HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10061987 - I.O.1 TO: BOARD OF- SUPERVISORS
FROM: <J'V1 1`i
INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
DATE: . .
September 28, 19.87
SUBJECT;
Response to the' Report of the 198,6-1987 Grand Jury,
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND 'JUSTIFICATIOPV
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Approve the proposed response .to the report of the.1986-1987
Grande Jury except as noted below, and direct the Clerk of
the Board to file its response with the Presiding Judge of
the Superior •Court pursuant to Penal Code Section 933 .
2. Add to the response to Recommendation Nos: 71-12 and 14:
.,The Board of 'Supervisors has scheduled a workshop for
October 13, 1981 to discuss the duties and .functions of. the
Airport Land Use Commission and the Contra Costa County
Aviation Advisory Committee. Invited to the workshop are
members of these two_• committees, the Directors of Community
Development,' Public Works, and. General .Services, the County
Counsel and the County Administrator. - In• addition, the
Forewoman and appropriate committee chairs of :the 1987-1988
Grand 'Jury have been invited.
3.. Add to the response to Recommendation No.. '13:
The Board of Supervisors agrees with the findings and
recommendation of the Grand Jury that the printed material
relating to the operation of Buchanan Field airport should
reflect accurately the hours that the airport tower is in '.
operation. The existing brochure • showing the.' incorrect
hours of operation of 0700 to 2400 is .being revised to show
the correct hours as 0600 to 2400.
4. Add to the response 'to. Recommendation No. 25-:
The , Internal Operations Committee in reviewing this item`
recommends that this matter be brought to the•'attention •of-
the -East County Mayors, Police Chiefs and to the General
Plan Planning Congress for• review and 'comme' nt,: prior to the
identification and acquisition of any specific property.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT; YES SIGNATURE;
,RECOMMENDATION'OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR . RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
'APPROVE OTHER - 'J
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON 1987 : AS-PROVED AS RECeWMEEWDED X OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE -
X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ? AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: NOESAND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD•
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
CC: Grand Jury ATTESTED9¢ ,
County :Administrator PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK.OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
BY ,DEPUTY
M382/7-83 -
e
5 . Add to the response to Recommendation No. 25:
The Sheriff will provide statistics to the 1987-1988 Grand
Jury regarding the residence of inmates assigned to the
Richmond Work Furlough Center.
6 . Add to the response to Recommendation No. 57:
The Board of Supervisors is in agreement with this
recommendation and requests the Department of Health
Services to determine the feasibility and cost of separating
juvenile and adult patients on I and J Wards at Merrithew
Memorial Hospital and provide information on how best to
accomplish this recommendation.
7 . Commend the 1986-1987 Grand Jury for its diligence and hard
work in preparing recommendations to improve county
operations and services.
BACKGROUND
On July 28, 1987 the Board of Supervisors referred to the County
Administrator the report of the 1986-1987 Grand Jury. The County
Administrator presented the proposed response to our committee on
September 21, 1987 . We reviewed the proposed response with
representatives of both the 1986-1987 and 1987-1988 Grand Juries
and have incorporated several of their concerns in the above
amendments to the proposed response. With the above additions we
believe the Board should approve the response as the Board of
Supervisors' response to the 1986-1987 Grand Jury Report as
required by Penal Code Section 933 .
1
OFFICE OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Administration Building
Martinez, California
TO: Internal Operations Date :
Committee ( Supervisors September 17 , 1987
Fanden and Torlakso )
From :Phil Batchelor, Subject: proposed Response to
County Administrator 1986-1987 Grand Jury
by Scott Tandy Report
The attached proposed response to the 1986-1987 Grand Jury Report
is submitted in support of the 11 : 00 a.m. item on your
September 21, 1987 agenda. This item will be calendared for the
Board of Supervisors agenda either September 29th or October 6th
as a result of your discussion with the Grand Jury.
ST: lmj
Attachment cc: Chris Adams, Foreperson, 1986-87 Grand Jury
-1-
1 .
RECOMMENDATION #1 (Page 5, Item 1) : The Board of the Employee
Retirement System should explain the investment procedure which
resulted in the realized loss of approximately 8 million dollars
during the year ending June 30, 1986. This was a finding in the
Management Letter of Peat Marwick dated December 12, 1986.
RESPONSE: The Retirement Administrator has provided a detailed
and technical response to this recommendation. Please refer to
Attachment A for the reasons that Retirement Board authorized the
"covered call option" program as a hedge against a down market in
stock prices.
RECOMMENDATION #2 (Page 5, Item 2) : The 1987-88 Grand Jury Audit
Committee should hold a meeting with representatives of Peat
Marwick Main & Co. and a representative of the County
Administrator' s Office before September 1, 1987 to discuss the
audit for the county for fiscal year ended June 30, 1987 .
RECOMMENDATION #3 (Page 6, Item 3) : Before November 1, 1987
another meeting should be held with all parties mentioned above
to discuss the Single Audit Act Reports.
RESPONSE: The County Administrator is setting up a joint meeting
in late September or early October to discuss audit procedures.
RECOMMENDATION #4 (Page 6, Item 4) : The final audit report from
Peat Marwick Main & Co. should be given to the Grand Jury no
later than March 15, 1988 .
