HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 11091993 - 2.3 1
2 .3
THE BOARD OR SUPERVISORS OF
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on _November 9, 1993 by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Powers, Bishop, McPeak, Torlakson
NOES: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Smith
ABSTAIN: None
SUBJECT: Report of the County Administrator on the Proposal
from the Ad Hoc Committee for Private Representation
of Indigents
Phil Batchelor, County Administrator, presented to the
Board his recommendations as set forth in the attached report on
the proposal from the Ad Hoc Committee for Private Representation
of Indigents. Following his synopsis of the statistical data
presented in the report, Mr. Batchelor advised that this report
was faxed to the Ad Hoc Committee last Friday, November 5, 1993 .
Peter Dodd, Private Defender's Section of the Contra
Costa Bar Association, 6306 Eureka, E1 Cerrito, expressed an
interest in meeting with County representatives to discuss some
of the areas of disagreement with the figures presented in the
Administrator's report.
Mel Hing, 6742 Banning Drive, Oakland, advised that his
report to the Ad Hoc Committee was just to give them a prelim-
inary estimate of whether or not the issue of a private defense
could be considered and not whether it should be. He noted that
he had recommended that his clients review this preliminary
estimate with County staff as well as consider other options that
may be available should the Board not desire to go to a full
private defense program.
Mr. Hing expressed concern with the rate figures for
the Superior Court cases at $474 and the possible misunder-
standing of the data presented to him. He commented on the
probation revocations being charged the Municipal Court rate of
$207, not the Superior Court rate even though they are in the
Superior Court. He called attention to the fact that not every
case is double-counted because of the application of legal
prcedures in both Municipal and Superior courts, and that the
fees charged for these cases are not a part of the usual fee
structure. He agreed with the "Special Fees" covering the P.C.
187 (murder) cases for the base and referred to those criminal
cases which, because of their uniqueness, increase the costs of
special fees. In conclusion, Mr. Hing agreed with the cost
figures listed for the 1991-1992 conflict defense.
Henry L. Clarke, Local I, expressed support for the
report of the County Administrator and the cost saving advantages
associated with the Alternate Public Defender's Office.
There was agreement among Board members to receive the
report and request staff to meet with all parties to discuss the
this matter further.
Therefore, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the attached
report of the County Administrator is RECEIVED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Supervisor Bishop, as a
member of the Justice System Executive Council, is REQUESTED to
represent the Board at a meeting with representatives of the
County Administrator, Public Defender, and the Ad Hoc Committee
on the proposal with a further report to the Board from the
County Administrator as soon as feasible.
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:
PHIL BATCHELOR,Clerk of the Board
of Supervisors and County Administrator
cc: Supervisor Bishop �; Deputy
County Administrator % ��// — ==.
Public Defender
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 11/9/93 AGENDA
Determination 2.3
FROM: PHIL BATCHELOR
County Administrator
DATE: November 9, 1993
SUBJECT:PROPOSAL FROM AD HOC COMMITTEE FOR PRIVATE REPRESENTATION OF
INDIGENTS
Specific Request(s) or Recommendations(s) & Background & Justification
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1 . Accept report from the County Administrator on the proposal submitted by the Ad
Hoc Committee for Private Representation of Indigents.
2. Acknowledge excellent work of the Public Defender in creating and implementing the
Alternate Defender's Office, thus avoiding the cost of conflicting out over 2,000
cases per year.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The County Administrator's Office is not recommending that the San Mateo model be
implemented as it would not be cost effective for this County.
REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION/BACKGROUND:
On October 5, 1993 the Board of Supervisors acknowledged receipt of a proposal for the
representation of indigents in criminal and dependency cases from the Ad Hoc Committee
for Private Representation of Indigents. (This is a group of private attorneys that has
objected to the establishment of the Alternate Defender's Office.) The item was referred to
the County Administrator and Public Defender to review and report to the Board of
Supervisors.
The Ad Hoc Committee proposes that the Board of Supervisors reorganize the method of
representation of indigents in criminal and dependency cases by utilizing the San Mateo
County model.
San Mateo County, which has never had a Public Defender's Office, utilizes a Private
Defender Program, sponsored by the Bar Association, to represent all indigent defense
cases. Attorneys on the private panel govern themselves and serve through invitation only.
