to allow Retirement Boards to transfer surplus funds
exceeding one percent(1%)of the systems total assets into the County Advance Reserve
(§31592.2 Cal.Govt.Code). This change was motivated by the Los Angeles i County's
desire to use these excess surplus funds to reduce the County's contribution. Since
§31592.2 was enacted, similar transfers were made for this purpose in other counties,
including Contra Costa County.
2. Realized gains earned by investments beyond what is necessary to fund the system,
presently set at eight percent(SO/o), shall be considered surplus only after all other
financial obligations have been met.
3. Subsidies that the Board transfers yearly,come only from investment earnings in excess
of the assumed eight percent(8%)rate. The Boatd cannot transfer funds from employee
or employer contributions.
4. The subsidy is the amount paid by the Board.to offset the cost-of-living portion of the
contribution rates. Both the employer and employee contribute to the retirement system.
The total contribution rates, expressed as a percent of compensation, consists,of two(2)
parts; the basic rate and the cost-of-living rate(COL). The basic rate pays for the cost to
provide basic retirement benefits to members. The COL rate pays for the cost-of-living
increase that each retiree receives after retirement.
5. During fourteen(14)of the prior fifteen(15)years, the Board has subsidized contribution
rates. The obvious advantages have been more take-home pay for employees and lower
County costs. The disadvantage has been that the County and its employees have come
to rely on these artificially low rates, despite CCCERA's efforts to remind all members
that this subsidy is a yearly decision, dependent upon annual excess earnings.
6. Although what constitutes a cost of benefits as contained in§31592.2 is debatable, the
Board has transferred excess earnings to the County Advance Reserve and the Member
-Reserve to fund a part of the employee/employer contribution rates to the cost-o�iving
benefits during the prior fourteen(14)years per authority of §31874. Proponents of the
contributing subsidy state that if earnings exceed expectation and the funding is sound,
the investment gains should be returned to current taxpayers and employees.
7. The Legislative Intent of Article 5.5, Section I of the County Employees Retirement Act
of 1937 does not restrict benefits to present retirees. Benefits are to be disbursed, for the
purpose of providing benefits to the present and future retirees and beneficiaries at the
discretion of the Retirement Board.
8. California Attorney General Opinion 86-707,in part, contains language regarding
authorized distribution of excess earnings:
a. . . ."To fund these benefits from reserves with the concomitant decrease in the
employer contribution requirements is proper. . . The investment of retirement
funds to aid in reducing emploter contributions is a legitimate fiduciary
purpose."
b. "The assets of a public pension or retirement system are trust funds and shall be
held for the exclusive purposes of providing benefits to participants in the pension
or retirement system and their beneficiaries and defraying reasonable expenses of
administering the system."
C. "Employer and employee contributions to a retirement system such as the 1937
Act are necessarily dependent upon and a function of accrued liabilities and
assumed income. If the(Retirement)Board decides to credit the employer and
employee contribution accounts with less'than the actuarially assumed interest
rate. . . contributions will have to be increased:and vice versa. . . "
2
CONCLUSIONS
The 1995/96 Grand Jury finds no violation of the law or its intent in the distribution of subsidies
to employer and employee reserve accounts. The Board has a legal might under authority of
applicable California Government Code Sections and the Attorney General's Opinion 86-_707, to
make distribution in line with accepted fiduciary and good business practices.
3
SECTION 933 (C) OF TH:E 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 f ndinas 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'ail respbrises 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 impan-
eled 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 §488.
Grand jury report to be based only on own investigation. Penal
Code §939.9_ ��
C. 76
:Al RECEIVED
If im 2 6 1996
CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
CONTRA COSTA CO.
A REPORT BY
THE 1995-96 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GRAND JURY
1020 Ward Street
Martinez, California 94553
(510) 646-2345
Report No. 9613
1995-96 GRAND JURY
COMPLIANCE AND REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT
APPROVED BY THE GRAND JURY:
DATE:
O AROSEMENA
GRAND JURY FOREMAN
ACCEPTED FOR FILING:
DATE:
J HN F. VAN DE POEL*
F THE SUPERIOR COURT
1995-1996 GRAND JURY
COMPLIANCE AND REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT
The Contra Costa County Civil Grand Jury is impaneled annually to investigate city and county
governments, special districts, and certain non-profit corporations to ensure that their functions
are lawfully, economically, and efficiently performed. Reports of the results of these
investigations and recommendations derived from them are published annually to ensure the best
interests of the public are being served.
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 90 days. Elected officials must respond to recommendations within 60 days. These
responses are a matter of public record and are available upon request of the clerk of the Superior
Court.
The Compliance and Review Committee of the 1995-96 Grand Jury has evaluated the previous
Grand Jury reports and recommendations. The following is a detailed summary of the responses
to the 199495 Grand Jury reports. Included is a review of the responses to two(2)reports from
prior years.
An explanation of the response terminology is indicated below.
ACCEPT: The recommendation of the Grand Jury has been or will be implemented.
ACCEPT AS MODIFIED: The recommendation of the Grand Jury is agreed to in principle,
but will be implemented with modification. (Grand Jury Comment: This response
generally constitutes a rejection).
PARTIAL ACCEPTANCE:Part of the recommendation of the grand jury is accepted and will
be implemented. Part cannot or will not be implemented.
NO RESPONSE: Targeted agency did not reqpond and may be in violation of Section 933(c)of
the California Penal Code. Follow up action will be taken.
NON RESPONSE: A response was received, but did not adequaterly address the
recommendation.
REJECT: The recommendation of the Grand Jury will not be implemented. "'
Report No. 9501
COMMENDABLE COST CUTTING
SUMMARY
On June 28, 1994, the County Board of Supervisors took appropriate and commendable action in
abolishing Resolution 88/63 which provided paid time off for county employee elected or
appointed to public office. The abolished policy is a prime example of the kind of wasteful and
luxuriant spending of increasingly more limited county-taxpayer funds that must be sought out
and eliminated. The Board should put forth this action as an example and create and empower an
independent commission to review and make recommendations for similar spending cuts.
RECOMMENDATIONS [RESPONDING AGENCY: CONTRA COSTA BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS]
No. 1 The Board of Supervisors continue to seek out and abolish the kind of wasteful spending
exhibited by the policies of Resolution 88/63.
Response: This recommendation is accepted.
This process is on-going as noted in the recommendation. On February 28, 1995,the
Board stepped up its efforts in this area by directing the County Administrator to initiate a
county-wide effort to streamline policies, improve productivity and increase the economy
and efficiency in County departments.
No.2 The Board of Supervisors seek these spending cuts as a priority above any further
cutbacks in programs or positions.
Response: This recommendation is accepted.
All employees should be encouraged to bring examples of wasteful spending to the
attention of their department head, or bring the issue to the attention of the County
Administrator.