RESPONSE: The Board of Supervisors will request Peat Marwick
Main & Co. that the final audit and recommendations of the
independent auditor should be delivered to the Grand Jury and the
Board of Supervisors jointly by December 1, 1987 .
RECOMMENDATION #5 (Page 6, Item 5) : The 1987-88 Grand Jury
should issue Request for Proposals for independent auditors no
later than March 15, 1988.
RESPONSE: A meeting will be scheduled between the ;County
Administrator' s Office and Grand Jury Audit Committee to discuss
the procedures to jointly issue a RFP for an independent auditor
for FY 1987-88 .
RECOMMENDATION #6 (Page 81, Item N/A) : The 1986-87 Contra Costa
County Grand Jury recommends that future grand juries should
establish a committee to review the preceding grand jury' s
recommendations and responses thereto.
RESPONSE: Future Grand Juries may respond to this
recommendation.
-2-
RECOMMENDATION #7 (Page 19, Item 1) : A one-mile safety zone
(extending from the perimeter of the airport) should be
maintained around the airport. (Most aircraft accidents occur on
landings and takeoffs and are often within one mile of the
airport) .
RECOMMENDATION #8 (Page 19, Item 2) : The County should start by
setting the example of limiting the height on a proposed building
to be situated on the corner of Concord Avenue and John Glenn
Drive to three stories (same height as the Sheraton Hotel) .
RECOMMENDATION #9 (Page 19, Item 3 ) : A proposed major hotel is
to be built within the safety zone. We recommend that the plans
be presented to the Airport Land Use Commission for their input.
RECOMMENDATION #10 (Page 19, Item 4) : Better communication is
necessary between all concerned agencies. A beginning would be
to have all proposals for development within the safety zone
presented to the ALUC for review.
RECOMMENDATION #11 (Page 19, Item 5 ) : The state should enact
legislation to require that the decisions of the ALUC be binding.
RESPONSE FOR RECOMMENDATIONS #7, 8, 9, 10 and 11: Information
being collected for development of response.
RECOMMENDATION #12 (Page 19, Item 6) : Future studies might
indicate an Airport Commission would be the most effective body
to oversee the operation of the Contra Costa airports.
RESPONSE: The Board of Supervisors has asked its Internal
Operations Committee (Supervisors Fanden and Torlakson) to
investigate the possibility of having the Board of Supervisors
designated as an Airport Commission or Airport Authority in order
to better manage the airport' s operations. Preliminary opinions
from County Counsel indicate that state legislation is required
in order to accomplish this. If this proves to be the case, the
Board will be asked whether they wish to sponsor such legislation
in 1988 .
RECOMMENDATION #13 (Page 19, Item 7) : In the interest of safety
the airport tower should be open from 0600 to 2400 hours instead
of the current 0700 to 2200 hours.
RESPONSE: The tower, has been open from 0600 hours for nearly
five years. Between 2200 and 2400 hours, traffic logs maintained
indicate an average of less than two operations during these two
hours. In other words, the airport has an average ..of less than
one landing or one take off per hour for each of these two hours.
The high for these two hours is a total of six operations (a
landing or a take off) during the two hour period. It is quite
common to have no landings or take offs during that period.
-3-
i
RECOMMENDATION. #14, (Page. 19, Item 8) : The proposed Byron
Airport should have a. safety zone delineated and maintained.
RESPONSE: Information being collected for development of
response.
RECOMMENDATION #15 (Page 25, Item 1 ) : The county should continue
to send employees to CSTI . I
RESPONSE: Concur.
i
RECOMMENDATION #16 (Page 25, Item 2) : All cities 'should be
encouraged to contract with County OES for Multi-Hazard
Functional Plan.
RESPONSE: The cities should respond to this recommendation.
RECOMMENDATION #17 (Page 25, Item 3 ) : The misunderstanding
concerning charges for contractual services between OES and
cities should be resolved.
RESPONSE: No specific examples of misunderstanding concerning
charges for contractual services can be identified. The County
Administrator and OES staff are always available to discuss a
contract issue with any city.
RECOMMENDATION #18 (Page 25, Item 4) : The monthly Service
Chiefs' meeting should be continued.
RESPONSE: The Service Chiefs' meetings on the last Friday of
each month have dramatically improved the communication,
capability and coordination of those functions of county
government required to respond to emergencies.
RECOMMENDATION #19 (Page 16, Item 5) : The symposium should bei
repeated, held at different locations, and at a time convenient
for working people.
RESPONSE: Staff of OES are available to repeat the symposium and
discussion is underway for a presentation in Central County and
West County.
RECOMMENDATION #20 (Page 26, Item 6) : A county-wide EOC field
exercise should be held yearly.
RESPONSE: While this is a valuable training event, a full scale
exercise has not been held because of the magnitude and cost of
such an event. In lieu of a county-wide EOC field exercise
-4-
d
' r
annually, a functional exercise is held annually at CSTI and a
field exercise and a disaster drill is being held in late
September.
RECOMMENDATION #21 (Page 26, Item 7 ) : The County Risk Manager
and the safety officer should continue to work more' in concert
with the County OES to create a workable disaster response plan
for county employees and buildings.
RESPONSE: The County Risk Manager is coordinating the
development of such a plan with all county departments. An
expected completion date for the 300 county facilities is by
1990.
