HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOARD STANDING COMMITTEES - 07122021 - Internal Ops Agenda Pkt
INTERNAL OPERATIONS
COMMITTEE
JULY 12, 2021
10:30 A.M.
Join from PC, Mac, Linux, iOS or Android: https://cccounty-us.zoom.us/j/82558092550
Meeting ID: 825 5809 2550
Or Telephone, dial:
USA 214-765-0478
USA 888-278-0254 (US Toll Free)
Conference code: 845965
Find local AT&T Numbers
Supervisor Candace Andersen,Chair
Supervisor Diane Burgis, Vice Chair
Agenda
Items:
Items may be taken out of order based on the business of the day and preference
of the Committee
1.Introductions
2.Public comment on any item under the jurisdiction of the Committee and not on this
agenda (speakers may be limited to three minutes).
3. RECEIVE and APPROVE the Record of Action for the May 10, 2021 IOC meeting.
(Julie DiMaggio Enea, IOC Staff)
4. CONSIDER changes to the Mental Health Commission bylaws pertaining to the
Commissioner appointment process and DETERMINE action to be taken. (Chair
Andersen)
5. CONSIDER accepting the Small Business Enterprise, Outreach, and Local Bid
Programs Report, reflecting departmental program data for the period July 1 through
December 31, 2020. (Cindy Shehorn, Purchasing Services Manager, Public Works
Department)
6. CONSIDER recommendations for modifying Board Resolution No. 2011/55, which
concerns eligibility of family members of County Supervisors for appointment to seats
on boards, committees or commissions for which the Contra Costa County Board of
Supervisors is the appointing authority. (Julie Enea, County Administrator's Office)
7.The next meeting is currently scheduled for August 9, 2021.
1
8.Adjourn
The Internal Operations Committee will provide reasonable accommodations for persons with
disabilities planning to attend Internal Operations Committee meetings. Contact the staff person
listed below at least 72 hours before the meeting.
Any disclosable public records related to an open session item on a regular meeting agenda and
distributed by the County to a majority of members of the Internal Operations Committee less than
96 hours prior to that meeting are available for public inspection at 1025 Escobar St., 4th Floor,
Martinez, during normal business hours. Staff reports related to items on the agenda are also
accessible on line at www.co.contra-costa.ca.us.
Public comment may be submitted via electronic mail on agenda items at least one full work day
prior to the published meeting time.
For Additional Information Contact:
Julie DiMaggio Enea, Committee Staff
Phone (925) 655-2056, Fax (925) 655-2066
julie.enea@cao.cccounty.us
2
INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE 3.
Meeting Date:07/12/2021
Subject:RECORD OF ACTION FOR THE MAY 10, 2021 IOC MEETING
Department:County Administrator
Referral No.: N/A
Referral Name: RECORD OF ACTION
Presenter: Julie DiMaggio Enea Contact: Julie DiMaggio Enea (925) 655-2056
Referral History:
County Ordinance requires that each County body keep a record of its meetings. Though the
record need not be verbatim, it must accurately reflect the agenda and the decisions made in the
meeting.
Referral Update:
Attached is the Record of Action for the May 10, 2021 IOC meeting.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
RECEIVE and APPROVE the Record of Action for the May 10, 2021 IOC meeting.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
None.
Attachments
DRAFT Record of Action for the May 10, 2021 IOC Meeting
3
INTERNAL OPERATIONS
COMMITTEE
RECORD OF ACTION FOR
May 10, 2021
Supervisor Candace Andersen,Chair
Supervisor Diane Burgis, Vice Chair
Present: Candace Andersen, Chair
Absent: Diane Burgis, Vice Chair
Staff Present:Julie DiMaggio Enea, Staff
Attendees:Lea Castleberry, District III Supervisor's Office; David Sanford, Labor Relations
Manager
1.Introductions
Chair Andersen announced that Vice Chair Burgis would not be in
attendance due to a family emergency.
2.Public comment on any item under the jurisdiction of the Committee and not on
this agenda (speakers may be limited to three minutes).
No one requested to speak during the public comment period.
3.RECEIVE and APPROVE the Record of Action for the April 12, 2021 IOC meeting.
Chair Andersen approved the record of action for the April 12, 2021
meeting as presented.
AYE: Chair Candace Andersen
Other: Vice Chair Diane Burgis (ABSENT)
4.INTERVIEW candidates for the At Large Alternate seat on the Contra Costa
County Fire Protection District Advisory Fire Commission and DETERMINE
recommendation for Board of Supervisors consideration.
Neither candidate appeared for the interview. Based on the candidate
applications, Chair Andersen decided to recommend Soheila Bana for the
At Large Alternate seat vacancy and directed staff to forward the
recommendation to the Board of Supervisors.
DRAFT
4
AYE: Chair Candace Andersen
Other: Vice Chair Diane Burgis (ABSENT)
5.RECOMMEND to the Board of Supervisors the reappointment of Marjorie McWee
to the County Representative seat on the County Connection Advisory Committee
to a new term that will expire on June 30, 2023.
Chair Andersen approved the staff recommendation to reappoint Marjorie
McWee to the County Connection Citizens Advisory Committee, and
directed staff to forward that recommendation to the Board of Supervisors.
AYE: Chair Candace Andersen
Other: Vice Chair Diane Burgis (ABSENT)
6.RECEIVE status report on development of strategies in response to the Bay Area
Air Quality Management District's Cut the Commute Challenge.
David Sanford provided a high-level overview of the status of negotiations.
Chair Andersen accepted the staff report and asked that it be forwarded to
the Board of Supervisors for their information.
AYE: Chair Candace Andersen
Other: Vice Chair Diane Burgis (ABSENT)
7.The next meeting is scheduled for June 14, 2021.
8.Adjourn
Chair Andersen adjourned the meeting at 10:42 a.m..
For Additional Information Contact:
Julie DiMaggio Enea, Committee Staff
Phone (925) 655-2056, Fax (925) 655-2066
julie.enea@cao.cccounty.us
DRAFT
5
INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE 4.
Meeting Date:07/12/2021
Subject:Mental Health Commission Request to Modify Bylaws Pertaining to
Vacancies and Recruitment
Submitted For: Monica Nino, County Administrator
Department:County Administrator
Referral No.: IOC 21/5
Referral Name: Advisory Body Recruitment
Presenter: Candace Andersen Contact: Julie Enea (925) 655-2056
Referral History:
In the early spring of 2021 the Executive Committee of the Mental Health Commission (MHC)
discussed the fact that its Bylaws were not consistent with the current practices of how members
of the Board of Supervisors appoint Mental Health Commissioners. The MHC Bylaws were last
amended in 2018.