No.3 Within 30 days, the County Administrator and the Board of Supervisors launch a formal
investigation to identify those who have utilized the Resolution 88/63 policy,to determine
if instances of double compensation have occurred and to seek corrective action.
Response: This recommendation is accepted.
Only three employees actually took advantage of the Resolution and used any County
2
hours to conduct business in their capacity as elected officials. We(the Board of
Supervisors) do not know whether any of the three were also compensated for those same
hours by the agency of which they are elected officials.
Report No. 9502
DELTA DIABLO SANITATION DISTRICT- ALLEGED DISTRICT MISMANAGEMENT
SUMMARY
Several allegations concerning Delta Diablo Sanitation District were received by the 1994-95
Contra Costa Grand Jury concerning financial losses in its account devoted to Bay Point
residents, irregularities in the dismissal of a Delta Diablo accounting manager, and failure to
report untreated waste spills. The Grand Jury has found no substantiation of any of these
allegations.
RECOMIV MNDATIONS [RESPONDING AGENCY-DELTA DIABLO SANITATION
DISTRICT]
No. 1 The grand Any does not currently recommend any changes in the management and
operational practices of Delta Diablo Sanitation District related to the allegations ordered
in this report.
Response: This recommendation is accepted.
"We are extremely pleased and excited about the findings of the grand jury and whole-
heartedly support the recommendations."[Source: letter received from Delta Diablo
Sanitation District,March 9, 1995.1
Report No.9503
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
LACK OF EMERGENCY SPENDING PROCEDURES
SUMMARY:
Contra Costa County, like most entities that administer public funds, has a limit set as the amount
of money that may be authorized to be spent on contracts for services without the necessity of
prior Board of Supervisors' public review and approval. The limit is currently$25,000. Public
review and approval of contracts in excess of$25,000 is done to allow for public comment, avoid
"back room dealing" and to protect the public interest. Yet, emergencies and special conditions
arise that required expediency, which can also be in the public interest. The Grand Jury has found
such an"emergency" that caused a County Department Director to place the County at risk and
obligated the Country for over$500,000 prior to Board of Supervisors approval. The Grand
Jury believes the lack of appropriate emergency contract approval procedures must be reviewed
and new procedures adopted to better protect the public interest.
RECOMMENDATIONS: [RESPONDING AGENCY-CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS]
No. 1 The Board of Supervisors direct the County Administrator to complete within 90 days, a
procedure to define an emergency and the steps to be taken to authorize commencement
of the work and the ultimate approval by the Board of Supervisors.
Response: This recommendation is accepted.
The Board has directed that Department Heads make specific requests of the County
Administrator for all emergency expenditures in excess of$25,000 and that the County
Administrator subsequently recommend appropriate emergency expenditures for approval
by the Board at the earliest opportunity.
Report No.9504
CONTRA COSTS COUNTY HEALTH SERVICES DEPARTMENT
PAYMENT TO LOS MEDANOS CO1VMUNITY HOSPITAL
SUN"AARY
A great deal of turmoil has arisen in and about the closure of Los Medanos Community Hospital.
Amid this confusion,the Contra Costa County Health Services Department stepped in and
attempted to assist the ailing hospital with a grant of public funds from the Tobacco Tax Fund
(AB75). While well intentioned and most probably in anticipation of the County's assumption of
the Hospital's operations,the grant received absolutely no public review or scrutiny. The Grand
Jury is concerned that the public interest be protected and that the public right to review large
allocations of funds be protected and maintained. The Grand Jury urges the Board of Supervisors
to take decisive action to change the process by which these funds can be so quietly distributed.
RECOMMENDATIONS [RESPONDING AGENCY-CONTRA COSTA,COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS]
4
The 1994-95 Contra Costa Grand Jury recommends that:
No. 1 Within 30 calendar days, the Board of Supervisors rescind Board Order 1.30 of
September 1, 1993, which delegates to the Health Services Director, the independent
authority to spend Tobacco Tax funds(AB75).
Response: This recommendation is adopted as modified.
The Board of Supervisors concurs with the grand jury's concern that the Board exercise
its normal spending controls, but to rescind the Board Order approving the grant
submission could jeopardize$3.7 million received for Fiscal Year 1993-94. The California
Health Care For Indigents Program contract, the subject of the Board Order in the
recommendation, is submitted to the Board annually. The distribution of the Funding in
1993 was consistent with the intent of the enabling legislation. However, to insure that
there is no misunderstanding in the future, the Health Services Department is to identify
the recipient facilities in the order presented to the Board for adoption each Fiscal Year.
Report No. 9505
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
ETHNIC INSENSITIVITY IN THE FOSTER CARE&ADOPTION SYSTEM
SUMMARY:
Is long term foster care in the best interest of the children? Are critical issues such as the welfare,
education and security of a permanent home being properly addressed for the children in our
foster care system? Is there ethnic insensitivity being displayed in the way the children and their
case records are handled by social workers? These are questions that have been brought to the
attention of the Grand Jury as a part of the long continuum of the public's concern and outrage
over our county's foster care and adoption system, Ethnic insensitivity must be purged from our
county or we risk the future of our most valued asset: Our Children!
II
RECOMAMNDATIONS: [RESPONDING AGENCY: CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS]
The 1994-95 Contra Costa County Grand Jury recommends that:
No. 1 Within six(6) months, the Contra Costa County Department of Social Services implement
5
elf
a training program for all social workers, setting and maintaining higher standards for case
record documentation including court reports.
Response: This recommendation is accepted.
A training supervisor has been hired and a training program to address the
recommendation will be implemented within the time frame.
No. 2 Within sixty(60)days, develop cultural sensitivity training programs to ensure that the
social workers meet the needs of all the children in their care.
Response: This recommendation is accepted.
The department's staff development personnel and Affirmative Action Coordinator will
incorporate the recommended elements into the training curriculum.
No. 3 Within six(6) months, develop and implement a system to monitor case records for quality
and consistency. This system should include routine reports to the Director of Social
Services Department on improvements made in the quality of documentation as well as the
relative rates for placement of minority and non-minority children.
Response: This recommendation is accepted.
Report No. 9506
TOWN OF DANVILLE
DANVILLE INVESTMENT LOSSES
SUMMARY
In 1994,the Town of Danville incurred over$2,500,000 in losses to their investment portfolio.
Subsequent to discovery of the losses, swift action was taken to avoid finther losses and to
recover a substantial portion of the lost funds. Other appropriate modifications were made to the
Town's financial policies and practices.