RECOMMENDATION #22 (Page 26, Item 8) : The County Administrator's
Office should continue to monitor closely the functional
activities and the staffing patterns of the County OES toward
improving overall program efficiency.
RESPONSE: The County Administrator has daily contact and weekly
meetings with staff of OES to review the administrative and
functional activities of OES. Included in this review is an
ongoing evaluation of the selection, assignment training,
supervision and productivity of personnel at OES.
RECOMMENDATION 423 (Page 26, Item 9) : The County OES should be ,
encouraged to increase their cooperation with the State OES.
RESPONSE: The working relationship between Countra Costa County
OES and the Regional and State OES have been friendly, !'
professional, supportive and productive. As a direct consequence
of this relationship, the OES has developed one of the most
respected and innovative programs in the state.
RECOMMENDATION #24 (Page 26, Item 10) : The County OES should be
encouraged to develop and implement a more active educational
program at the public level, relative to earthquake preparedness.
RESPONSE: The Board of Supervisors agrees and will continue to
ensure that OES be active in the delivery of timely emergency
preparedness material to the public through ( 1) the media, ( 2)
personnel presentations, and ( 3) printed material.
RECOMMENDATION #25 (Page 38, Item 1) : The county should begin
planning and acquiring land for a jail facility in East Contra
Costa County.
RESPONSE: County funding for such an acquisition is not
available. However, as the planning effort proceeds to update
- I
-5-
the detention system master plan, this issue will be addressed
( see Attachment A) .
RECOMMENDATION #26 (Page 38, Item 2) : The Board of 'Supervisors
and the Sheriff should develop a county policy for inmates '
industries.
RESPONSE: The Sheriff-Coroner reports that the Detention
Division staff are currently developing a policy for the
implementation of jail industries within the Division. It is
anticipated that this policy will be completed this ,fiscal year
( see Attachment 8 ) .
i
RECOMMENDATION #27 (Page 38, Item 3 ) : Plans have been drawn for'
the 600-bed Richmond facility and should be implemented as
quickly as possible.
i
RESPONSE: The new detention facility project is proceeding ahead
of schedule. It is anticipated that the first contracts will go,
to bid in September, 1987 . If the present progress ''for planning
and design is maintained, the entire project should go to bid in:
March 1988, two months ahead of schedule ( see Attachment :$!) .
i
RECOMMENDATION #28 (Page 31, Item N/A) : The Board of Supervisors
should consider a work furlough center to serve inmates in east
. and central Contra Costa County.
RESPONSE: The Richmond Work Furlough Center presently serves
inmates from all areas of the county. If future inmate
population projections are realized, a Central County Work
Furlough Center will be necessary ( see AttachmentB:) .
I
RECOMMENDATION #29 (Page 40, Item 1) : The drug and alcohol
rehabilitation program should be expanded.
RESPONSE: The Sheriff-Coroner has just concluded a major
expansion of the drug and alcohol rehabilitation program (Project
DEUCE) into the Work Furlough Center. Additionally, the Division
has submitted grant requests to expand the program at both Marsh
Creek Detention and the Martinez Detention Facilities. The
future is clear. If drug and alcohol offenders are ,to be
incarcerated, programs must be developed to rehabilitate them.
The first "in-custody" comprehensive drug and alcohol i
rehabilitation program in the country was established in Contra
Costa County ( see Attachment 'B) .
RECOMMENDATION #30 (Page 40, Item 2) : Additional vocational '
training classes should be added. {
I
-6-
RESPONSE: The Sheriff-Coroner has recently implemented a large .
computer literacy program, additional classes are required to
assist in rehabilitation. The jail industries program, as it
develops, will certainly aid in this endeavor. The, department,
through the County Superintendent of Schools, has obtained a
surplus modular building that will be installed at the Marsh
Creek Detention Facility in October, 1987 . Installation of this
building will give the facility three classrooms, an increase in
two in the past year ( see Attachment �0 .
RECOMMENDATION #31 (Page 40, Item 3 ) : Classrooms and
i
recreational areas should be increased.
RESPONSE: A surplus modular building obtained through the County
Superintendent of Schools will be installed at the Marsh Creek
Detention Facility in October, 1987 . Installation of this
building will give the facility three classrooms, an increase of
two in the past year. Space to increase recreational areas
within the security fence is limited and the security levels of `
approximately 30% of the inmates would not allow them outside the
security fence.
r
RECOMMENDATION #32 (Page 42, Item N/A) : There should be support
and follow-up counseling and after-care for all juveniles.
RESPONSE: The County Probation Officer concurs and indicates
that the department is conducting an Intensive Aftercare Services
to Selected Offenders. This is a highly successful program but
limited to the number of youth who can participate. The
department is seeking additional state funding to increase this';
program ( see Attachment �q .
RECOMMENDATION 433 (Page, 44, Item 1) : An additional day of
referee time is needed to handle the 300 cases. Ideally, the
current part-time referee could be employed for an extra day as ` a
"floater" between east and west county.
RESPONSE: Due to the increased workload related to Juvenile
Court matters, an additional day of referee time is needed. This
matter was discussed as part of the Board of Supervisors hearing
of the FY 1987-88 budget. The county' s fiscal situation
precluded allocating additional funds at this time for this
position. The Board directed the County Administrator' s Office'
to work with the Superior Court to determine what rearrangement,
can be made of existing resources in order to secure the required
funding for additional referee time.