Each is free to pursue other aspects of private practice. The statute does not require the
courts to use the program as is required in a Public Defender model. The contract is fee
based (plus trial time, plus 21 .5% overhead, plus special case costs). Because San Mateo
counts and pays for their felony cases in Municipal and again in Superior Court, the actual
number of felony cases are double counted. There is no cap on cost but the contract may
not be renewed if fees exceed contracted amounts. Any contract monies not spent by year
end are split among the participating attorneys; expenses over the contracted amount are
the responsibility of the County. An investigation was recently completed on billing
procedures in a "Special Fee" case which criticizes control and review procedures.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES Signature:
X Recommendation of County Administrator
Recommendation of Board Committee
X Approve Other
Signature(g
tion of Board on: Approved as Recommended Other
Vote of Supervisors: I HEREBY CERTIFY THA S IS A TRUE
AND CORRECT C OF AN ACTION TAKEN
Unanimous (Absen ) AND ENT ON THE MINUTES OF THE
Ayes: Noes: BO F SUPERVISORS ON DATE SHOWN.
Absent: Abstain:
At d:
cc: CAO-Justice System Programs Phil Batchelor, Clerk of
Ad Hoc Comm, itt�or Private Repres. t oard of Supervisors
Public Defender and Cou dministrator
Contact: George Roemer 646-4855 By: UTY
REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION/BACKGROUND
The Ad Hoc Committee proposal claims that utilizing San Mateo as a model would have
saved Contra Costa County more than four million dollars in FY 1991-92 and would
mobilize a system which would be better equipped to handle a larger number of cases with
greater expertise than our Public Defender system. The anticipated cost savings was
presented in a comprehensive and objective comparative study prepared under contract
with the Ad Hoc Committee by Mel Hing, former Alameda County Administrator. The heart
of the cost savings argument is summarized on Attachment A which is copied directly from
the report, Attachment B consists of the same summary corrected by the County
Administrator's Office for Contra Costa County, and Attachment C is a summary of Contra
Costa County's 1991-92 caseload.
In reviewing the cost comparison in Section A of Attachment A, it immediately became
apparent that the number of cases assumed to be opened in the Contra Costa County
columns was incorrect (see Attachment Q. The 1,266 cases listed for Superior Court are
not felony Informations filed, but rather, calendar cases consisting of probation revocations,
bench warrants, PC 1026, PC 1388, etc. (It should be noted that all of these 1,266 cases
are generally handled by a single attorney in Contra Costa County. The San Mateo model
would cost $600,084 for these cases.) The actual count of felony Informations filed in
Contra Costa County is approximately 2,646. Utilizing the same assumptions and
correcting the Superior Court number to 2,646 would mean a cost of $1,254,204 not
$600,084 (see Attachment B). The approximate cost of administrative expenses is
corrected in Attachment B also. In addition, the "Special Fees" section uses San Mateo's
twenty-one P.C. 187 (murder) cases for the base. Contra Costa county had forty-seven
such cases in 1991-92. Recalculating for this correction increases the Special Fees from
$2,190,196 to $4,901 ,865. In the summary of section A, the San Mateo model would
have cost Contra Costa County $2,203,369 more, even without factoring in the savings
from the Alternate Defender's Office.
Section B of Attachment A breaks-down the cost of conflicted costs. The San Mateo
system, by design, does not have any conflicts; however, the conflict costs of Contra
Costa County have been greatly reduced since the base year of 1991-92 due to the advent
of the Alternate Defender's Office. The Alternate Defender's Office handles approximately
2,460 cases per year, which were conflicted in the past, at a cost of $1 .1 million.
Additionally, approximately 50 cases per month are still being referred to the Bar
Association at a cost of approximately $600,000. Correcting the Conflict Defense cost
section for the reduced number of cases being referred to the Bar Association reduces the
cost from $3,250,731 to approximately $1,700,000.
Correcting the summation throughout Attachment A shows that an additional $3,754,100
would have been spent in FY 1991-92 had the San Mateo program been in effect in this
County and recognizing the cost savings this County would have realized if the Alternate
Defender's Office had been in operation during that time.
Based upon this analysis of the cost savings model utilized in the Ad Hoc Committee's
Report, it is clear that the San Mateo Bar Association's model is more expensive than our
Public Defender's Office, without an Alternate Defender's Office. It is even more expensive
when compared to our current system of a Public Defender's Office which handles the
majority of conflict cases through an Alternate Defender's Office.