The current MHC Bylaws provide for the following:
ARTICLE IV, SECTION 4. VACANCIES AND RECRUITMENT
4.1 Role of the Commission
At the discretion of and to the extent requested by the Board, the Commission shall be involved in
the recruitment and screening of applicants. When an application is received, the Commission
will appoint an Ad Hoc Applicant Interview Committee, pursuant to Article VIII, Section 5.1.
Following an interview by the Ad Hoc Applicant Interview Committee, it will forward its
recommendation to the Commission. After Commission vote and approval, the recommendation
for nomination of the applicant shall be forwarded to the appropriate member of the Board of
Supervisors for that Supervisor's consideration.
4.2 Applications The Commission shall receive applications on an ongoing basis.
4.3 Commission Recommendation
a) Pursuant to Article IV, section 1.2, the Commission shall, to the extent possible, recommend for
appointment those persons who will assist the County in complying with the ethnic and demographic
mandates in the Welfare & Institutions Code.
b) To the extent possible, the Commission shall recommend for appointment applicants who have experience
and knowledge of the mental health system, preferably in the County.
6
Referral Update:
In practice, members of the Board of Supervisors interview applicants, ensure that they meet the
requirements of Commission membership, and encourage them to attend MHC meetings prior to
appointment. However, Supervisors have not recently requested that the Commission appoint an
Ad Hoc Applicant Interview Committee or asked them to make recommendations for
nominations.
Supervisor Candace Andersen, the representative of the Board of Supervisors on the MHC, met
with MHC Chair Graham Wiseman. It was agreed that the provision in the bylaws regarding an
Ad Hoc committee making recommendations for appointment created confusion, and Supervisor
Andersen suggested that the bylaws be amended to reflect the current practice.
County Counsel provided the following draft amendment to clear the confusion, to make the
bylaws reflective of current practices by the Board of Supervisors, and to have this provision of
the bylaws reflect changes to Welfare and Institutions Code sections 5604 and 5604.5.
SECTION 4. VACANCIES AND RECRUITMENT
4.1 Role of the Commission. The role of the Commission in recruitment of new commissioners is
at the discretion of and to the extent requested by the Board of Supervisors.
4.2 The Commission is encouraged to help identify and recruit qualified applicants to apply for
any vacancies on the Commission.
4.3 Commission Identification and Recruitment of Applicants
a) Pursuant to Article IV, section 1.2, the Commission shall to the extent feasible identify and
encourage applicants who will assist the County in maintaining a Commission that represents and
reflects the diversity and demographics of the County as a whole, as provided in the Welfare and
Institutions Code.
b) To the extent possible, the Commission shall identify and encourage applicants who have
experience and knowledge of the mental health system, preferably in the County.
4.4 Each County Supervisor will encourage any applicants being considered for the Mental
Health Commission to attend a Commission meeting prior to their appointment.
4.5 The Chair and Executive Committee of the Mental Health Commission shall coordinate
appropriate training and orientation of all newly appointed commissioners.
At the June 2, 2021 meeting of the MHC, a discussion ensued regarding County Counsel’s draft
amendment. Concern was expressed about achieving diversity and representation by consumers
of mental health services, and effective orientation of prospective members to promote
participation and commitment to the office. At the conclusion of the discussion, the MHC
decided, on a split vote (4 Aye, 2 No, 3 Abstain), to send the attached letter to Supervisor
Andersen requesting IOC consideration of a revision to what County Counsel had drafted. Only
Sections 4.3 through 4.5 had recommended changes. The requested changes by the MHC to
County Counsel’s draft are underlined below:
4.3 Commission Identification and Recruitment of Applicants
a) Pursuant to Article IV, section 1.2, the Commission shall, to the extent possible, identify and
encourage applicants who will assist the County in complying with the ethnic and demographic
mandates in the Welfare & Institutions Code.
b) To the extent possible, the Commission shall identify and encourage applicants who have
experience and knowledge of the mental health system, preferably in the County
4.4 Each County Supervisor will encourage any applicant being considered for the Mental Health
Commission to attend at least oneCommission meeting prior to their appointment. Applicants are
7
required to meet with the MHC Chair, MHC Vice Chair and/or ad-hoc committee prior
to accepting position to ensure full understanding of the roles, responsibilities, and
restrictions of being a Mental Health Commissioner.
4.5 Upon appointment by the District Supervisor, the Chair and Executive Committee of the
Mental Health Commission shall coordinate appropriate training and orientation of all new
commissioners.
Because the appointment process remains in the discretion of the Board of Supervisors, requiring
applicants to meet with the MHC Chair, Vice Chair and/or ad-hoc committee is not
recommended. However, a compromise would be to include the following language to Section
4.4. The MHC changes remain underlined, and the compromise language is in bold:
4.4 Each County Supervisor will encourage any applicant being considered for the Mental Health
Commission to attend at least oneCommission meeting prior to their appointment. Applicants are
required may meet with the MHC Chair, MHC Vice Chair and/or ad-hoc committee
prior to accepting the position to ensure a full understanding of the roles,
responsibilities, and restrictions of being a Mental Health Commissioner.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
CONSIDER changes to the Mental Health Commission bylaws pertaining to the Commissioner
appointment process and DETERMINE action to be taken.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
No fiscal impact.
Attachments
June 2, 2021 Letter from Mental Health Commission requesting Bylaws Changes
8
June 2, 2021
Dear Supervisor Candace Andersen,
We respectively ask the Internal Operations Committee of the Contra Costa County Board of
Supervisors to read and consider the Mental Health Commission’s suggestion to the bylaw
regarding Section 4. VACANCIES AND RECRUITMENT.
The following language presents 1) the text that you are requesting; and 2) the text that the
Mental Health Commission is requesting as an alternative (note: highlighted text is what differs).
Text Proposed by Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II
SECTION 4. VACANCIES AND RECRUITMENT
4.1 Role of the Commission
The role of the Commission in recruitment of new commissioners is at the discretion of and to the
extent requested by the Board of Supervisors.
4.2 The Commission is encouraged to help identify and recruit qualified applicants to apply for any
vacancies on the Commission.
4.3 Commission Identification and Recruitment of Applicants
a) Pursuant to Article IV, section 1.2, the Commission shall, to the extent possible, identify and
encourage applicants who will assist the County in complying with the ethnic and demographic
mandates in the Welfare & Institutions Code.
b) To the extent possible, the Commission shall identify and encourage applicants who have
experience and knowledge of the mental health system, preferably in the County
4.4 Each County Supervisor will encourage any applicant being considered for the Mental Health
Commission to attend a Commission meeting prior to their appointment.
4.5 Upon appointment, the Chair and Executive Committee of the Mental Health Commission shall
coordinate appropriate training and orientation of all new commissioners.