I
RECOMMENDATION #34 (Page 44, Item 2) : A bailiff at the Central!
County Juvenile Court would increase the security in handling 601
and 602 cases.
i
I,
-7-
RESPONSE: Central County Juvenile Court is held in the Juvenile
Court complex in Martinez. At the current time, bailiff services
are being provided by the Sheriff ' s Department which estimates
that a bailiff is provided upon request of the Juvenile Court
approximately three days a week. Thus, the potentially difficult
cases that might require bailiff services are now being covered
by this arrangement between the Court and Sheriff ' s Department.
RECOMMENDATION' #35 (Page 47 , Item 1 ) : All five city councils
should tour their respective police departments.
RESPONSE: It is the responsibility of the five cities (Antioch,
Concord, Pittsburg, Richmond and Walnut Creek) to respond to this
recommendation.
RECOMMENDATION #36 (Page 47 , Item 2) : The City of Pittsburg
should:
a. Authorize an additional 5 positions on the police
department, in addition to the 10 positions that will be
voted on in June of 1987 .
b. Offer training and sensitivity courses to all sworn officers
who also should be allowed to take advanced training.
C. Approve a chain link fence which should be placed around the
police car parking lot.
d. Install a sally port for the secure transfer of arrested
persons.
e. Establish a secure area for employee' s personal car parking
so that employees can arrive and leave the work place at
nighttime in safety.
RESPONSE: It is the responsibility of the City of Pittsburg to
respond to this recommendation.
RECOMMENDATION #37 (Page 47, Item 5) : The Walnut Creek Police
Department should:
a. Cover open electrical outlets in spaces where juveniles are
held or provide constant supervision.
b. Provide more frequent visual checks 'of adult prisoners.
RESPONSE: It is the responsibility of the City of Walnut Creek
to respond to this recommendation.
-8-
RECOMMENDATION #38 (Page 57, Item 1) : Lottery tickets should not
be given as an incentive for conserving sick leave. Salaries are
budgeted for the entire year; therefore, sick leave costs are
minimal to the district. If sick leave is a problem, other
management prerogatives should prevail.
RECOMMENDATION #39 (Page 58, Item 2) : The monies funded for the
purpose of capital improvements should be used for capital
improvements to . the plant and not for the acquisition of
enterprises, such as landfills.
RECOMMENDATION #40 (Page 58, Item 3 ) : Legislation should be
enacted to enlarge the Board of Directors of Delta Diablo
Sanitation District from a three to a five-person board to fairly
represent the entire district.
RESPONSE: It is the responsibility of the Delta Diablo
Sanitation District to respond to the above three
recommendations.
RECOMMENDATION #41 (Page 62, Item 1) : The Los Vaqueros/Kellogg
Reservoir Project should be supported.
RESPONSE: It is the responsibility of the Contra Costa Water
District to respond to this recommendation.
RECOMMENDATION #42 (Page 62, Item 2) : The Cities of Antioch,
Brentwood, Pittsburg, and West Pittsburg, and Oakley Water
District should immediately start good faith negotiations with
CCWD towards providing water users in East County with the best
water quality at the lowest long-term costs.
RESPONSE: It is the responsibility of the Cities of Antioch,
Brentwood, Pittsburg, the Oakley Water District, and CCWD to
respond to this recommendation.
RECOMMENDATION #43 (Page 62, Item 3 ) : The CCWD' s Canal Safety
and Fencing Program should continue.
RESPONSE: It is the responsibility of the CCWD to respond to
this recommendation.
RECOMMENDATION #44 (Page 78, Item 1) : Implementation of the five
Gage-Babcock & Associates recommendations and/or alternate
modifications acceptable to the three entities.
RESPONSE: It is the responsibility of BART to respond to this ,
recommendation.
-9-
RECOMMENDATION #45 (Page 78, Item 2) : The Bay Area Fire Service
Liaison to BART and the California Public Utilities Commission
have specific concerns in relation to safety preparedness of
BART' s systems. It is therefore imperative that the three
entities communicate from conception to installation of new
safety plans and/or modifications to existing systems.
RESPONSE: It is the responsibility of BART and the other
entities to respond to this recommendation.
RECOMMENDATION #46 (Page 84, Item N/A) : "The Board of
Supervisors initiate legislative action requiring voter approval
on changes in the reorganization (public to private) of District
Hospitals. "
RESPONSE: The Board of Supervisors appreciates the fact that the
1986-87 Grand Jury reviewed the recommendation of the 1985-86
Grand Jury relating to the Los Medanos Community Hospital
District and found that all appropriate opportunities for public
input were provided prior to the creation of this Los Medanos
Health Care Corporation. As a result of this review, the 1986-87
Grand Jury found the recommendation of the 1985-86 Grand Jury to
be unwarranted. The Board of Supervisors agrees with the
conclusion that this recommendation was unwarranted.
RECOMMENDATIONS #47-56 (Page 99, Items 1 - 10) :
1 . Legislation should be enacted to increase the membership of
the Mt. Diablo Hospital Board of Directors from five to
seven elective members.