None of those responsible for the investment of over$20 million in Town funds had prepared
themselves adequately, if at all, for this important task. Government Code 53601 was violated
and the Town's investment policy was ignored by the Town Council, the Town Manager and the
Administrative Services Manager. Advice was not volunteered by the City Attorney regarding
financial procedures nor was it requested or obtained by the responsible parties. The 1991-92
6
Grand Jury Report, which was critical of Town investment practices, was characterized as a
"witch hunt" and as"much ado about nothing," although substantial irregularities were evident in
the Town's financial practices.
In light of these recent losses,the Grand Jury has reinvestigated the town's investment activities
and has continued to have substantial concerns over the Town's investment policies and
procedure which must be addressed, not ignored.
RECOMMENDATIONS: [RESPONDING AGENCY: THE TOWN OF DANVELLE]
The 1994-95 Contra Costa County Grand Jury recommends that:
No. 1 The Town Council, within 30 days, adopt a mechanism whereby consultation between
responsible personnel is required before investment decisions are made. One of the
personnel should be a Town employee(not a consultant).
Response: This recommendation is accepted.
Staff recommends that the Town immediately implement a procedure which will require
the investment manager to receive written authorization from either the Town Manager or
the Finance Director/Treasurer for investments.
No.2 The Town Council,within 60 days, establish a self-administered internal audit program to
conduct random audits focused upon investment activities. ('The Financial Advisory
Committee does not fulfill this recommendation.)
Response: This recommendation is accepted.
The financial advisory committee and staff recommend establishing a program of quarterly
internal audits of the Town's investment activities, to be rotated between the Assistant Town
Manager,the Development Services Director,the Community Services Director and the City
Attorney. Additionally,the Town has hired an independent CPA firm to conduct an audit of the
Towels investment activities in connection with the annual financial audit.
No.3 The Town Council immediately provide,by ordinance,for a Town Treasurer, as required
by the Town's investment policy.
Response: This recommendation is accepted.
On August 1, 1995,the Town Council will consider an ordinance appointing the Finance
Director as Town Treasurer.
No. 4 The Town Council, within 30 days, make and publish an accurate accounting of the
investment losses reported by the Town's Auditor beginning in May of 1994 until April of
1995, along with all ancillary costs incurred.
Response: This recommendation is accepted.
7
The extent of the investment losses has been made public or published on several
occasions, including public Town Council meetings on August 2, August 11, October 4
and December 6, 1994 and the Town of Danville General Purpose Financial Statements
for the years ending June 30, 1993 and June 30, 1994.
No. 5 The Town Council, within 30 days, establish a policy whereby the City Attorney performs
periodic reviews and public reports on the Town's compliance with laws and policies.
Response: This recommendation is accepted.
Town staff is in the process of again reviewing the Town's investment policy. Revisions
will be brought before the Council in the fall of 1995. Two(2) changes that staff will be
recommending are: (1)that the investment policy be reviewed by staff and approved by
Council annually and: (2)as part of this annual review, the City Attorney review the
Town's investment policy, practice and portfolio for compliance with California
Government Code 53601, et seq., and the Town's Investment Policy.
1995/96 GRAND JURY COMMENT. In response to a request for an update, the City of
Danville reported on May 10, 1996 that all recommendations contained in Report No. 9506 have
been implemented The City provided detailed information on the status of each item.
Report No. 9507
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
SUMMARY: [RESPONDING AGENCY: CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS]
This final report regarding the County's criminal justice system covers several topics of concern;
namely,Detention Facilities;Municipal/Superior Court/Police Holding Cells; Sheriff's
OfficelPolice Departments;Probation Department/Juvenile Facilities;and the Marine Patrol.
These topics were all included in one final report because the Grand Jury feels that all of the
concerns have a problem in common,that is, a shortage of funds for the criminal justice system.
RECOMMENDATIONS•
DETENTION FACILITIES
No. 1 The 1994-95 Contra Costa County Grand Jury recommends that in regard to the Contra
Costa County Criminal Justice System:
8
. . C�. 7?
The County Board of Supervisors should not decrease, but immediately increase, the
budgets applicable to our criminal justice system departments.
Response: This recommendation is accepted.
No. 2 Within sixty(60)days, the Board of Supervisors appoint a Board to review and
standardize booking procedures and documentation for the County and cities. All police
departments should adopt standardized procedures and booking forms consistent with the
Sheriffs Department.
Response: This recommendation is accepted as modified.
The Board agrees that police departments should adopt standardized procedures and
booking forms consistent with the Sheriff Department's but that those departments have
both the authority and expertise to do so.
No.3. Within sixty(60)days, the Board of Supervisors appoint an independent review board to
study the Detention Facilities and determine how the existing facilities can best be utilized
to serve the County's needs.
Response: This recommendation is accepted as modified.
The Board agrees that use of existing facilities requires constant review but that the Board
and the citizens of Contra Costa County believe their elected Sheriff has the responsibility,
staff and expertise to make that determination.
No.4 Additional funding be allocated to maintain and operate the County's existing facilities in
safe and well maintained manner for the health, safety and welfare of the personnel and
inmates.
Response: This recommendation is accepted as modified.
The Board is committed to maintaining and operating all facilities for all their occupants in
a healthy and safe manner and funds are allocated each year to do so.
MUNICIPALISUPERIOR COURT/POLICE HOLDING CELLS
No. l Within one hundred twenty(120)days, metal detectors be installed and used at all public
entrances to all court buildings. i
Response: This recommendation is not accepted.
Court facilities have a much higher level of security than other County public buildings
with a potential for workplace violence. There is currently in place in the courts a
complex system of bailiffs, internal security and emergency response plans,.including the
9
use of a mobile metal detector screening system, all under the aegis of the Sherifps
Department.
Court building security is an eligible funding category of the State Trial Court Funding
Program, however, to date, the State has not seen fit to provide money for this purpose
despite their assumption of control of court funding. Nonetheless, the courts have applied
for FY 1996/97 funds for building security.
To provide permanent metal detector screening for the court locations of this County,
three Superior Court, five Municipal Court and two Juvenile Court locations, would
require a general fund expenditure of at least$1 million for start-up costs and$3.5 to $4
million a year for permanent operating staff. These funds are simply not available.
Reallocating funds would require cuts in other essential County services which, in turn,
would jeopardize public safety. This would be contrary to the Grand Jury's intention.
No. 2 The Board immediately impanel an independent advisory board to seek out additional
funding sources. These sources may include funding from other County departments
and/or additional County-wide tax revenues.
Response: This recommendation is approved as modified.
The Board agrees that additional funding sources are needed. The Board of Supervisors,
the County Administrator's Office and various Board appointed advisory groups
aggressively pursue outside revenue to fund essential County programs, including public
protection.
DETENTION FACMITIES:
No. 1 The West County Detention booking facility be opened immediately and used on a trial
basis during heavy intake periods to eliminate the bottleneck at the Martinez Detention
Facility booking center and to decrease the countrywide impact on local jurisdictions.
Response: This recommendation is not accepted.