Text Proposed by the Mental Health Commission:
SECTION 4. VACANCIES AND RECRUITMENT
4.1 Role of the Commission
The role of the Commission in recruitment of new commissioners is at the discretion of and to the
extent requested by the Board of Supervisors.
4.2 The Commission is encouraged to help identify and recruit qualified applicants to apply for any
vacancies on the Commission.
9
Letter to Supervisor Andersen
June 2, 2021
Page 2
4.3 Commission Identification and Recruitment of Applicants
a) Pursuant to Article IV, section 1.2, the Commission shall, to the extent possible, identify and
encourage applicants who will assist the County in complying with the ethnic and demographic
mandates in the Welfare & Institutions Code.
b) To the extent possible, the Commission shall identify and encourage applicants who have
experience and knowledge of the mental health system, preferably in the County
4.4 Each County Supervisor will encourage any applicant being considered for the Mental Health
Commission to attend at least one Commission meeting prior to their appointment. Applicants are
required to meet with the MHC Chair, MHC Vice Chair and/or ad-hoc committee prior to accepting
position to ensure full understanding of the roles, responsibilities, and restrictions of being a Mental
Health Commissioner.
4.5 Upon appointment by the District Supervisor, the Chair and Executive Committee of the Mental
Health Commission shall coordinate appropriate training and orientation of all new commissioners.
Will you please honor the fact the Commission is currently not reflective of the diversity of the
client population in the county? We would like to ensure we are following the guidelines of
Executive Order No. 13985 Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities
through the Federal Government (pg 7009 - 7013), signed into law January 20, 2021 by
President Joseph R. Biden Jr., as well as the Recruitment of Board/Commission Members, WIC
5604 (a) (1), and Best Practices for Local Mental/Behavioral Health Boards and Commissions
2020, rev.1 (pg. 24, Best Practices, 2020).
We realize that the Board of Supervisors is inundated with responsibilities of the county and
Mental Health Commissioners are ready and willing to take on the task of recruiting,
orienting/interviewing, and making recommendations to the Board of Supervisors for candidates
to fill open seats on this Commission.
Sincere Regards,
Contra Costa County Mental Health Commission
10
INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE 5.
Meeting Date:07/12/2021
Subject:Small Business Enterprise & Outreach Program and Local Bid Preference
Program Reports for Jul-Dec 2020
Submitted For: Brian M. Balbas, Interim Public Works Director/Chief Engineer
Department:Public Works
Referral No.: IOC 20/1; 20/4
Referral Name: Small Business Enterprise and Outreach Programs; Local Bid Preference
Program
Presenter: Cindy Shehorn, Purchasing Services
Manager
Contact: Cindy Shehorn (925)
957-2491
Referral History:
Contra Costa County values the contributions of small business and has developed programs to
assist in soliciting and awarding contracts to the SBE community. The Board of Supervisors
adopted these programs to enable small and local businesses to compete for a share of the
County's purchasing transactions.
The Board of Supervisors has set a goal of awarding at least 50% of eligible product and service
dollars to small businesses. The Small Business Enterprise (SBE) Program applies to: (1)
County-funded construction contracts of $100,000 or less; (2) purchasing transactions of
$100,000 or less; and (3) professional/personal service contracts of $100,000 or less.
The objective of the program is to award at least 50% or more of the total eligible dollar base
amounts to SBEs. A Small Business Enterprise, as defined by the California Government Code,
Section 14837, Chapter 3.5 must be:
Independently owned and operated business, which is not dominant in its field of operation;
The principal office of which is located in California, the officers of which are domiciled in
California, and which together with affiliates, has 100 or fewer employees;
And have average annual gross receipts of fifteen million dollars ($15,000,000) or less over
the previous three tax years, or a manufacturer with 100 or fewer employees.
Reporting Requirements
It is the responsibility of each County department to track and compile the data on these
purchasing activities so a countywide report can be provided to the Board of Supervisors.
The Internal Operations Committee has responsibility for evaluating the semi-annual reports and
making recommendations to the Board on program policies and reporting. The Board receives
reports in six-month increments, with the last report submitted to the Board for the period ending
11
June 2020. Attachment A constitutes the report due for the time period of July 1 – December 31,
2020.
Referral Update:
The table below summarizes the attached department activity on a countywide basis.
July – December 2020
ACTIVITY TYPE:
Total #
of ALL
Contracts
Total #
of SBE
Contracts
SBE
Percent
of Total
Total
Dollar
Value of
ALL
Contracts
Total
Dollar
Value of
SBE
Contracts
SBE
Percent
of Total
Professional/Personal
Services 391 152 38.9%$76,013,460 $6,217,403 8.2%
Purchasing
Transactions 1,008 293 29.1%$20,008,707 $5,342,257 26.7%
Construction
Contracts 0 0 0%$0 $0 0%
While the County did not achieve the 50% goal, this information shows the County directed more
than $11.5 million in qualifying transactions to SBE firms during the six-month reporting period,
achieving a 38.9% award rate for professional/personal services transactions and a 29.1% award
rate for purchasing transactions. No construction contracts were reported in this period.
It is worth noting that the SBE participation goals of surrounding agencies are typically in the
20-25% range. By that measure, Contra Costa County’s reported activity is below that threshold
for professional/personal services, and above that range for purchasing transactions. The
following departments are commended for achieving 50% or more program compliance this
reporting period:
Professional/Personal Services: Clerk Recorder-Elections, Conservation and Development,
County Administrator - Clerk of the Board, District Attorney and Probation
12
Purchases: Agriculture, Clerk Recorder-Elections, County Counsel, and Treasurer-Tax
Collector
Of particular note, the following Departments are to be commended for achieving a 100% award
rate for qualifying professional services contracts: Clerk of the Board and District Attorney.
County Counsel should also to be commended for achieving a 100% award rate for qualifying
purchasing transactions.
Department/Activity
Total #
of ALL
Contracts
Total #
of SBE
Contracts
SBE
Percent
of Total
Total
Dollar
Value of
ALL
Contracts
Total
Dollar
Value of
SBE
Contracts
SBE
Percent
of Total
Clerk Recorder - Elections
Professional/Personal Services 14 5 35.7%$230,398 $164,711 71.5%
Purchasing Transactions 31 13 41.9%$385,285 $260,173 67.5%
Conservation and Development
Professional/Personal Services 8 6 75%$310,945 $190,945 61.4%
County Administrator - Clerk of the Board
Professional/Personal Services 2 2 100%$146,080 $146,080 100%
District Attorney
Professional/Personal Services 1 1 100%$88,943 $88,943 100%
Probation
Professional/Personal Services 37 14 37.8%$314,407 $158,137 50.3%
Agriculture
Purchasing Transactions 10 5 50%$133 $80 60.2%
County Counsel
Purchasing Transactions 1 1 100%$5,902 $5,902 100%
Treasurer – Tax Collector
Purchasing Transactions 13 4 30.8%$125,321 $71,025 56.7%
E-Outreach Report
In order to encourage the use of small, local, and disadvantaged businesses, the County's
E-Outreach Program requires bids and Request for Proposals greater than $10,000 to be solicited
online. For this period, there were 27 bids totaling $12,771,923 that fell within the parameters of
the program.