2 . Legislation should be enacted to limit the terms of the Mt.
Diablo Hospital Board of Directors to two terms.
3 . The members of the Board of Directors should be required to
reside in the Mt. Diablo Hospital District during the entire
period of their tenure.
4. The Office of Board President should be rotated among all
Mt. Diablo Hospital Board members.
5 . The Board of Directors should comply with the Mt. Diablo
Hospital District Bylaws and Board of Directors ' Policy
Manual in reference to the recordation of all minutes.
6 . The role of the legal counsel for the Mt. Diablo Hospital
District should be clearly defined.
7 . The. personnel committee of the Mt. Diablo Hospital District
Board of Directors should conduct an annual job performance
evaluation of the Chief Executive Officer with its
recommendations, in writing, presented to the Board of
a
_10-
Directors for appropriate action. Job performance
evaluation of the CEO should be based on clearly written
goals and objectives. A copy of this job performance
evaluation shall be an integral part of the CEO' s personnel
folder, which must be maintained and stored, at all times,
in the personnel office files of the Mt. Diablo Hospital.
8 . All contractual agreements of the Mt. Diablo Hospital
District should be read at three consecutive regular or
special meetings (open or closed sessions) prior to calling
for a voice.
�4
9. At least one copy of all contractual agreements between the
Mt. Diablo Hospital District and the CEO should be
maintained at both the hospital personnel office and in the
hospital attorneys ' files.
10. The (Termination of Employment) Agreement dated November 218,
1986 should be rescinded by whatever legal means available.
RESPONSE: It is the responsibility of the Mt. Diablo Hospitals
District to respond to the above ten recommendations.
RECOMMENDATION #57 (Page 108, Item 1) : The "Policy for the
Admission of-Children/Adolescents to Inpatient Psychiatric
Services" at Merrithew Memorial Hospital, I and J Wards, should
be reviewed and revised immediately to ensure that adult and
juvenile patients are separated at all times.
RESPONSE: The Health Services Department, in principle, is in
agreement with the Grand Jury recommendation, and is committed `to
creating alternatives to treating children and adolescents at the
Merrithew Memorial Hospital. The county is in negotiations with
Walnut Creek Hospital to expand from two to four the number of
beds available to treat both latency-age and adolescent children.
This will require an additional commitment of funds from the
Health Services Department and the Board of Supervisors.
In addition, the department has negotiated a $156,000 buy-out
proposal with the State Department of Mental Health for 1000
patient days, at Napa State Hospital to operate a group home for
seriously disturbed latency-age ( 9-12 years) children. The case
management capacity, as per the mandate of AB 3632, has been
expanded in order to place children in group homes in lieu of
acute care institutions, including Merrithew Memorial Hospital:
It is important to note that there are some dual diagnosed
children who may, in spite of these efforts, require treatment :on
I and .J Wards. These children would be placed there only on a '
last resort basis because of severe mental disorder and any one
of the following problems: major physical illness, developmental
disabilities, extreme violence or contagious diseases. These
disorders would make some children very difficult to place, and
is
there is no alternative other than to treat them at Merrithew.
The Health Services Department is working with private facilities
and community agencies to reduce this number.
RECOMMENDATION #58 (Page 108, Item 2) : The Department of Social'
Services should continue recent efforts to increase the number of
foster care homes and provide support and resources to foster
care parents.
RESPONSE: The following steps are being taken to implement Board
of Supervisors policy by the Social Services Director to provide'
support and resources to foster care parents and to help increase
the number of foster care homes: ( 1) employment of a Social i
Worker to do foster home recruitment, investigate foster parents!'
concerns, train foster parents and act as the departmental
liaison with foster parents; ( 2) establishment of a new schedule'
for parent/social worker training; ( 3) exploring possibility of
inviting Foster Family Agency (a home funding agency) to the
county to develop foster homes for populations with specific
needs; and, ( 4) initiating the development of a system of
credits, financial incentives and awards to foster parents who
take advantage of training opportunities.
RECOMMENDATION #59 (Page 108, Item 3 ) : Candid discussions should
be held immediately between Contra Costa County officials and
Group Home providers relative to the development of appropriate
and additional juvenile beds needed in Contra Costa County.
J
RESPONSE: Discussions are ongoing among Social Services,
Probation and Mental Health representatives and Group Home
providers. In addition, an ad hoc committee of department
representatives and community leaders, the Group Home Study
Review Committee, has been meeting regularly since April 14,
1987 . The Committee' s goals are Placement Alternatives, Improved
Communication and Coordination, Prevention Efforts, and Funding.;
Finally, an in-depth study of the county' s group homes and
children was conducted by a highly respected expert in this area
to: ( 1) determine the needs of children and adolescents placed '
in out-of-home care; ( 2) learn how well the facilities within the
county meet those children' s needs; ( 3 ) suggest changes to
increase the ability of facilities to serve those children; andi
( 4) recommend changes in the capacity of community care
facilities and county-operated residential programs'' to ameliorate
the foster home placement situation. This report was presented;
to the Youth Services Board on August 20, 1987 and is being
studied.
i
RECOMMENDATION #60 (Page 108, Item 4) : The Contra Costa County ;
Board of Supervisors should continue open dialogue relative to
out-of-home placement for juveniles.
i
i
-12-
RESPONSE: The Board is continuing their open dialogue regarding
out-of-home placement. The Youth Services Board, appointed by
the Board of Supervisors to review out-of-home services to
children, has been meeting regularly with service providers and
community leaders whose area of interest lies in providing such '
services.