The primary and insurmountable obstacle to opening a second booking unit is money.
Pursuant to Government Code 29550, arresting agencies are required to bear booking
costs but,because of restrictions in the law,the County can recover from non-County
arresting agencies only about 30%of its cost to operate the booking unit. As of 1993-94,
the cost of providing one booking location for the County was$3,156,776. Spread over
22,961 annual bookings, the average cost per booking is$137. Based on the Sheriffs
estimates of personnel costs for providing a second booking location at the West County
Detention Facility, the booking cost would rise to $5.1 million and, if spread over
approximately 23,000 annual bookings, would result in an increased booking fee of$222
for all chargeable bookings for all agencies. This includes Central, East and.,%uth County
police agencies who would not realize any transport costs savings.
10
Moreover, the County has no money to pay for its share of the increased costs estimated
at $1.3 million, without making cuts in patrol or other vital County services. The Board is
not aware that the cities would be agreeable to paying a booking fee increase of the
magnitude that would be required to open a second booking unit, but suggest that such a
unit could be opened only if the cities would agree to bear the total cost.
No. 2 Within 30 days, bring fire inspections up to date in all Court facilities.
Response: The recommendation is accepted.
All court facilities have been inspected by the State Fire Marshal and/or the appropriate
fire protection district. The General Services Director is directed to obtain evidence of
inspections.
No.3 Within 30 days, have the elevators in the Old Courthouse inspected and recertified.
Response: This recommendation is accepted.
Both elevators in the County Courthouse have been, and continue to be, certified by the
State of California.
No. 4 Within sixty(60)days of formation, the independent review board should study all County
holding facilities, prisoner transportation procedures and courtrooms used for criminal
trials in order to address public safety concerns over inmate contact with the public.
Response: This recommendation is accepted as modified.
The Board agrees that the public safety concerns over inmate contact with the public
should be addressed but that the Board and the citizens of the County believe their elected
Sheriff has the responsibility, staff and expertise to make that determination.
No.5 Within 30 days,the County-owned video arraignment system be put into regular use to
reduce movement of high-risk prisoners.
Response: This recommendation is not accepted.
So-called"high risk"prisoners need to be transported from County Jail to remote
municipal court locations for a variety of court hearings other than arraignment. A more
appropriate solution to reduce movement of high-risk prisoners is not to transport
prisoners at all. + +
SHERIFF'S OFFICE/POLICE DEPARTMENTS:
No. 1 Within 30 days, fire inspections shall be brought up to date and kept current.
Response: This recommendation is accepted.
11
No. 2 Each responsible jurisdiction shall seek immediate funding to provide adequate personnel,
safety equipment, vehicles, computers and other equipment essential to performing their
duties through reallocation of internal budgets or additional tax revenues.
Response: This recommendation is accepted.
The Sheriff intends to initiate a program to replace 150 mobile and portable radios in the
near future.
PROBATION DEPARTMENT/JUVENILE FACILITIES:
No. 1 The Board of Supervisors continue to seek funds to modernize or replace County Juvenile
Detention facilities.
Response: This recommendation is accepted.
No. 2 Within sixty(60) days, the Board of Supervisors implement the Juvenile Justice System
Continuum of Services plan prepared by the Juvenile Systems Planning Advisory
Committee.
Response: This recommendation is accepted as modified.
The Board has approved the Continuum of Care plan in the Juvenile Justice System. The
Grand Jury recommends it be implemented in 60 days. Implementation of the Juvenile
Hall replacement part of the plan will be deferred until the$46 million cost is funded.
Programs included in the Continuum will be implemented as funds become available.
Various grant development initiations are currently underway to accomplish this.
No.3 Within 30 days, a fire inspection shall be performed immediately at Byron Boys' Ranch.
Response: This recommendation is accepted.
No.4 Within six(6)months,the Board of Supervisors review,and restructure if necessary,the
entire Probation Department program in order to better focus the Department on the
needs of the community. If the program cannot be adequately funded,the program should
be revised accordingly. The Board should consider having Probation Officers concentrate
on the handling of court cases in the pre-sentencing phase and juvenile probation
Response: This recommendation is accepted as modified.
Restructuring of the Probation Department program is not under the sole authority of the
County Board of Supervisors. Any restructuring or reorganization discussions must
include the Board, the Superior Court, the County Probation Officer, and the Juvenile
Systems Planning Advisory Committee. However, we agree with the spirit of the
recommendation. We will continue to work with the Court and others to make probation
services, however administered, responsive to community and public safety heeds.
12
No. 5 Within 90 days, separate quarters be provided for the younger boys at Byron Boys'
Ranch.
Response: This recommendation is not accepted.
The Board of Supervisors concurs within the County Probation Officer who does not feel
that this is practical or needed. However, care should be taken by the Probation
Department and the Juvenile Court to assure that only appropriate cases be considered for
and committed to the Ranch. Boys who might be too young or too immature should be
excluded from consideration and alternative programs should be sought. Such alternatives
could include diversion programs operated by cities.
No. 6 Within 6 months, the County develop and implement a program to place more emphasis
on re-entry into the community after detention and greater assistance and supervision
provided to youth to encourage them to stay in school and to develop a more productive
life.
Response: This recommendation is accepted as modified.
The Board concurs with the need for improved re-entry services. Development and
implementation of such programs relate to the response to Recommendation No. 4.
Several grant proposals developed by the County Administrator's Office(East Bay
Comprehensive Communities,Healthy Start, Safe Futures,Boot Camp planning, and CCC
Juvenile Conservation Corps)address the issue of post-incarceration care related to school
attendance and employment. Hopefully, some funds will be awarded shortly.
MARINE PATROL:
No. l Within sixty(60)days,the Board of Supervisors appoint a committee to review the entire
Marine Patrol program and its funding in order to increase law enforcement and public
safety on the waterways.
Response: This recommendation is accepted as modified.
Marine Patrol coverage in Contra Costa County consists of four fully trained Marine
Patrol Deputies with six vessels assigned to the unit. During the winter months,two
deputies are assigned to the Delta and are supported by reserve deputies. During the
summer months there are three deputies assigned and supported by reserve deputies. The
deputies regularly patrol those portions of our delta waterways which are most heavily
used. Vessel inspections and enforcement activity is ongoing, as evidenced by the 196
citations issued during the 1993/1994 season.
The bid process has been completed for the new vessel and funding is in place for its
acquisition, use, and maintenance. There is widespread agreement among county sheriffs,
the Coast Guard, Fish and Game, and Parks and Recreation officials that funds must be
generated to cover the cost of enforcing our boating laws and that these funds must be
13
reserved for purposes of boating safety only. To that end, the Sheriff is carrying forward
legislation that will do just that: ACA 12 and AB 122. Assembly Constitutional
Amendment 12 would create a constitutionally protected trust fund, similar to the state
highway trust fund, for all boating fuel tax and registration fees. This would prevent these
monies from being used to balance the state budget or for any purposes not directly
related to boating and waterway programs.