ATTACHMENT A
t (Copied from proposal of
Ad Hoc Committee for
Private Representation of
1991-92 COST ESTIMATE AND COMPARISON indigents)
OF PRIVATE v. PUBLIC DEFENSE PROGRAM
IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
A. SAN MATEO COUNTY PRIVATE DEFENSE PROGRAM
San Mateo Co. Contra Costa Co.
------------------ ------------------
Case Types Rates Cases Costs Cases Costs
Opened Estd.
Superior Court $474 1,296 $ 614,304 1,266 $ 600,084
Municipal Court $207 16, 469 3 , 409 ,083 18, 233a 3 , 774 ,231
Mental Health $235 898 211,030 924 217 ,140
Juvenile Welfare $347 596 206 ,812 976 338 , 672
Juvenile Court $102 3,056 311,712 2 ,748 280 ,296
Sub-totals 22 , 315 $4 ,752 , 941 24,147 $5 , 210 , 423
21 . 5% Administrative Expenses 1 ,021 ,882 1, 120 , 241
Special Fees 2 , 190 , 196b 2 , 190 , 196c
Total Costs $7 , 965 ,019 $8 ,520 , 860
B. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENSE PROGRAM
1991-92 Actual Costs:
Public Defender $7 , 302 ,287
Conflict Defense 3 ,250 ,731
Less: Total Costs -10 , 553,018
Estimated Savings -$2 ,032,158
Footnotes:
a-Includes 108 cases classified as "Other" in Contra Costa Co.
b-San Mateo Co. said this was high because of the Hunt Case.
c-Assumed same cost as San Mateo Co. , although there is no basis
to believe special fees were that high. No figures were avail-
able from Contra Costa Co.
ATTACHMENT B
1991-92 COST ESTIMATE AND COMPARISON
OF PRIVATE v. PUBLIC DEFENSE PROGRAM (Attachment A as
IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY corrected by County
Administrator's Office)
A. SAN MATEO COUNTY PRIVATE DEFENSE PROGRAM
San Mateo Co. Contra Costa Co.
Cases Costs
Case Types Rates Cases Costs Opened Estd.
Superior Court $474 1,296 $614,304 1,266 $-6-A9, 0 8 4-
(Felony
(Felony Cases) 1,6 1 $.,l.,.2 5 .,
Superior Ct.Prob. $474 1,266 $600,084
Revoc. , 1368, etc.
Municipal Court $207 16 ,469 $3,409 , 083 18,233 $3,774,231
Mental Health $235 898 $211, 030 924 $217 , 140
Juvenile Welfare $347 596 $206,812 976 $338, 672
Juvenile Court $102 3,056 $311,712 2, 7^48 $280,296
z��1 4; $5,210, 423
Sub-totals ,7
;,. , 2 : . ,.. 2
21 .5% Administrative Expenses $1,021,882
( $S $ 3
Special Fees $2, 190, 196 $2 ,- le , i4-&
_ 14
Total Costs $7,965, 019 $8,52-1 8.64
:.; ,..
B. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENSE' PROGRAM
1991-92 Actual Costs :
Public Defender $7 ,302,287
Conflict Defense
Less : Total Costs
-$9-:.,00Z;,.
Estimated Savings ++2, 932 , 158
by not adopting San Mateo' system in Contra Costa--Co.
1 This number is in error. Mr. Hing apparently misread the data column heading. The 1,266 cases labeled SUPERIOR
COURT on the Contra Costa data form are not,in fact, felony Informations filed, but rather, calendar cases consisting of
probation revocations, bench warrants, PC 1026, PC 1388,etc. All 1,266 of these cases,are handled.by a single deputy in
Contra Costa Co. In San Mateo, these cases are counted as individual cases and billed at$474 per case. Calculated in this
method, they are represented in the row below. The felony case count does not appear in the data sheet because Contra Costa
Co. does not count felony cases twice, but can be reconstructed from DA&PD statistics as 2,646. This corrected number,
utilizing the same assumptions Mr. Hing utilized, nearly doubles the cost of representing Superior Court felonies utilizing the
San Mateo system.