RECOMMENDATION 461 (Page 108, Item 5) : Any facility built by a !
private provider on Contra Costa County controlled land should be
allowed, only if there is a timely renegotiable, programmatic,
and financial agreement between the provider and the county.
RESPONSE: Concur.
RECOMMENDATION #62 (Page 108, Item 6) : The City of Martinez and
Contra Costa County should discuss a mutually acceptable
agreement for law enforcement costs incurred at the privately
operated facilities at the Glacier Drive site.
RESPONSE: Lion' s Gate and the County Social Services Director
met with Martinez Police Department to discuss mutual problems.
The new County Social Services Director will have additional
meetings in order to resolve and identify problems.
RECOMMENDATION #63 (page 108, Item 7 ) : Contra Costa County
should issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) before any contract is
awarded.
RESPONSE: The Board of Supervisors agrees with this
recommendation and this would be a normal part of the Social
Service Department' s p procedures for securing resources of this ;
nature.
RECOMMENDATION #64 (Page 118, Item. N/A) : BART should remove
immediately all copies of the Spectator from BART property and
prohibit its future sales or distribution on BART property.
RESPONSE: It is the responsibility of BART to respond to this
recommendation.
j
j
ATTACHMENTA !'
a
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION
Inter-Office Memo
TO: Scott Tandy, Chief Assistant County Administrator
Attn: George Johnson
FROM: Betty J. Lanoue, Retirement Administrator G �
SUBJECT: Grand Jury Comments and Recommendations
DATE: September 14,. 1987
The 1986-87 Contra Costa County Grand Jury recommended "the Board of the Employee
Retirement System should explain the investment procedure which resulted in the
realized loss of approximately eight million dollars during the year ending June
30, 1986." Reference was made to a December 12, 1986 Management Letter of Peat,
Marwick, Mitchell & Company which also recommended periodic reevaluation of
investment policies to adjust to the ever-changing investment environment. .
The comments of the Grand Jury were considered by the Retirement Board at its r
regular meetings on August. 11, 1987 and September 8,, 1987, as well as at a
meeting of its Investment Committee held August 27, 1987, r
The Retirement Board respectfully objects to a segmented review' of its investment
returns. Participation in the "covered call option" program must be considered
with the policy of equity investments since the Board of Retirement never
intended to enter a naked call program. Overall earnings from ,the retirement
investments have been sufficent to continue funding on scheduleto give
supplements to retirees who have lost at least 25% of the earning power of their
allowances since retirement; and to reduce contributions due from employers and
employees toward the cost-of-living program.
An -option program such as the Board undertook is a hedging strategy to cover
possible down-turns in the market. At the time it was undertaken we had already
been three years in an up market (bull market) . Hedging, or providing for an
offset against losses in a down market, appeared reasonable: As the enclosed
letter from our consultants,'points out, we have done well with our conservative
approach of investing in S & P 500 stocks and writing options against those
stocks. We have never invested in stock optibns, ,although we have spent money;
"repurchasing" options which we had sold. That decision was make because we
determined we wanted to continue in the S & P index investment program.
Much thought was given by the Retirement Board to continuation or termination 'of
the option program. By a 7-2 vote the Retirement Board voted to continue the ,
program at its present level. It would appear there is even more reason now to
"hedge" against a down market - more than five years after the :start of the
current bull market. All of the Retirement Board 's investment ,,policies have b'een
reviewed by this autonomous Board in whom is vested the control' of the assetsof
the Retirement System.
BJL:dd
DORM cO HELLIESEN
INC.
I
INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT 300TAMALPLAZA,SUITE;270
CONSULTING CORTE MADERA,CA 94925
DOUGLAS DORN (415)924-1200
ROBERT I.HELLIESEN,C.EA. 250 BOBWHITE COURT
FRANCIS J.EARLY SUITE 200
BOISE,IDAHO 83706
(208)344-9200
August 21 , 1987
R
Board of Retirement
CONTRA COSTA .COUNTY
EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION
c/o Betty J.. Lanoue , Retirement Administrator
P . 0 . Box 191
Martinez , CA 94553
r
Dear Members of the Board,
When the Board hired Balch, . Hardy & Scheinman, > Inc . to write
( sell ) options on the stock index portfolio being managed by
Alliance Capital Management , it did so as a risk reduction
move . The Board, appropriately in our judgement , considered
the Alliance fund and the Balch overwrite program to be onb
composite fund. By writing options on the Alliance fund,
the Board was able to limit possible losses which would have
resulted from poor stock market performance , at the cost of
missing some gains possible from very high stock market
advances . The negative returns which occurred ;in the Balch
portion of the account occurred as a result of`,extremely j
strong stock market performance. They should be viewed in,
conjunction with the related Alliance returns . The returns
on the combined investments were quite strong.