Because of the collaborative effort among local enforcement agencies to get to this point,
the Board sees little value in appointing another committee to study public safety on the
waterways.
No. 2 The Sheriffs Department immediately grant harbor masters the power to cite offenders
for safety and registration violations.
Response: This recommendation is not accepted.
We agree with the Sheriff that law enforcement is the responsibility of the Sheriff's
Department.
Report No. 9508
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
SUNHAARY:
The 199495 Contra Costa County Grand Jury received a number of inquiries from citizens in the
County regarding the status of Equal Employment Opportunity and Affirmative Action Programs.
Affirmative Action Policy states that these programs are to be designed and implemented by the
County,the cities and the special districts within the County. In order to determine if these
programs existed and if they were effective,the Grand Jury requested and reviewed affirmative
action programs and their associated statistical evaluations from county government;twelve(12)
cities within the county and the police departments within these cities. Also selected for review
were several of the larger autonomous special districts.
1I
RECOMMENDATIONS: [RESPONDING AGENCIES: CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, DELTA SANITATION DISTRICT, ANTIOCH UNIFIED
SCHOOL DISTRICT, BRENTWOOD]
14
C. 71
The 1994-95 Contra Costa County Grand Jury recommends that:
No. 1 The Contra Costa County government continue its efforts to make the labor force
representative of all the citizens in our diverse society.
Response: The Board of Supervisors appreciates the Grand Jury's recognition of our
affirmative action progress in the recruitment and hiring of qualified people for
county employment and the positive steps the County has made by appointing
qualified minorities and females in management level positions.
No. 2 Citizens throughout the County continue to redefine and implement their affirmative
action programs.
Response: This does not come under the purview of the Board of Supervisors.
No.3 The example of leadership and guidance in the establishment and implementation of
affirmative action programs in the cities of Pittsburg and Richmond should be
commended.
Response: This does not come under the purview of the Board of Supervisors.
No. 4 The City of Antioch's Police Department be observed as an example of the importance of
agencies and their administrators being committed to the principles of affirmative action.
Response: This does not come under the purview of the Board of Supervisors.
No.5 Within ninety(90)days,the Board of Directors of each of Contra Costa County's
autonomous special districts(especially Antioch Unified School District and Delta Diablo
Sanitation District)examine the status of their affirmative action policies and procedures
with district staff. Upon complete examination,the special district's Board of Directors
move forward to create or update and implement an affirmative action program. A Board
of Directors which is committed to the principles of affirmative action will provide firm
guidance to their special district for hiring and promotional practices, resulting in a labor
force more realistically representing the ethnicity within the communities they serve.
(A) DM TA DIABLO SANITATION DISTRICT:
Response: This recommendation is rejected.
The District sought information from its labor counsel, Corbett and Kane,to try to
determine and understand the comments madetby the Grand Any. After exploring this
matter further, we believe the Grand Jury was operating under a misunderstanding of laws
concerning affirmative action when it criticized the District for not having a formal
affirmative action plan.
(B) ANTIOCH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT:
Response: This recommendation is rejected.
15
The Antioch Unified School District does, in fact, have a comprehensive affirmative action
plan, procedures and policy.
Report No. 9509
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
SOCIAL SERVICE DEPARTMENT- CHILDREN'S SERVICES BUREAU
INTRODUCTION•
Of the children currently in Contra Costa County's Foster/Adoptive care system between the ages
of 2 and 18; 83 percent have been in Foster Care over 24 months.
The 1993-94 Contra Costa County Grand Jury issued Report 99405,"Bureaucratic Child Abuse,"
calling for an impartial investigation of the Adoptions Unit of the Social Service Department.
In response, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors contracted with the Child Welfare
Research Center("CWRC"), at the University of California, Berkeley,to review the practices of
the Adoption Program in the Contra Costa County Social Service Department.
The CWRC review team made their findings and recommendations known in November 1994.
This report entitled: "Evaluation of the Contra Costa County Social Service Department
Adoption Program"made six(6)major recommendations:
RECOMNMNDATIONS: [RESPONDING AGENCY: CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES]
The 1994-95 Contra Costa County Grand Jury recommend that:
No. 1. Within ninety(90)days, a team building approach for Foster/Adoptive and Relative Care
Parents be implemented by the Children's Services Bureau.
Response: This recommendation is accepted as modified.
The Social Service Department has already begun implementation of the team-building
approach for foster/adoptive care parents and Child Services staff. A curriculum
developed by the Child Welfare League of Amgoca and approved by the California
Department of Social Services, called Foster Pride/Adopt Pride, a collaborative team
approach between social workers and care givers, was implemented by the Department.
The training plan for social workers will include expanding this across the Department.
However, because of current training, this plan will not be accomplished,within 90 days as
recommended.
No. 2 Within sixty(60) days, a program be implemented by the Children's Services Bureau
16
whereby trained Court Appointed Special Representatives ("CASR') be used as
enhancement to:
A Social Worker Training.
B. Foster/Adoptive-Relative Care Parent Training.
C. Children's Court Report Preparation.
Response: This recommendation is accepted.
The Social Service Department has established a plan of action to work on the relationship
between social workers and CASRs, and meetings have already been held to discuss this
issue.
No. 3 Social workers to be required to complete their child's court case report, when due, to
avoid unnecessary court continuances.
Response: This recommendation is accepted.
No. 4 The following attachments to the child's court case report be added to the social worker's
preparation:
A The CASR observations.
B. Educational and behavioral observations conducted by the child's teacher.
C. The Foster/Adoptive-Relative Care Parent observations.
Response: This recommendation is accepted as modified.
Social workers currently attach many reports to their court report. CASR reports are
submitted to the court;however it is nearly impossible to get written reports from
children's teachers. The Department is working to obtain more educational information
for case records.
No.5 Within thirty(30)days,team-building exercises such as reverse role playing should be
implemented by the Children's Services Bureau in joint training sessions to improve
relationships between Foster/Adoptive-Relative Care parents and social workers.
Response: This recommendation is accepted.
There is, in places a curriculum to promote team building among Children's Services that
is an appropriate vehicle to accomplish this. Additionally,the CWRC report and the
planning meeting held earlier developed strategies to deal with this issue. The Department
intends to proceed with that plan of action.
No. 6 Within ninety(90) days, a child in Foster/Adoptive-Relative Care be assigned one social
worker to remain with that child throughout the time that child is in the system, thus
allowing for continuity in the child's otherwise fragmented life.
Response: This recommendation is accepted as modified.