The data specific to electronic solicitations is developed and provided by the Purchasing Division
of the Public Works Department, and reflects outreach to small, women-owned, minority-owned,
local, disabled veteran-owned, and disadvantaged business enterprises. During this reporting
period, 27 bids were conducted using the BidSync e-outreach site. Notifications were sent to
121,984 businesses, of which 30.4% are considered a small, local, or disadvantaged business13
121,984 businesses, of which 30.4% are considered a small, local, or disadvantaged business
enterprises.
E-Outreach July 1, 2020 – December 31, 2020
Number of Solicitations 27
Total Notifications 121,984
Dollar Value $12,771,923
BUSINESS CATEGORY Notifications Percentage of Total
MBE - Minority Business Enterprise 7,084 6.2%
WBE - Women Business Enterprise 6,424 5.3%
SBE - Small Business Enterprise 20,369 14.5%
LBE - Local Business Enterprise 1,140 0.7%
DVBE - Disabled Veteran Business Enterprise 116 0.1%
DBE – Disadvantaged Business Enterprise 6,083 3.6%
Total 41,216 30.4%
Local Business Preference
For opportunities exceeding $25,000, the Local Business Preference Program allows for local
businesses to submit a new offer if within 5% of the lowest bidder. There were no instances of the
Bid Preference utilized in this reporting period.
Dollar Value Awarded to Local and Bay Area Businesses
The dollar value of Purchase Orders issued for the period was $20,008,707. The dollar value
awarded to Contra Costa County businesses was $3.6 million. The value awarded to other Bay
Area businesses was 23.1% or $4.6 million. This represents Contra Costa County’s contribution
to the local economy.
Contra Costa County $3,683,089 18.4%
Other Bay Area Counties $4,631,222 23.1%
Other $11,694,396 58.5%
Total $20,008,707 100%
Conclusion
The County has demonstrated continued commitment to achieving the 50% goal for participation
by SBE firms in contract and purchasing activities. While the data for some departments is below
this threshold, departments are showing interest in increasing the percentage of awarded
contracts. Instruction is being provided on the search features of the purchasing system, to assist in
identifying businesses in the small, local, women, minority, veteran and disadvantaged business
categories.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
ACCEPT the Small Business Enterprise, Outreach, and Local Bid Programs Report, reflecting
departmental program data for the period July 1 through December 31, 2020.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
None. This is an informational report.
14
Attachments
Attachment A: SBE Report Jul-Dec 2020
15
ATTACHMENT A
SMALL BUSINESS ENTERPRISE - Program Activity report
Reporting Period: July - December 2017July - December 2020
Total # of Total # of SBE percent of Total dollar value Total dollar value SBE percent of
ALL contracts SBE contracts Total # of contracts of ALL contracts of SBE contracts Total contracts value
Agriculture *
Professional/Personal services contracts 5 2 40.0%$35,000 $14,000 40.0%
Purchasing Transactions 10 5 50.0%$133 $80 60.2%
Construction contracts 0 0 0.0%$0 $0 0.0%
Animal Services
Professional/Personal services contracts 33 17 51.5%$1,576,909 $526,800 33.4%
Purchasing Transactions 40 9 22.5%$407,785 $40,909 10.0%
Construction contracts 0 0 0.0%$0 $0 0.0%
Assessor
Professional/Personal services contracts 0 0 0.00%$0 $0 0.0%
Purchasing Transactions 14 1 7.14%$94,329 $9,999 10.6%
Construction contracts 0 0 0.0%$0 $0 0.0%
Auditor-Controller
Professional/Personal services contracts 0 0 0.0%$0 $0 0.0%
Purchasing Transactions 0 0 0.0%$0 $0 0.0%
Construction contracts 0 0 0.0%$0 $0 0.0%
Clerk Recorder-Elections*
Professional/Personal services contracts 14 5 35.7%$230,398 $164,711 71.5%
Purchasing Transactions 31 13 41.9%$385,285 $260,173 67.5%
Construction contracts 0 0 0.0%$0 $0 0.0%
Conservation and Development *
Professional/Personal services contracts 8 6 75.0%$310,945 $190,945 61.4%
Purchasing Transactions 0 0 0.0%$0 $0 0.0%
Construction contracts 0 0 0.0%$0 $0 0.0%
County Administrator's Office - Administration
Professional/Personal services contracts 5 0 0.0%$412,800 $0 0.0%
Purchasing Transactions 2 0 0.0%$60,000 $0 0.0%
Construction contracts 0 0 0.0%$0 $0 0.0%
County Administrator's Office - Reentry & Justice
ORJ REPORTED WITH PROBATION
Page 1 of 4 16
ATTACHMENT A
SMALL BUSINESS ENTERPRISE - Program Activity report
Reporting Period: July - December 2017July - December 2020
Total # of Total # of SBE percent of Total dollar value Total dollar value SBE percent of
ALL contracts SBE contracts Total # of contracts of ALL contracts of SBE contracts Total contracts value
County Administrator's Office - Clerk of the Board *
Professional/Personal services contracts 2 2 100.0%$146,080 $146,080 100.0%
Purchasing Transactions 4 1 25.0%$101,630 $630 0.6%
Construction contracts 0 0 0.0%$0 $0 0.0%
County Administrator's Office - Communications and Media
Professional/Personal services contracts 0 0 0.0%$0 $0 0.0%
Purchasing Transactions 3 2 66.7%$62,425 $13,568 21.7%
Construction contracts 0 0 0.0%$0 $0 0.0%
County Administrator's Office - Dept. of Information Technology (DoIT)
Professional/Personal services contracts 1 0 0.0%$18,500 $0 0.0%
Purchasing Transactions 64 10 15.6%$1,570,023 $321,476 0.0%
Construction contracts 0 0 0.0%$0 $0 0.0%
Dept. Child Support Services (DCSS)
Professional/Personal services contracts 0 0 0.0%$0 $0 0.0%
Purchasing Transactions 10 1 10.0%$95,985 $1,500 1.6%
Construction contracts 0 0 0.0%$0 $0 0.0%
County Counsel *
Professional/Personal services contracts 0 0 0.0%$0 $0 0.0%
Purchasing Transactions 1 1 100.0%$5,902 $5,902 100.0%
Construction contracts 0 0 0.0%$0 $0 0.0%
District Attorney *
Professional/Personal services contracts 1 1 100.0%$88,943 $88,943 100.0%
