HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 08052003 - C.130 '
Contra'TO: BOARD OF SUSUPERVISORS � '�
FROM: JOHN SWEETEN, County Administrator � _. ®�tllin� Costa
DATE: AUGUST 5, 2003 °s'A..... ',�,ri ) 1. o u n ty
J
SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO GRAND JURY REPORT NO. 0308, ENTITLED
SAFEKEEPING PRISONERS' MONIES"
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION:
ADOPT report as the Board of Supervisors` response to Grand Jury Report No. 0308,
entitled "Safekeeping Prisoners' Monies".
BACKGROUND:
The 200212003 Grand Jury filed the above-referenced report on May 15, 2003, which was
reviewed by the Board of Supervisors and subsequently referred to the County
Administrator, who prepared the attached response that clearly specifies:
A. Whether the finding or recommendation is accepted or will be implemented;
B. If a recommendation is accepted, a statement as to who will be responsible for
implementation and a definite target date;
C. A delineation of the constraints if a recommendation is accepted but cannot be
implemented within a six-month period; and
D. The reason for not accepting or adopting a finding or recommendation.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE: a ✓
--- -------------------------- a_.�---—------—---------------__ ----------------------� - �': � � -- -------------------
OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOM
AT OF BOARD COMMITTEE
✓APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):�.
-------------- ___� _-_-'= -- -- ------ '�«..''----------------_----------------------------------------------------------------------------------_-----
ACTION OF BOA2D N Wt 5, � APPROVE AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER
€�
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
X UNANIMOUS(ABSENT None } AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE
AYES: NOES: SHOWN.
ABSENT: ABSTAIN:
ATTESTED: AUGUST 5,2003
CONTACT: JULIE ENEA(925)335-1077 JOHN SWEETEN,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
CC: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEMBERS
PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE GRAND JURY
GRAND JURY FOREMAN
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
SHERIFF-CORONER B I :a DEPUTY
RESPONSE TO GRAND JURY REPORT NO. 0308
SAFEKEEPING PRISONERS' MONIES
FINDINGS
i
1. Per the December 12, 2000 audit, the Inmate Cash and Bail Accounts have not
been systemically reconciled since August 1999. The status of this dilemma
remains unresolved per first hand statements from Office of the Sheriff/Coroner's
personnel.
Response: Partially disagree. The department agrees reconciliation of the Inmate
Cash Account has not been systematized since conversion to the Institutional
Management System (IMS). There appears to be a misconception, however, regarding
the Bail Account. Bail monies are not processed through the IMS, but are deposited
into the county treasury and are, and have always been, reconciled on a monthly basis.
The department utilizes the Trust Fund Accounting System (which is maintained by the
Auditor-Controller's Office) for control and accounting purposes.
2. Serious software problems, associated with the conversion to IMS, exposed a
severe weakness in data reliability.
Response: Partially disagree. The software problems associated with the conversion
to the IMS have exposed a weakness in report reliability, not the data contained within
the system. Existing data problems resulted in errors at the time of conversion, not
software problems.
3. The IMS computer system does not have the capacity to reconcile Inmate Cash and
Cash Bail accounts.
Response: Partially disagree. it is true that the IMS cannot generate a Cash Account
reconciliation report. However, Bail Accounts, as stated previously, are handled outside
the IMS.
4. The Sheriff's Office is attempting to resolve the problem by either finding software
compatible with IMS, while consulting with IMS personnel, or writing its own
computer program, by enlisting the assistance of an internal staff member, so that
these accounts can by systemically reconciled in a regular and timely manner.
Response: Agree.
5. In the interim, the Sheriff's accounting staff is manually entering check information
and manually reconciling the accounts.
Response: Agree.
(CONCLUSIONS
1. It has taken far too long for the Sheriff's Department to find a solution to the
problems resulting from the implementation of IMS since first diagnosed in August,
1999
2. Account reconciliation is done manually.
3. The official transaction accounting program cannot reconcile the accounts
accurately.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The 2002-2003 Grand Jury makes recommends that the Sheriffs Department:
1. Find an applicable software solution to the IMS problem immediately.
Response: The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be
................................................................................................................................................................................................... ..
Safekeeping Prisoners' Monies Response to Grand Jerry Report No. 0308 Page 2
implemented within the next six months. The Sheriff's Office has determined that the
most economic approach is to have department staff to write the necessary third-party
Program.
2. Make the applicable software solution to the IMS problem a line item in their budget
thereby ensuring a source of financing is available.
Response: Will not be implemented because it is not necessary. The Sheriff indicates
that existing department staff is capable of writing the necessary program reconcile the
inmate cash account.
3. Enlist the aid of the County Department of Information Technology or an outside
consultant to locate and implement an immediate applicable software solution.
Response: Will not be implemented because it is not necessary. See the County's
response to recommendation No. 2.
4. Continue to manually reconcile the accounts and keep them current on an ongoing
basis.
Response: The recommendation has been implemented. The Inmate Cash Account
is being reconciled on a monthly bast's.