17
�. 7F
The Social Service Department is proceeding with the development of a"Fost/Adopt
Program" which will streamline and provide continuity for children who have adoptive
plans. The fost/adopt program is in progress and is already subject to time frames.
No. 7 The Children's Services Bureau establish annual evaluations of all social workers in their
department.
Response: This recommendation is accepted.
The Social Service Department has a policy of regular evaluations. As part of our
Department's commitment to"service excellence,"all supervisors and management staff
have been participating in training on the development of working teams and providing an
environment that promotes performance that lends itself to service excellence.
No. 8 Within thirty(30) days, the Children's's Services Bureau establish stress reduction
workshops and intervention to reduce burn out and lack of compassion by social workers.
Response: This recommendation is accepted.
The Department's fiscal year1995/1996 training plans include workshops for social
workers on"Managing the Stress of Change"to be given by Lorraine Fox. Ms. Fox
provided this training for supervisors in the Department, and Adult and Children Services'
supervisors highly recommended the training be extended to all social workers.
No. 10: (There is no No. 9) Within ninety(90)days,the Children's Services Bureau's manual
be reviewed for out-of-date materials,updated and kept current.
Response: This recommendation is accepted as modified.
The Department will update the manual and keep it current but it will not be possible to
have it updated within 90 days. With the loss of program support staff;the Department
has been unable to keep pace with some of the program updates. A work plan in relation
to the manual update is part of the CWRC report which will address this issue.
No: it Within six(6)months, a computer system be developed to provide:
A. The reduction of paperwork-
B.
aperworkB. Access for necessary information at the local level from any social worker's desk
monitor.
Response: This recommendation is accepted as modified.
The State has plans for a statewide child welfare system and will not approve any other
system with state or federal dollars. An agreement has been reached between the state and
IBM/ISSC and the system is back on track. The tentative State plan is to begin roll-out to
counties in 1996. Given the costs of implementing our own system, estimated at
18
$400,000, plus maintenance and operating costs, we believe it is fiscally prudent to wait
for the State system.
No. 12 The Children's Services Bureau develop a five(5)year action plan to be presented to the
Board of Supervisors subcommittee, "The Family and Human Services Committee" no
later than November 13, 1995.
Response: This recommendation is accepted as modified.
The Department has been given a solid plan of action as part of the Child Welfare
Research Center's report. We propose that the Department have the opportunity to
implement the current goals set forth in the CWRC report and that we delay the five-year
action plan until the recommendations outlined in their report and scheduled for
completion have been accomplished.
Report No. 9510
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
PITTSBURG PRESCHOOL COORDINATING COUNCIL, INCORPORATED
SUMMARY:
The 1994-95 Contra Costa County Grand Jury found that the Board of Directors were not
providing adequate program oversight. Not all the duties as defined in California Non-profit
Corporation Law(Section 5210)were being carried out by the Board of Directors.
RECOMN ENDATIONS [RESPONDING AGENCIES: CONTRA COSTA COUNTY.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS,PITTSBURG PRESCHOOL COORDINATING COUNCIL]
No. I Within 90 days, the Pittsburg Preschool Coordinating Council,Inc. (PPCC)Board of
Directors comply with California Non-profit Corporation Law(Section 5210)
requirements and exercise appropriate direction respecting County contracts.
Response: This recommendation is not under the purview of the Board of Supervisors.
Response: PPCC Board of Directors does regularly meet to develop policies and to
delegate duties to the Executive Director to carry out the orders of the Board.
No. 2 Within 60 days, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors appoint an independent
review board to audit and review the financial expenditures and activities of the PPCC
with regard to the funding and contracts provided to the PPCC by the County.
Response: This recommendation is accepted as modified.
19
.7F
The County has had, in place, an ad hoc group of three department heads and the Auditor-
Controller who have been reviewing County concerns with the agency for the last six
months.
No 3 Within 90 days after establishment of the independent review board, the Contra Costa
County Board of Supervisors establish and implement procedures for future oversight of
PPCC contracts administered by the County.
Response: This recommendation is accepted as modified.
On June 27, 1995, the Board of Supervisors imposed significant oversight procedures on
Pittsburg Pre-School regarding future contracts and directed the County Administrator
and the andhoc group to continue its review and monitoring. Increased oversight includes
a pre-audit of all payment demands; provision of bi-monthly reports involving the
weaknesses identified in the agency's internal audit report; and monitoring of the new
controls which the agency has installed to strengthen its fiscal and administrative
capacities.
Report No. 9511
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
PUBLIC RECREATION PROGRAMS-FINGERPRINTING
"PROTECT THE CHILDREN"
INTRODUCTION
On September 28, 1992, the Governor signed Assembly Bill No. 2986, Chapter 1097, an act to
add Section 10911.5 to the Education Code, relating to public recreation programs. It became
effective January 1, 1993. It reads in part:
10911.5(a)Commencing with January 1, 1993, every public recreation program
employer shall require each employee having direct contact with minors to
immediately submit, or in the case of a new employee, to submit on or before the
first day of his or her employment, one set of fingerprints to the Department of
Justice. This requirement is a condition of employment.
10911.5(b)For the purpose of this section"public recreation program employer"
means a public recreation program that is exempt from licensure.pursuant to
subdivision(g) of Section 1596.792 of the Health and Safety Code.
20
This bill requires the State Department of Justice furnish a criminal record summary of the new
employee, if found, to the public recreation program employer.
AB 2986 requires the State to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs
mandated by the State.
The Contra Costa County Grand Jury investigated a random sampling totaling approximately 50
percent of Contra Costa city agencies to verify compliance with these regulations.
RECOMMENDATIONS: [RESPONDING AGENCIES: CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS; CITY OF ANTIOCH; CITY OF BRENTWOOD; CITY OF
PITTSBURG; CITY OF RICHMOND]
No. 1 Within 60 days, all cities and public recreation program employers review and modify their
employment policies to comply with the law(AB 2986)that affects working with minors.
No. 2. Within 60 days, risk managers and public recreation program employers immediately
reexamine, interpret and clarify city policies and practices to bring them into compliance
with state laws which affect any activities when working with minors, including AB 2986.
Advice of City Attorney may be necessary.
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Response: These recommendations are not under the purview of the Board of
Supervisors.
CITY OF ANTIOCH
Response: The City of Antioch is in compliance with the law. Past employees have been
fingerprinted and new hires are fingerprinted on or before their first day of employment.
CITY OF BRENTWOOD
Response: After attending a California Park and Recreation Society Workshop on Public
Resources Code 5164 the Brentwood Recreation and Park District developed policy,
guidelines and procedures for the implementation of a fingerprinting program.
21
In order to comply with the law the district has and will continue to fingerprint those
employees involved in youth programming.
CITY OF PITTSBURG
Response: On February 2, 1995, the City of Pittsburg established an employment policy
that complies with the law(AB 2986).