In our judgement , it was appropriate for the Board to 1
undertake this composite investment , _which netted the fund a
combined total return of 19:8% over the period,`of September
30 , 1985 to December 31 , 1986 . We are aware that The Board
is ' reviewing this investment currently, and has been
reviewing it regularly (as it has been regularly , reviewing
all investment policies )
BACKGROUND
i
The System has been "writing covered calls A call
represents the right to buy a given security at a given
price ( the exercise price ) for a certain period of time
( typically 90 days ) .
i
DORM ''S HELLIESEN
4 INC.
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
EMPLOYEES ' RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION
August 21 , 1987
Page .two
It is necessary to differentiate here between "writing
covered calls" , "buying calls" , and "writing naked calls" . '
The System has never contemplated buying calls or writing
naked calls , two practices which are quite speculative .
When people think of investing or speculating in options ,
they often are thinking of purchasing calls . Purchase
of a call involves paying money for the right to, buy a
security at a given price by a given date ( the expiration
date ) , with the expectation that the security will advance,,
in price . Such a transaction standing on its own is rightly
considered extremely risky , since if the security has a
,price below the exercise price as of. the expiration date ,
the call will expire worthless and the- buyer will lose his
or her . total investment .
An even more risky transaction is the sale of a' naked call .
Naked means the seller doesn ' t own the asset . If the asset
price rises well above the - expiration price , the seller must
come up with the funds required to purchase the asset on the
market , which may be very expensive , and cause large losses .
Sale of covered calls , what the System has been doing, is a
conservative practice . The term "covered" indicates that
the seller owns the asset on which the call is being
written . By selling to a purchaser the right to "call away"
the asset , the seller is assured of some income. ( the price,,
received for the call ) . If the asset declines 'in price
prior to expiration or doesn ' t advance as high as the call
price , the seller pockets the income, which serves to
cushion any loss on the underlying asset . If the price of
the asset rises above the call price , then the asset must be
delivered at the call price , so the portion of the advance;
above the exercise price is given up . The effect of the
transaction is that risk of loss is reduced, as is some
potential for gain. Because the seller of the call already
owns the underlying asset , the only risk of a covered call
program - considered in combination with the underlying
asset - is that some potential for gain is given up .
DORM CSHELLIESEN
j. INC.
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
EMPLOYEES ' RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION
August 21 , 1987
Page three
RETURNS
Month-by-month returns of the Alliance index portfolio , the
Balch portfolio , and the combined portfolio , are presented
below:
ALLIANCE ALLIANCE OPTION COMBINED COMBINED
DATE VALUE %RETURN VALUE VALUE %RETURN
------:
46,500,128 100.00 0 46,500,128 100.00
31-Oct-85 48,015,268 103.61 (20,771 ) 47,994,497 103.25
30-Nov-85 51 ,281 ,470 111 .03 (858,549) 50,422,921 108.19
31-Dec-85 54,005,053 117.29 (2,606,817) 51 ,398,236 109.86
31-Jan-86 53,475,540 116.51 (2,085,539) 51 ,390,001 110.55
28-Feb-86 59,994,928 124.21 (5,575,565) 54,419,363 112.25
31-Mar-86 63,731 ,869 130.47 (7,707,537) 56,024,332 113.09
30-Apr-86 63,454,652 130.26 (7,128,594) 56,326,058 114.16
31-May-86 66,098,013 136.06 (9,569,716) 56,528,297 115.24
30-Jun-86 69,619,445 137.06 (10,008,638) 59,610,807 115.27
31-Jul-86 65,358,016 128.97 (4,724,933) 60,633,083 114.05
31-Aug-86 70,011 ,024 138.53 (9,377,166) 60,633,858 116.69
30-Sep-86 64,029,376 127.07 (3,398,013) 60,631 ,363 115.00
31-Oct-86 67,533,664 134.40 (6,896,191 ) 60,637,473 118.16
30-Nov-86 68,984,096 137.66 (8,343,529) 60,640,567 119.60
31-Dec-86 68,606,761 134.10 (6,390,055) 62,216,706 119.83
Sincerely,
Robert I . Helliesen
Contra Costa County ATTACHMENT B
5hbriff-Coroner �, t.}_= Richard K.Rainey
Contra Costa County SHERIFF-CORONER
AUG V
Warren E. Rupf
P.O. Box 391 l Assistant Sheriff
Martinez, California 94553-0039 i ,
0-�
(415) 372-2402 �+t� Of Gerald T. Mltosinka
County fav ministrato? Assistant Sheriff
To: Phil Batchelor, County Administrator Date: August 21, 1987
Attention: George Johnson
From: Richard K. Rainey, Sheriff-Coroner Subject: Grand Jury Report and
By: Gerald T. Mitosinka, Assistant Sheriff Recommendations
The following is the response from the Sheriff's b.Department concerning the
Grand Jury recommendations,:
Martinez Detention Facility
1. The County ,should , begin planning and • acquiring land for a jail facility
in East Contra .Costa County.
The Sheriff's._.Department and the Law . and Justice staff of the County .
Administrator's Office ' have discussed this issue. -At this time it i is
apparent that County funding for such ,an' acquisition is not available.
However, as the planning effort proceeds to update the detention
system master plan," this issue will, be addressed.
2. The Board of Supervisors 'and',,,the. Sheriff` should develop a County
policy for inmate, industries. -
The Detention pivision,_ staff are. ' currently developing a policy for the
implementation of jail "industries 'within the Division. It is anticipated
that this policy will be completed this fiscal year.