Purchasing Transactions 19 8 42.1%$141,809 $41,403 29.2%
Construction contracts 0 0 0.0%$0 $0 0.0%
Employment and Human Services
Professional/Personal services contracts 13 6 46.2%$665,750 $299,575 45.0%
Purchasing Transactions 76 37 48.7%$786,879 $348,107 44.2%
Construction contracts 0 0 0.0%$0 $0 0.0%
Page 2 of 4 17
ATTACHMENT A
SMALL BUSINESS ENTERPRISE - Program Activity report
Reporting Period: July - December 2017July - December 2020
Total # of Total # of SBE percent of Total dollar value Total dollar value SBE percent of
ALL contracts SBE contracts Total # of contracts of ALL contracts of SBE contracts Total contracts value
Fire Protection District
Professional/Personal services contracts 3 1 33.3%$141,000 $25,000 17.7%
Purchasing Transactions 14 4 28.6%$539,457 $98,223 18.2%
Construction contracts 0 0 0.0%$0 $0 0.0%
Health Services
Professional/Personal services contracts 181 81 44.8%$8,153,725 $3,808,457 46.7%
Purchasing Transactions 266 43 16.2%$5,707,276 $873,043 15.3%
Construction contracts 0 0 0.0%$0 $0 0.0%
Human Resources
Professional/Personal services contracts 5 0 0.0%$378,973 $0 0.0%
Purchasing Transactions 6 1 16.7%$83,295 $3,494 4.2%
Construction contracts 0 0 0.0%$0 $0 0.0%
Library
Professional/Personal services contracts 5 2 40.0%$258,626 $52,635 20.4%
Purchasing Transactions 15 5 33.3%$74,057 $14,960 20.2%
Construction contracts 0 0 0.0%$0 $0 0.0%
Probation * - Includes ORJ Data
Professional/Personal services contracts 37 14 37.8%$314,407 $158,137 50.3%
Purchasing Transactions 40 16 40.0%$529,081 $174,735 33.0%
Construction contracts 0 0 0.0%$0 $0 0.0%
Public Defender
Professional/Personal services contracts 5 1 20.0%$234,820 $17,320 7.4%
Purchasing Transactions 0 0 0.0%$0 $0 0.0%
Construction contracts 0 0 0.0%$0 $0 0.0%
Public Works
Professional/Personal services contracts 61 12 19.7%$58,117,844 $553,500 1.0%
Purchasing Transactions 268 83 31.0%$9,238,035 $1,657,583 17.9%
Construction contracts 0 0 0.0%$0 $0 0.0%
Page 3 of 4 18
ATTACHMENT A
SMALL BUSINESS ENTERPRISE - Program Activity report
Reporting Period: July - December 2017July - December 2020
Total # of Total # of SBE percent of Total dollar value Total dollar value SBE percent of
ALL contracts SBE contracts Total # of contracts of ALL contracts of SBE contracts Total contracts value
Office of the Sheriff
Professional/Personal services contracts 17 2 11.8%$4,928,740 $171,300 3.5%
Purchasing Transactions 152 49 32.2%$4,124,042 $1,405,447 34.1%
Construction contracts 0 0 0.0%$0 $0 0.0%
Treasurer - Tax Collector *
Professional/Personal services contracts 0 0 0.0%$0 $0 0.0%
Purchasing Transactions 13 4 30.8%$125,321 $71,025 56.7%
Construction contracts 0 0 0.0%$0 $0 0.0%
Veterans Services Office
Professional/Personal services contracts 0 0 0.0%$0 $0 0.0%
Purchasing Transactions 0 0 0.0%$0 $0 0.0%
Construction contracts 0 0 0.0%$0 $0 0.0%
Total Activity Reported
Professional/Personal services contracts 391 152 38.9%$76,013,460 $6,217,403 8.2%
Purchasing Transactions 1008 293 29.1%$20,008,707 $5,342,257 26.7%
Construction contracts 0 0 0.0%$0 $0 0.0%
Page 4 of 4 19
INTERNAL OPERATIONS
COMMITTEE 6.
Meeting Date:07/12/2021
Subject:REVIEW COUNTY ANTI-NEPOTISM/ANTI-FAVORITISM POLICY
PERTAINING TO APPOINTMENTS TO ADVISORY BODIES FOR
POSSIBLE MODIFICATION
Submitted For: Monica Nino, County Administrator
Department:County Administrator
Referral No.: IOC 21/5
Referral Name: Advisory Body Recruitment
Presenter: Julie DiMaggio Enea Contact: Julie DiMaggio Enea (925)
655-2056
Referral History:
Referral
At the April 12 IOC meeting, in the context of discussing the County's standard advisory body
application form, the Committee directed staff to agendize for further discussion possible revision
to Resolution No. 2011/55, which concerns eligibility of family members of County Supervisors
for appointment to Board advisory bodies and commissions. Chair Andersen said she understood
the context in which the original policy was created but thought the ban on familial relations
might be too far reaching and should be reconsidered. She asked Board Chief Clerk Jami Morritt
to consult other counties to see what policies they may have in this regard. Vice Chair Burgis
suggested that only people with whom one shares a house should be ineligible.
History:
In May 2011, the Civil Grand Jury published a report entitled "Ethics and Transparency Issues in
Contra Costa County", attached, alleging ethical breaches and nepotism by certain public
officials. Also attached is the County's response to that report.
The grand jury's allegation of nepotism centered on a Board recommendation to appoint the
spouse of a sitting County Supervisor to a special district board, making that spouse eligible to
retain a seat on the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo), a body which regulates
county boundaries. Ultimately, the Board referred a recruitment process to an impartial outside
panel, which recommended appointment of a different individual than the Supervisor's spouse.
Subsequently, the Board of Supervisors adopted an anti-nepotism policy (Resolution No.
2011/55) that prohibits appointment by Board members of relatives, domestic partners, and
individuals with shared business interests to county advisory bodies, a decision which was lauded
by the grand jury. The grand jury further recommended that the County adopt a policy requiring
20
the formation of impartial selection committees in situations where there are conflicts of interest,
real or perceived, that cannot be adequately addressed by a normal recusal process. The Board
had previously implemented this recommendation with adoption of Resolution No. 2002/377
(later updated to Resolution No. 2020/1), which provides that a screening committee may be
selected to assist the Board, or a member of the Board, in the interview and selection of applicants
for appointment.