CITY OF RICHMOND
Response: The City of Richmond initiated compliance of the law on February 2, 1995.
The following are 1993-94 Grand Jury Reports for which responses were not previously
published:
Report No. 9402
ADOPTION VS. LONG TERM FOSTER CARE
RECOMMENDATIONS: [RESPONDING AGENCY: CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES.]
SUMMARY
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 case. Long-term foster card 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.
22
Grand Jury Recommendation 1: Within 90 days the Board of Supervisors obtain from the
County Administrator a 980-day timetable and implementation plan for -these
recommendations.
Response: The Board of Supervisors thanks the Grand Jury for their concern for
children and endorses the Social Service Department's recommendations
which will be implemented as expeditiously as possible after consultation
with the Juvenile Court Judge in the following areas:
► preadoptive planning
► expanded home studies
► training
► team building
► Board of Supervisors' definition of positive outcomes for children
The Board of Supervisors shares the concern of the Grand Jury for children in
Contra Costa County. Consistentwith the recommendations of the Ad Hoc Budget
Committee, the Board. of Supervisors has made children a.high priority when
allocating very limited budget resources. Over the past two years,the state seized
more than $99 million of County revenues. Prior to FY 1991-1992, the.County
received 240A of property taxes generated in Contra Costa County.. We now
receive only 13%. Losses of this magnitude have required the Board of
Supervisors .to cult many valuable services -and. programs which the Board
historically supported through local revenues winch no longer exist.
Under state law, the State of California has responsibility for allocating funding for
adoption services. For FY 1993-1994,the state only allocated$443,549 to Contra
Costa County. Recognizing the Importance of.adoption services, the Board of
Supervisors augmented this allocation by an additional $305,016. The Board of
Supervisors hopes.the Grand Jury joins with them in urging the State of Cardomia
to fully fund adoption services.
Grand Jury Recommendation T. Child Welfare Services have a single administrator
reporting to the Director of Social Services; responsibilities for other than child welfare
services should be assigned elsewhere within thetSocial Services Department. This will
focus accountability_
Response: Child Welfare Services has a single administrator reporting to the
Director of Social Services. Mrs. Yvonne Bullock, Assistant County Welfare
Director, administers the Services Bureau which includes Child Welfare and Adult
Services.
23
Contra Costa CounjySocial Service Department is organized similarly to other Say
Area counties. of the 15 counties with whom the Grand Jury
compared Contra Costa County, all counties had program managers with multiple
responsibilities except Los Angeles County, which because of its size had an
Adoption Division Manager dedicated solely to their adoption program. In the-past
four years Contra Costa County Social Service Department has lost 43% of its
administrative support due to budget cuts. Therefore, assistant directors and
division managers must administer several different programs.
Grand Jury Recommendation 3: The supervisor of the Adoption Unit report directly to the
Child Welfare Services Administrator.' This Will focus accountability that is currently
diluted among the three operating child welfare divisions.
Response:. Accountability is not diluted in the Contra Costa County adoption
program. The supervisor of the Adoption Unit reports directly to one Division
Manager whose sole responsibility is Child Welfare Services- ' -
Grand Jury Recommendation 4: The Adoption Unit relinquish its involvement and
mission supervision of all long-term foster care cases in order to focus on its basic m( (on of
adoption.
Response: The Adoption Unit does not s'up-erVtse any long term foster care cases
All long-term foster care cases are routinely returned to district offloes V adoption
is no longer the plan. (Howeyer, state statistical tables still attribute these cases
to the Adoption Unit if the child has been legally freed, even though service is
rendered through another unit.)
Grand Jury-Recommendation 6: The Adoption Unit deVelop a written quantifiable annual
service plan tied to measurable accomplishments; and the un'(Vs and Its workers'
performance against this plan be closely evaluated within the framework of professional
accountability.
Response: The Adoption Unit completes a required annual state service plan
(The Adoption Yardstick). Since 1990 the Adoption Unit has consistently out-
performed the plan expectations. Records from the annual on-site review by the
state show complete compliance with Title 22 regulations. Since the annual
24
Adoption Yardstick is a technical document, the Department will reformat the
information into an annual narrative service plan to facilitate understanding of the
annual state service plan.
Grand Jury Recommendation 6: Written standards be d1veloped and uniformly applied
for the assessment of adoptability of every child as-part of timely permanency platiNng
recommendations to the Juvenile Court.
Response: Written standards implemented Years ago continue to be used for
assessment of adoptability in accordance with state law requirements. Manual
sections(300-400/1 and 40013)describe the process and procedure for assessing
the adoptability of every child who is required to have permanency planning
recommendations made to the court
Grand Jury Recommendation 7: The Adoption Unit act in a timely and aggressive
manner in recruiting suitable parents for every child referred to it.for adoption.
Response: Contra Costa County's-Adoption Unit recruits aggressively and in a
timely manner for every child referred to it for adoption_ By statute, relatives and
foster parents must be considered first when planning an adoption for a child.
Some children have several relatives and/or foster parents who wish to adopt In
those cases, the county assesses the home of each prospective adoptive family.
While very time consuming, it is done to achieve the best placement for the child.
Children are not freed for-adoption until an adoptive home has been studied,
approved and selected for them.
When a child does n.ot have a relative or foster parent available to adopt him/her,
then adoptive homes studied and pre-approved by this agency are reviewed for the
child. This accelerates the adoption process. State regulations require the plating
agency to supervise the placement at least six months before recommending to
the court that the adoption be finatitad.
Grand Jury Recommendation 8: The use of Adoption Unit personnel for step-parent
adoptions be eliminated; step-parents be referred to more appropriate public or private
sources.
Response: Contra Costa County does not use regular Adoption Unit social
workers for step-parent adoptions. Several y{gars ago Contra Costa County hired
a contract worker to do all step-parent adoptions,thereby freeing up other adoption
staff to do other duties-
Step-parent adoptions must be referred to either the County Social Service
Department or the Probation Department as required bV statute. Other public or
private agencies are not legally able to process step-parent adoptiohY_
25
� 7V
Grand Jury Recommendation 9- The Adoption Unit reach out to additional private
adoption agencies and build collaborative relationships that will assist in the recruitment
cr t7
and referral of suitable adoptive parents, thereby increasing the potential for more
adoptions each year.
Response: Contra Costa County's Adoption staff use private agencies when they
have an appropriate available home for a specific child who is in need of a home.
