HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10251983 - 2.12 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on October 25, 1983 , by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Powers, Fanden, McPeak, Torlakson
NOES: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Schroder
ABSTAIN: None
SUBJECT: Bar Association Proposal Concerning Conflict Defense
On July 11, 1983, the Board approved the procedure for
soliciting proposals to provide the County with indigent defense
services in cases where the Public Defender has a legal conflict of
interest.
In an October 13, 1983, letter to the Board, M. G. Wingett,
County Administrator, advised that the Bar Association filed a
response to the request for proposal (RFP) for representation of
indigent criminal defendants with a bid of $1, 250,000. Mr. Wingett
indicated that if the Board accepted the bid, there would be signi-
ficant additional county cost to provide for those cases the Bar
intends to exclude from the contract., estimating the overall range
of the bid to be approximately $1, 300, 000 to $1, 500, 000. He pointed
out that the Bar ' s quoted price plus the additional county cost of
handling excluded cases would likely result in equal or greater
1983-1984 expenditures than the current system of court appointed
attorneys and having cited certain deficiencies in the proposal sub-
mitted by the Bar Association.
Therefore, the County Administrator recommended that the
proposal of the Bar Association be rejected as entailing too high a
cost and as being non-responsive to major specifications of the RFP.
Mr. Wingett further recommended that his Office be directed to
review what next steps should be taken consistent with prior Board
action and report back to the Board.
supervisor S. W. McPeak expressed reservations with
respect to approving the County Administrator ' s recommendations and
indicated that at this time she could not support a proposal to pro-
vide for the establishment of a second Public Defender ' s Office.
Supervisor Powers indicated that he was supportive of the
County Administrator' s recommendations. He referred to the work of
the Task Force in identifying the problems assocationed with
conflict cases and the type of response that should be included in
the RFP. He also commented on the difficulty in predicting future
caseloads.
Stan Casper, Chairman of the Conflict Committee, Contra
Costa Bdr Association, spoke on the three-week time frame allowed
the Bar to prepare its proposal. He expressed concern relative to
the assignment of a case that would remain in litigation beyond the
one-year contract period. He indicated that even though the Bar ' s
RFP may have omitted certain points, it was his understanding that
there were questionable issues that need to be discussed with staff
that were not appropriate to include in the RFP--issues that need to
be clarified or compromised. Mr. Casper also noted that the amount
spent the previous fiscal year was less than that projected for the
1983-1984 fiscal year. He referred to the cost incurred by the
County with respect to court appointed counsel, particularly in the
area of cost overruns. Although referring to the risk the Bar might
be taking in assuming the defense for 1, 400 cases, Mr. Casper
expressed the Bar' s desire to provide services in a fiscally respon-
sible way.
196
Henry Clarke, General Manager, Contra Costa Employees
Association, Local I, also commented on the high cost of outside
attorneys providing indigent defense. Mr. Clarke expressed his
approval of establishing a �second• Public- Defender'..s Office' and•
expressed his belief that public attorneys provide better service at
less cost than private ones. r -
Supervisor McPeak suggested that all alternatives remain
open at this time in order to insure the provision of legal defense
to indigents in the most efficient and economical-manner possible-.
She requested current cost data relative to a second Public
Defender' s Office.
Supervisor Powers also expressed- the - opinion that - all
options should remain open with respect to contracting for indigent
defense services. He referred to conversations with attorneys who
were not aware of the Bar Association' s proposal. He suggested that
the Bar Association organize a meeting to discuss the proposal with
its membership.
There being no further discussion, IT IS BY THE BOARD
ORDERED that the County Administrator is REQUESTED to enter into
discussions with the Bar Association to resolve and/or clarify cer-
tain omissions in its previously submitted proposal.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, failing resolution of the
issues noted, the County Administrator is REQUESTED to report to the
Board on other options available, including information on steps that
would need to be taken with respect to the competitive bid process
and establishment of a second Public Defender' s Office to handle
conflict cases with costs related thereto.
i hereby certify that this is 3 true and correct copy of
an action taken an Em!ore: on the minutes of the
Board of Supervisors on the date shown.
cc: County Administrator ATTESTED: ✓_
J.R. O! , C :'.' UTY CLERK
and ex cf cob Clark of the Board
Deputy
197