Ten years has elapsed since the anti-nepotism/anti-favoritism policy was adopted, and it is
appropriate for IOC to review this policy and adjust it as needed. Following is the text of the
policy, as adopted in 2011:
I. SCOPE: This policy applies to appointments to any seats on boards, committees or
commissions for which the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors is the appointing
authority.
II. POLICY: A person will not be eligible for appointment if he/she is related to a Board of
Supervisors' Member in any of the following relationships:
1. Mother, father, son, and daughter;
2. Brother, sister, grandmother, grandfather, grandson, and granddaughter;
3. Great-grandfather, great-grandmother, aunt, uncle, nephew, niece, great-grandson,
and great-granddaughter;
4. First cousin;
5. Husband, wife, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, stepson,
and stepdaughter;
6. Sister-in-law (brother's spouse or spouse's sister), brother-in-law (sister's spouse or
spouse's brother), spouse's grandmother, spouse's grandfather, spouse's
granddaughter, and spouse's grandson;
7. Registered domestic partner, pursuant to California Family Code section 297.
8. The relatives, as defined in 5 and 6 above, for a registered domestic partner.
9. Any person with whom a Board Member shares a financial interest as defined in the
Political Reform Act (Gov't Code §87103, Financial Interest), such as a business
partner or business associate.
Candidates shall identify on the standard County application form any of the
above-specified relationships with a Board of Supervisors
member.
Referral Update:
Board Chief Clerk Jami Morritt reached out to all the Bay Area counties. San Mateo, San
Francisco, Sonoma, Alameda and Marin reported having no comparable policy.
For purposes of avoiding legally cognizable conflicts of interest, sections 2, 3, 4 and 6 could all
be omitted for all bodies. These groups are not family for purposes of the Political Reform Act.
The Act considers only the spouse and dependent children to be immediate family. In addition,
section 8 would still prohibit appointment of a member who had a financial interest with anyone
in group 2, 3, 4 or 6.
For purposes of avoiding nepotism or appearance thereof, appointment to County advisory bodies
of family members or others who have a close relationship to a County Supervisor is a matter of
21
of family members or others who have a close relationship to a County Supervisor is a matter of
policy and within the discretion of the Board of Supervisors.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
Staff recommends:
omitting 3, 4 and 6 for all bodies. Those relationships seem fairly attenuated;1.
retaining all other restrictions because they represent close family members of Supervisors;
and
2.
omitting the same groups across all bodies, for ease of administration and compliance.3.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
No fiscal impact.
Attachments
GJ Report 1105 re Nepotism/Favoritism
County Response to GJ Report 1105
Board Order Transmittal_Reso 2011/55 Anti-Nepotism Policy
Res 2011-55_AS ADOPTED_POLICY CONCERNING THE ELIGIBILITY OF BOARD OF SUPERVISORS'
FAMILY MEMBERS FOR APPOINTMENT TO BOARDS, COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT NO. 1105
"ETHICS AND TRANSPARENCY ISSUES IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY"
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RESPONSE
SECTION 2: "NEPOTISM ALIVE IN CEMETERY DISTRICT"
FINDINGS - Section 933.5(a) requires a response to the designated findings of the Grand Jury.
1. There was a failure to advertise/post the open position, in compliance with the Maddy
Act.
Response: Partially agree. In compliance with the Maddy Act of 1975 and Board Resolution No. 2002-
377 “Board Advisory Body Procedures”, the Board of Supervisors declared the Cemetery District seat
vacant on August 10, 2010 (Attachment A) and directed the Clerk of the Board to post the vacancy.
The Clerk is required to post unscheduled vacancies such as this one “…within 20 days after the
vacancy occurs” (Attachment B). The Clerk of the Board did post the vacancy as ordered by the
Board; however, the date of the posting was September 9, 2010, which was beyond the time
requirements specified in state law and Board policy.
2. The initial recommendation to appoint the spouse of the Supervisor for the open special
district position was not consistent with the appointment procedure.
Response: Disagree. The Board policy governing appointment procedures provides that nominating
authority for certain District appointments is the responsibility of individual District Supervisors
(Attachment B). In the case of the Cemetery District appointment, the District III Supervisor has the
responsibility to nominate an applicant for appointment to the Board of Supervisors. In the case of this
appointment, the District III Supervisor recused herself from both the interview and nomination
process after her spouse had indicated his interest in applying for the vacant seat. The Board then
acted to appoint a separate Supervisor to act on behalf of the full Board and carry out the interview
and nomination process, returning with a recommendation to fill the vacant seat.
3. At a minimum, these improprieties created the appearance of nepotism.
Response: Disagree. The Board of Supervisors’ decision to appoint a separate Supervisor to oversee
the interview and nomination process and the District III Supervisor’s recusal were undertaken
specifically to ensure that the appearance of nepotism did not occur.
4. The formation of an outside, impartial panel to interview and select an applicant was
appropriate.
Response: Agree.
5. The adoption of a County anti-nepotism policy was proper.
Response: Agree.
RECOMMENDATIONS - Section 933.05(b) requires a response to the designated recommendations
of the Grand Jury.
1. The County should adopt a policy requiring the formation of impartial selection
committees in situations where there are conflicts of interest, real or perceived, that cannot
be adequately addressed by a normal recusal process
Response: The recommendation has been implemented and is being publicized. Section I(I) of
Resolution No. 2002/377 “Board Advisory Body Procedures” (Attachment B), provides that, “A
screening committee may be selected to assist the Board, or a member of the Board, in the interview
and selection of applicants for appointment”. This section has been reviewed by the Internal
Operations Committee, which has determined that this policy is sufficient and should remain in force.
33
In February 2011, the Board of Supervisors adopted an anti-nepotism and anti-favoritism policy
(Attachment C) for purposes of evaluating Board appointment requests. This is the only policy of its
kind known to exist within the nine Bay Area counties and is more stringent than specifications
outlined in the Maddy Act. The policy is attached to all applications for Board appointments and can be
found by the public on the county website in the Board of Supervisors section.
SECTION 3: "DECOMPOSING THE KELLER CANYON MITIGATION FUND"
FINDINGS - Section 933.5(a) requires a response to the designated findings of the Grand Jury.
1. Proper oversight of the KCMF by the BOS is lacking, which provides opportunity for
impropriety.
Response: Disagree. The Board of Supervisors makes an annual appropriation of KCMF funds during
the annual budget process. In addition, prior to policy enhancements to the KCMF allocation process
approved by the Board of Supervisors on May 24, 2011 (Attachment D), the District V Supervisor
would submit an allocation plan to the Board of Supervisors each fiscal year for consideration and
approval. The 2010/11 KCMF allocation plan, as approved by the Board of Supervisors, is included for
reference (Attachment E)
2. The KCMF has distributed grants without the required applications, work plans, and
follow-up reports.