However, historically, public agencies have placed far more children for adoption
thanprivate agencies, and this trend is continuing-
Califomia Adoptions
Type of Adoption FY 87-88 FY 92-93 Percent
Change
Agency Adoptions 2642 4157 + 57.3%
Public Agencies 2174 3688 + 69.6%
Private Agencies 469 468 - 0.2%
Independent Adoptions 2537 2198 - 13.4%
Intercountry Adoptions 493 230 - .53.3%
TOTALS 5672 6585 + 16.1%
Ethnicity of Children Placed
by Public Agenclei9
FY87-88 FY92-93 Percent
Change
Mite 1032 1294 + 25.4%
Hispanic 625 1023 + 63.71%
Black 390 1091 + 179.71%
Other 127 280 + 120.5%
TOTALS 2174 26$8 + 69.6%
*Caffofesa State Department of Social Services. Statistical Section-Joseph McGwder
Notes:
Hispanic=both birth parents Hispanic or one birth parent Hispanic and other birth parent wt.*e
Black=both birth parents btack or one birth parent btack:and other birth patent While
Other=any other combination(e.g-one Hispanic parent,one black parent)
26
C. 79
An example of Contra Costa County's proactive adoptive placement activities is the
significant number of cooperative adoptive placements done with private and other public
agencies_ In FY 1992-1993 Contra Costa County placed a total of 25 (29%) children in
cooperative adoptive placements: -
FY 91-92 FY 92-93
►
Black Adoption Placement Center, Oakland - 4 3
► AASK (in Alameda County)- 2 5
► Adoption Horizons (in Humboldt County) - 0 1
• State of Califomia Adoption Program- 3 3
► Sierra Adoptions (in Nevada County) 1 0
► Other county agency adoptive homes- 4 4
► Other slate agency adoptive homes (relatives) - 1 9
TOTAL 15 25
In FY 1991-1992 Contra Costa County ranked 6th out of the 15 counties compared by the.
Grand Jury,when 25% of all placements were cooperative placementsi
Grand Jury Recommendation 10: Existing cooperative placement arrangements with
these private adoption agencies be explored to reduce the bacidog of needed home
studies, and to innovatively access the $3,500 State of California placement subsidy.
Response: Contra Costa County has used private agencies in the past to home
study foster parents or relatives who are waiting to adopt a child placed with them.
This process turned out to be more time consuming than doing the home studies
in-house and consequently, not in the best interest of the child.
Currently, all waiting foster families and relative care givers have been assigned
for adoption home study within the Contra Costa County adoption program.
Grand Jury Recommendation 11: The Adoption Unit fully comply with rules regarding
"diligent search"for suitable adoptive Parehts of the sate race; 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.
Response: The Grand Jury's recommendation agrees with the Department`s
current policy and procedure described in DSS Manual Section 30-305.5 which has
been reviewed and approved by the state DSS. This manual section details the
provisions of Civil Code 275 which mandate child welfare agencies to place
dependent children with-relatives whenever possible and with foster/adoptive
parents of the same racial or ethnic identification as the child if a relative
placement is not in the child's best interests_ However, the child's needs are
27
An example of Contra Costa County's proactive adoptive placement activities is the
significant number of cooperative adoptive placements done with private and other public
agencies. In FY 1992-1993 Contra Costa County placed a total of 25 (29%) children in
cooperative adoptive placements: -
FY 91-92 FY 92-93
► Black Adoption Placement Center, Oakland - 4 3
► AASK(n Alameda County)- 2 5
► Adoption Horizons (in Humboldt County)- 0 1
► State of California Adoption Program - 3 3
► Sierra Adoptions (in Nevada County) 1 a
► Other county agency adoptive homes- 4 4
► Other slate agency adoptive homes (relatives) - 1 9
TOTAL 15 25
In FY 1991-1992 Contra Costa County ranked 6th out of the 15 counties compared by the.
Grand Jury,when 25% of all placements were cooperative placements, .
Grand Jury Recommendation 10: Existing cooperative placement arrangements with
these private adoption agencies be explored to reduce the bacidog of needed home
studies, and to innovatively access the $3,500 State of California placement subsidy.
Response: Contra Costa County has used private agencies in the past to home
study foster parents or relatives who are waiting to adopt a child placed with them.
This process turned out to be more time consuming than doing the home studies
in-house and consequently, not in the best interest of the child.
Currently, all waiting foster families and relative care givers have been assigned
for adoption home study within the Contra Costa County adoption program.
Grand Jury Recommendation 11: The Adoption Unit fully comply with rules regarding
"diligent search"for suitable adoptive parents of the sate race; 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.
Response: The Grand Jury's recommendation agrees with the Departments
current policy and procedure described in DSS Manual Section 30-305.5 which has
been reviewed and approved by the state DSS. This manual section details the
provisions of Civil Code 275 which mandate child welfare agencies to place
dependent children with-relatives whenever possible and with fostertadoptive .
parents of the same racial or ethnic' identification as the child if a relative
placement is not in the child's best interests_ However, the child's needs are
27
ell
paramount. Mille rating extremely high in priority. race and culture are not the
only basis for placement decisions. The total spectrum of a child's needs must be
evaluated and priority given to the most compelling need_
Grand Jury Recommendation 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.
Response: The Contra Costa County Adoption Unit has ceased the "Red Dot"
case labelling system. All old "Red Dot" cases are currently assigned for home
study and each case is continuously monitored and tracked through the system
until the adoption is completed.
We are proud of the excellent adoption services provided in our county and point
to our low failure rate (2.7%)*in adoptive placements as one significant measure
of our quality work.
"25 children-failed adoptive placements from 1976 to 1994 during which time 910
children were placed for adoption.
28
Report No. 9411
RODEO SANITARY DISTRICT AND ALL SPECIAL DISTRICTS MUST CONFORM
TO STANDARDS OF ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOOD GOVERNMENT
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:
• 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.
RECOMAdENDATIONS: [RESPONDING AGENCY: RODEO SANITARY
DISTRICT; CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS]
A. The Rodeo Sanitary District Board of Directors immediately:
No. I Establish sound standards and procedures for procuring materials/services in
excess of$5,000, and to instruct the District Manager to implement those policies.
Response: The Board will review its procedures for procuring materials and services
.to assure that sound business practices are followed.
No.2 Direct the Pistrict 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. Establish written appeal procedures for any rate-payer seeking adjustment
for unsubstantiated billing for the last five years.
Response: The fixing and application of sewer rates are legally set and.controlled.
Rate complaints may be appealed directly to the Board and are heard in open public
29
0. 71
meetings.
No. 3 Write, and accept as policy, a statement that prescribes the sphere of influence of
the District in relationship to its legal boundaries.
No. 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 yards of the District's sewage treatment plant.
No. 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.
No.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.
Response to 3, 4, 5, and 6: The sphere of influence is not controlled by the District.
LAFCO (Annamarie) advises that a district's sphere of influence is determined by its
boundaries. The Grand Jury is in error when it recommends that the District's
energies and the funds of its residents should be expended on properties outside of the
District's boundaries.
r
30
71
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 impan-
eled 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.