The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 02111992 - 1.8 a THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on February 11, 1992 , by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Powers, Fanden, Schroder, Torlakson, McPeak NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------ SUBJECT: Grand Jury Report on Contra Costa Water District The Board received Report Number 9201 from the 1991-1992 Grand Jury foreman with respect to Apparent Misuse of Bond Funds by the Contra Costa Water District. IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the aforementioned report is ACKNOWLEDGED and REFERRED to the County Administrator. I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Boarr+of Suaervi n3 o he date shown. ATTESTED: /2:?.2 CC• County Administrator PHIL BATCHELOR,Clerk of tt Board of Su Grand Jury Foreman es minty Administrator By ��.� .l./� .Deputy -4 RECEIVED A REPORT BY FrR 6 1992 THE 1991-92 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GRAND JURY 1020 Ward Street CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 11� Martinez, CA 94553 CONTRA COSTA CO. t (510) 646-2345 REPORT ON CONTRA COSTA WATER DISTRICT MISUSE OF PUBLIC FUNDS REPORT NO. 9201 "The Grand Jury is outraged at this blatant misuse of public funds by the Contra Costa Water District." APPROVED BY THE GRAND JURY : DATE: l S I i i L L CLY15E PARKHURST GRANDJURYFOREMAN ACCEPTED FOR FILING : DATE: �- 'JAMES TREMBATH JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT SECTION 933 (c) OF THE CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE Sec. 933. Findings and recommendations; com- ment of governing bodies, elective officers, or agency heads (c) No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presidia;judge of the superior court on the findings and :==endations pertaining to matters undo- the control of the governing body, and every elective county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control. of that county officer or agency head and any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations. All such comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who impan- eled the grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices. One copy shalt be placed on file with the applicable grand jury final report by, and in the control of the currently impaneled grand jury, where it shall be maintained for a minimum of five years. (Added by Stats 1961, c 1284, § L Amended by Stam 1963, c 674, § 1; Stcm 1974, c 393, § 6, Stars 1974,.a 1396, § 3. Stars 1977. c 1.07, § 6,• Stats.1977, c 187, § 1; Stars 1980, c 543, § 1. Stag 1981, c 203, § 1; Stars 198-Z c 1408 § 5. Star&1985, c 221, § 1. Stam 1987, c 690, § 1; Stam 1988, c 1297, § S.) Forme: § 933, added by SutL198Z c. 1408. § 6, amended by Stacy 1983.c=1,§ Z operative Jan. 1. 1989,was re?aled by Stats.1987, a 690, § 2. Former § 933. added by Smm1959, . 30L § Z was repealed by Stats-1959. c. 181:, 1 3. REPORT ON CONTRA COSTA WATER DISTRICT MISUSE OF PUBLIC FUNDS SUMMARY: In September 1990, a survey was ordered by an official of the Contra Costa Water District (CCWD) to predict the winners of the November Antioch City Council election. This survey was paid for with Los Vaqueros Project bond monies with the.invoice labeled "strategic planning." Contrary to District procedures, the invoice was unique in that it was accompanied by no supporting data, and was approved for payment despite this. The results of the poll were given only to one of the candidates for election, the wife of one of the CCWD Board of Directors members. This was not reported as a political contribution. In the opinion of the Grand Jury there are grounds for the CCWD to consider disclipinary action against the responsible CCWD officials; to obtain restitution of the survey costs; and to report the occurrence to the California Fair Political Practices Commission. Strengthening of internal controls is recommended. FINDINGS.- 1. INDINGS:1. The Assistant to the General Manager for Governmental Relations of the CCWD: In September, 1990 verbally ordered a survey from an outside public relations consultant which included predictions of which candidates would win in the 1990 Antioch City Council election. Revealed the results of this survey only to one member of the CCWD Board of. Directors and to the Board Member's wife, who was a candidate in the election. This was done prior to the election. Persuaded the CCWD Assistant General Manager - Program Director, Los Vaqueros to authorize invoice payment despite the lack of documentation of the Invoice. 2. The CCWD Assistant General Manager-Program Director, Los Vaqueros: Had no knowledge of the political survey prior to the Grand Jury investigation. Authorized payment of the invoice at the urging of the Assistant to the General Manager for Governmental Relations despite the fact that other invoices from the contractor performing the survey contained detailed backup information defining services performed, and that this invoice was unique in not having such information. 3. A political survey is deemed a contribution by the California Fair Political Practices Commission if it is disclosed to only one of the candidates. 4. This survey was not reported as a contribution either by the District or by the candidate. I S. There were no written instructions to the firm making the survey. CCWD procedures require such written instructions. 6. There was no documentation of the purpose of the work, what work was requested and what product was produced. CCWD procedures require such documentation. 7. No benefit of any kind to the Los Vaqueros project from the survey has been Identified. 8. The Grand Jury Is outraged at this blatant misuse of public funds by the Contra Costa Water District. CONCLUSIONS: 1. Having a political survey made at CCWD expense and disclosing results to only one candidate in the Antioch City Council election was a misuse of the public funds. 2. District policies and procedures governing contracting of and payment for work were violated by the Assistant to the General Manager for Governmental Relations and by the Assistant General Manager-Program Director, Los Vaqueros. UCOMMENDATIONS: The 1991-92 Contra Costa County Grand Jury recommends that: 1. The Contra Costa Water District Board of Directors inform the California Fair Political Practices Commission of the survey and its circumstances. 2. The Contra Costa Water District General Manager consider appropriate disclipinary action concerning the District employees involved, with appropriate action to recover the funds paid for the survey. 3. The Contra Costa Water District General Manager Institute a system of controls consistent with existing procedures that will prevent employees from originating, authorizing and approving payment for work of any type without written description of work to be done and substantiation of work performed by contractors.These controls should be implemented within one month,and should be verified by the District internal auditor. The California Penal Code requires a reply from the Contra Costa Water District Board of Directors within 90 days and from the General Manager within 60 days after report issue.