Response: Agree.
3. The KCMF, as currently administered, is not transparent, and lends itself to a perception
of being a "political slush fund," (defined as "A sum of money used for illicit or corrupt
purposes, as for buying influence." (Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary)).
Response: Disagree. Prior to policy enhancements to the KCMF Allocation Process approved by the
Board of Supervisors on May 24, 2011 (Attachment D), the District V Supervisor would submit an
allocation plan to the Board of Supervisors each fiscal year for approval. A copy of the 2010/11
allocation plan, as approved by the Board of Supervisors, is included for reference (Attachment E).
4. Ethical concerns are raised when grants are awarded to organizations whose boards
include members of the granting committee.
Response: Agree. To address real or perceived conflicts of interest, the Board of Supervisors approved
Resolution No. 2002/376 “Policy for Board Appointees Governing Conflict of Interest & Open Meetings”
(Attachment F), which revised the Conflict of Interest policy for certain Board appointees to local
appointive bodies. In addition, Contra Costa County complies with Assembly Bill 1234 (Chapter 700,
Statutes of 2005) which requires certain public officials to complete Ethics Training on a bi-annual
basis.
5. Despite the fact that $14 million has been distributed over the past ten years, no annual
report has been issued. At the time of the writing of this report, no County-linked website
to the KCMF could be found.
Response: Partially Disagree. The new Annual Report requirement was approved by the Board of
Supervisors on May 24, 2011 (Attachment D). As of May 26, 2011, the date that the Grand Jury
submitted Report No. 1105 to the Board of Supervisors, a county-linked website for the KCMF was
active on the District V Supervisor’s website.
6. Due to a lack of publicly available information about the KCMF, not all non-profit
organizations, nor the public, are aware of the fund its mission, and its processes, and thus
are unable to benefit from it.
Response: Partially Disagree. The Board of Supervisors makes an appropriation of KCMF funds during
34
the annual budget process. In addition, prior to policy enhancements to the KCMF allocation process
approved by the Board of Supervisors on May 24, 2011 (Attachment D), the District V Supervisor
would submit an allocation plan to the Board of Supervisors each fiscal year for approval. A copy of
the 2010/11 allocation plan, as approved by the Board of Supervisors, is included for reference
(Attachment E).
RECOMMENDATIONS - Section 933.05(b) requires a response to the designated recommendations
of the Grand Jury.
1. The BOS should direct the County Administrator's Office to more closely monitor the
KCMF activity and ensure compliance with BOS approval requirements, as well as
application, work plan and performance reporting requirements.
Response: The recommendation will not be implemented. The Finance Committee reviewed the KCMF
grant process and made policy enhancement recommendations to the Board of Supervisors. The
recommendations were approved by the Board of Supervisors on May 24, 2011 (Attachment D) and
have been implemented.
2. The BOS should require training on and compliance with a County ethics policy for all
KCMF Committee members.
Response: The recommendation has been implemented. On April 14, 2011, the Board of Supervisors
approved a recommendation from the Finance Committee to establish the “Keller Canyon Mitigation
Fund Review Committee” (Attachment G). The Committee members, once appointed, are required to
complete a conflict of interest training program pursuant to Section 3 of Resolution No. 2002/376
“Policy for Board Appointees Governing Conflict of Interest & Open Meetings” (Attachment F).
3. An annual report for the KCMF should be issued, and a County-linked website should be
established to clarify mission, application and selection process and requirements.
Response: The recommendation has been implemented. On May 24, 2011, the Board of Supervisors
adopted several policies, as recommended by the Finance Committee, governing the use of Keller
Canyon Mitigation funds (Attachment D). Section II(E) of the policy requires that an Annual Report be
filed with the Board of Supervisors no later than September 30th of each year for the prior fiscal year.
Section II(A) of the policy requires that information regarding the KCMF grant process be posted on
the District V and County websites.
4. The BOS should consider re-establishing the Finance Committee oversight of grant
awards.
Response: The recommendation will not be implemented. The Finance Committee reviewed the KCMF
grant process and made policy enhancement recommendations to the Board of Supervisors. The
recommendations were approved by the Board of Supervisors on May 24, 2011 (Attachment D) and
have been implemented.
5. The BOS should ensure that all County mitigation funds, or similar funds under the
control of a single Supervisor, receive proper supervision.
Response: The recommendation has been implemented. In December 2008, the Board of Supervisors
referred the issue of County Special Revenue Funds to the Internal Operations Committee for review
and potential establishment of a protocol for allocating funding from such funds. After several months
35
of study, the IOC referred a draft Special Revenue Policy to the Finance Committee for review in
August 2009. In December 2009, the Board of Supervisors approved a policy statement affirming that
responsibility for administration of Special Revenue funds was to remain with the Supervisor of the
District in which the revenue was generated (Attachment H).
OVERALL FINDINGS
1. Avoiding the appearance of unethical behavior especially with conflicts of interest and
nepotism, is crucial to public confidence in governance.
Response: Agree.
OVERALL RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Each of the 19 cities, 28 independent special districts and the County should review and
report to the Grand Jury on the adequacy of its:
a) nepotism policy;
b) conflict of interest policy; and
c) ethics training policy.
Response: The recommendation has been implemented. The Board of Supervisors makes the following
determinations regarding the adequacy of each policy outlined above:
a) Nepotism Policy: On October 26th, 2010, a report from the Public Protection Committee to the
Board of Supervisors noted that Committee staff did not find a policy prohibiting family members of
Supervisors from being appointed to local committees, commissions, or bodies in the neighboring nine
Bay Area counties (Attachment I). The Board of Supervisors approved Resolution No. 2011/55
(Attachment C) prohibiting family members of Supervisors from receiving such appointments and is
thus the only county in the Bay Area known to have such a policy.
b) & c) Conflict of Interest and Ethics Policies: In 2002, the Board of Supervisors approved Resolution
No. 2002/376 “Policy for Board Appointees Governing Conflict of Interest & Open Meetings”
(Attachment G), which revised the Conflict of Interest policy for certain Board appointees. In addition,
Contra Costa County complies with Assembly Bill 1234 (Chapter 700, Statutes of 2005) which requires
certain appointees to local legislative bodies (committees, commissions, and advisory bodies) to
complete Ethics Training on a bi-annual basis.
36
RECOMMENDATION(S):
1. ADOPT Resolution No. 2011/55, making family members of the Board of Supervisors ineligible for
appointment to boards, committees or commissions for which the Board of Supervisors is the appointing
authority.