3. Plans have been drawn for the 600-bed Richmond facility and should ;be
implemented 'as quickly, as possible.
The new facility project is proceeding ahead of schedule. It is
anticipated ..that- the ' first contracts will. go 'to -bid in -September, 1987.
If the present progress for planning and design is maintained, the
entire project should go to bid in March, 1988, two months ahead i of
schedule.
Richmond Work Furlough Center
1. The Board of Supervisors should consider a Work Furlough Center to
serve inmates in East and Central Contra Costa County.
The Richmond Work Furlough Center presently serves inmates from all
areas of the County. If future inmate population projections are
realized, a Central County Work Furlough Center will be necessary.
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Frobation�. Department Contra County oba io o
uck
1 .J M
icer
Administrative Offices Costa
10th Floor
County ATTACHMENT C
Administration Building
651 Pine Street
Martinez, California 94553
/415) 372-2700
To: Scott Tandy, Chief Asst.
County Administrator Date: 7/30/87
From: Gerald S. Buck, Response to Recommenda-
County Probation Officer Subject: tion of 1986-87 Grand
Jury
rr•'
The Grand Jury report contains only one recommendation relevant to
this Department' s operations. It is on page 42 and recommends
support for follow-up counseling and aftercare for all juveniles
graduating from Probation operated , juvenile treatment facilities.
Our response is contained in the attached memo from Mr. Jimison,
dated July 30, 1987. Let me know if more information is needed.
GSB:ds
Attachment
Contra Costa County
AFt�a=rVFn
JUL 3 '1_ 1987
Office of
County Administrator
Phil Batchelor
August 21, 1987
Page 2
Marsh Creek Detention Facility
1. The drug and alcohol rehabilitation program should be expanded.
The Detention Division has just concluded a major expansion of the
drug and alcohol rehabilitation program (Project DEUCE) into the Work
Furlough Center. Additionally, the Division has submitted grant
requests to expand the program at both Marsh Creek Detention and the
Martinez Detention Facilities. The future is clear. If drug and alcohol
offenders, are to be incarcerated, programs must be developed to
rehabilitate them. This Department began the first "in-custody"
comprehensive drug and alcohol rehabilitation program in the country.
2. Additional vocational training classes should be added.
Although the Detention Division has recently implemented. a large
computer literacy program, additional classes are required to assist in
rehabilitation. The jail industries program, as it develops, will
certainly aid in this endeavor. We have recently received approval by
the Contra Costa College District to sponsor such classes at the March
Creek Detention . Facility. We are excited by the project and the
potential for greatly expanding our vocational training efforts.
3. Classrooms and recreational areas should be increased.
The Department, through the County Superintendent of Schools, has
obtained a surplus modular building that will be installed at the Marsh
Creek Detention Facility in October, 1987. Installation of this building
will give the facility three classrooms, an increase oft two in the past
year. We are presently limited within the confines of the existing
security fence to add additional recreation areas. The security levels
of approximately 30% of the inmates would not allow them outside the
security fence. We agree with the recommendation but are currently
limited as to our capability.
RKR:GTM:mjf
'.6 ;,i on Department Contra Gerald S. Suck
County Probation Officer
�Ad`-irVistrative Offices Costa
10th Floor C" "�
Administration Building 1 y
651 Pine Street
Martinez, California 94553
(415) 372-2700
To: Jerry Buck
Date: July 30, 1987
1\
From: Ed Jimison�� .
Subjgct'Recommendation .Regarding Follow-up
Counseling and Aftercare for all
Juveniles
In our meetings with the 1986-87 Grand Jury we discussed the present grant funded
institutional aftercare program that probation operates, "Intensive Aftercare
Services to Selected Offenders". A maximum of 40 graduates from our county juve-
nile institutions are in the program at any one time.
We are presently in the second year of funding of the three year project. Analysis
of data from the first year shows that we far exceeded our objectives. Of 69
participants only two had juvenile court petitions filed for new offenses and one
was committed to the. California Youth Authority. The rest had either returned to
school , had gotten employment and were meeting conditions of probation...
The rationale for the aftercare concept is based on research which has shown that
intensive pre-release preparation and intensive probation supervision and services
after release reduces further law violations''.
The Probation Department' s plans are to seek funding to continue and expand the
aftercare concept after the grant funding ends. Plans are also underway to seek
federal drug monies, through a multi-agency grant. Part of the probation component
will be devoted to intensive probation supervision and aftercare for juveniles who
are in the project by virture. of drug involvement. The department is also developing
a concept paper for a small grant to develop an intensive supervi,sion/aftercare
program for juveniles who have been identified as serious/violent offenders as
defined by OUP guidelines.
The Probation Department is hopeful of developing an aftercare program for all
juveniles released from county institutions. The payoff of course, is better
success by these juveniles and fewer law violations. To achieve this goal , the
department must seek grant monies and make every effort to continue funding when
the grants terminate. Present staff resources are too limited to develop a system-
wide aftercare process and also process and handle existing work. In the years
1985-1986 the Juvenile Division experienced an 11% increase in new referrals. After
six months of 1987, that increase is continuing.
EJ:ls