2. DIRECT the County Administrator and Clerk of the Board to provide a copy of this policy whenever the
County's Boards, Committees and Commissions Application Form is provided, and on the County's
webpage for Board Advisory Bodies.
FISCAL IMPACT:
No fiscal impact.
BACKGROUND:
In July 2010, a vacancy occurred on the Byron-Brentwood-Knightsen Union Cemetery District (BBKUCD)
Board of Trustees and, following recruitment, David Piepho, who is the husband of Supervisor Mary
Piepho applied. Supervisor Piepho subsequently recused herself from the process and, on September 14,
2010, the Board of Supervisors
APPROVE OTHER
RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
Action of Board On: 02/08/2011 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
Clerks Notes:See Addendum
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor
Gayle B. Uilkema, District II
Supervisor
Karen Mitchoff, District IV
Supervisor
Federal D. Glover, District V
Supervisor
NO:Mary N. Piepho, District III
Supervisor
Contact: JULIE ENEA (925)
335-1077
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: February 8, 2011
, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
By: June McHuen, Deputy
cc:
D. 4
To:Board of Supervisors
From:PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE
Date:February 8, 2011
Contra
Costa
County
Subject:POLICY CONCERNING THE ELIGIBILITY OF BOARD OF SUPERVISORS' FAMILY MEMBERS FOR
APPOINTMENT TO BOARDS, COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS
37
BACKGROUND: (CONT'D)
referred the matter to the Public Protection Committee (PPC) to discuss the issue of whether to develop
a policy regarding the appointment of family members to boards and commissions and to consider the
appointment process to fill the current BBKUCD Board vacancy.
After failing to properly announce the BBKUCD Board vacancy pursuant to the Maddy Act, the Clerk of
the Board's office re-opened a recruitment on September 22, 2010 and extended the application deadline
for the seat to October 12, 2010. A total of ten applications were received; two of the applicants
withdrew from the process, leaving eight remaining applicants.
The PPC considered the Board of Supervisors' referral at its regular meeting on October 18, 2010. The
PPC received a substantial amount of written and oral public testimony on the spirit of the Maddy Act
and in support of the various candidates. The PPC limited its discussion to the process to be used to fill
the BBKUCD Board vacancy and the broader policy issue of permitting Supervisors' family members to
serve on Board advisory bodies, committees, and commissions or other public bodies for which the
Board of Supervisors is the appointing authority. At that time, there was consensus among the
Committee members that Supervisors' family members should not be automatically barred from
participating on Board advisory bodies, committees, and commissions, but that nominations for
appointment should result from an "arms length" process whenever a Supervisor's family member is a
candidate. The Committee determined that, in the case of the Trustee 3 seat on the BBKUCD Board of
Trustees, the nomination process should be delegated to a panel made up of subject matter experts from
outside of Contra Costa County. The PPC took this recommendation to the Board of Supervisors on
October 26, 2010, and the Board directed the County Administrator's Office to convene a panel of three
individuals made up of trustees or district managers from cemetery districts outside of Contra Costa
County, to evaluate candidates and nominate an individual to the Board of Supervisors, within 30 days,
for appointment to the Trustee 3 seat on the BBKUCD Board.
The County Administrator's Office convened the interview panel on November 10 and, on November
23, submitted a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors for appointment to fill the BBKUCD
vacancy, which the Board approved.
On November 30, staff suggested some options to the PPC for an impartial screening process for
recruitments to boards, committees or commissions for which the Board is the appointing authority,
when a Supervisor’s family member is a candidate. The PPC decided, instead, that it would work to
develop a policy to prohibit the candidacy of a Supervisor’s family member to boards, committees or
commissions for which the Board is the appointing authority, and requested staff to return in January
with suggested policy language and a definition for “family member”.
Staff provided a draft policy to the PPC at a public meeting on January 24, 2011. The policy, as
modified by the PPC, is recommended to the Board today for adoption.
CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION:
CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT:
CLERK'S ADDENDUM
Speakers: Ralph Hoffman, resident of Walnut Creek. ADOPTED Resolution No. 2011/55 making
38
Speakers: Ralph Hoffman, resident of Walnut Creek. ADOPTED Resolution No. 2011/55 making
family members of the Board of Supervisors ineligible for appointment to boards, committees or
commissions for which the Board of Supervisors is the appointing authority, as amended to: add first
cousins in the list of relatives, remove reference to adopted children, revise references to domestic
partners as 'Registered Domestic partners", and include relatives of domestic partners in the same
manner as married partners (revised version attached); and DIRECTED the County Administrator
and Clerk of the Board to provide a copy of this policy whenever the County's Boards, Committees
and Commissions Application Form is provided, and on the County's webpage for Board Advisory
Bodies.
ATTACHMENTS
Resolution No. 2011/55
CC Committee Application Form 2011 Rev
39
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Gove med by the Board
Adopted this Resolution on 02/0812011 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
RECUSE:
John Gioia
4 Gayle B. Uilkema
---Karen Mitchoff
Federal D. Glover
_1~_Mary N. Piepho
Resolution No. 20Jl/55
JN THE MA TIER OF ADOPTING A POLICY MAKING FAMILY MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS INELIGIBLE
FOR APPOINTMENT TO BOARDS, COMMITIBES OR COMMISSIONS FOR WHICH THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS JS THE
APPOINTING AtJIBORITY
WHEREAS the Board of Supervisors wishes to avoid the reality or appearance of improper influence or favoritism;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the following policy is hereby adopted:
I. SCOPE: This policy applies to appointments to any seats on boards, committees or commissions for which the Contra Costa County
Board of Supervisors is the appointing authority.
II. POLICY: A person will not be eligible for appointment if he/she is related to a Board of Supervisors' Member in any of the following
relationships:
1. Mother, father, son, and daughter;
2. Brother, sister, grandmother, grandfather, grandson, and granddaughter;
3. Great-grandfather, great-grandmother, aunt, uncle, nephew, niece, great-grandson, and great-granddaughter;
4. First cousin;
5. Husband, wire, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, stepson, and stepdaughter;
6. Sister~in~law (brother's spouse or spouse's sister), brother~in~law (sister's spouse or spouse's brother), spouse's grandmother,
spouse's grandfather, spouse's granddaughter, and spouse's grandson;
7. Registered domestic partner, pursuant to Califomia Family Code section 297.
&. The relatives, as defined in 5 and 6 above, for a registered domestic partner.
9. Any person with whom a Board Member shares a financial interest as defined in the Political Reform Act (Gov't Code §87103,
Financial Interest), such as a business partner or business associate.
Candidates shall identify on the standard County application form any of the above-specified relationships with a Board of Supervisors
member.
Contact: JULIE ENEA (925) 335-1077
cc:
40