2 The corrected summation.
3 The recalculation of the administrative cost formula used in San Mateo.
4 Special fees are directly applicable to 187 cases. As these cases increase, so too does this cost. Contra Costa County had
47 187's vs. San Mateo's 21 187's for FY 91-92.
5 Any system that has expensive private bar conflict costs will compare unfavorably to the San Mateo system since they do
not have conflicts. The conflict cost in Contra Costa Co.; however, has been greatly reduced with the advent of the ADO.
Current costs are $1.1 million for 2,460 cases representing all but 50 cases per month,,which continue to go to the private bar.
The bar panel estimates these cases will cost the County an additional$600,000. The current total cost of conflict defense is
therefore$1.7 million, not$3.2 million as Mr. Hing assumes. This,in combination with the clerical error in felony
calculations, dramatically changes the final numbers while utilizing all of the same assumptions—resulting in savings of over
$3 million by not adopting the San Mateo method in Contra Costa County.
ATTACHMENT C
OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER
County of Contra osla
07/10/92 Fiscal Year 1991-1992
CASES OPENED
JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOVI DEC JAN FEB MAR APRIL MAY JUNE TOTAL
BAY COURT
Wilful Homicides 2 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 29
Felonies 174 155 164 182 154 202 193 251 209 198 204 219 2,305
Misdemeanors 506 244 257 276 214 302 325 464 411 319 484 436 4,238
Other 1 4 1 1 0 1 2 1 3 2 5 2 23
TOTAL 683 409 426 461 370 507 522 718 624 521 695 659 6,595
DELTA COURT
Wilful Homicides 2 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 7
Felonies 78 83 122 129 77 94 114 85 93 116 102 103 1,196
Misdemeanors 389 401 331 434 278 338 3531 279 384 293 225 278 303
TOTAL 469 485 453 564' 355 433 468 365 477 409 327 381 5,186
MT.DIABLO COURT
Wilful Homicides 2 3 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 10
Felonies 62 72 47 77 58 66 68 65 77 67 86 53 798
Misdemeanors 335 304 236 322 224 302 257 316 257 244 275 294 3,366
Other 1 1 2 8 2 0 3 2 4 5 4 6 38
TOTAL 400 380 285 407 284 369 328 385 338 317 366 353 4,212
WALNUT CREEK CT J
Wilful Homicides 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Felonies 18 15 19 21 27 25 30 24 36 20 23 21 279
Misdemeanors 174 141 145 224 162 179 166 123 171 151 126 151 1,913
TOTAL 192 156 164 245 189 205 196 147 207 171 149 172 2,193
JW/LPS/SUP CT.
Juvenile-East/Cen 160 165 171 191 167 151 2087 187 176 163 135 213 2,087
Juvenile-West 148 143 108 148 117 140 127 168 153 115 145 125 1,637
LPS&Prob.Guard. 88 78 110 83 78 77 73 60 90 49 59 79 924
Superior Court 114 95 72 139 87 102 109 106 125 105 111 101 1,266
Other*** 1 2 4 2 9 3 01 6 5 6 4 5 47
TOTAL 511 483 465 563 458 473 517 527 549 438 454 523 5,961
DEPARTMENT
Wilful Homicides 6 10 4 3 2 5 3 5 1 3 3 2 47
Felonies 332 325 352 409 316 387 405 425 415 401 415 396 4,578
Misdemeanors 1,404 1,090 969 1,256 878 1,121 1,101 1,182 1,223 1,007 1,110 1,159 13,500
Juvenile(602/300) 308 308 279 339 284 291 3351 355 329 278 280 338 3,724
LPS&Prob.Guard. 88 78 110 83 78 77 731 60 90 49 59 79 924
Superior Court 114 95 72 139 87 102 109 106 125 105 111 101 1,266
Other 3 7 7 11 11 4 5 9 12 13 13 13 108
TOTAL 2,255 1,913 1,793 2,240 1,656 1,987 2,031 2,142 2,195 1,856 1,991 2,088 24,147
** 2,646 reached Superior Court *** Includes only Sup. Ct. prob. revoc., 1368's, BW,etc.
I DATE. _
REQUEST TO SPEAK- FORM
(THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) ¢�
Complete this form and place it in the box-near the speakers' rostrum before
addressing the Board. n
NAME: div 1 R'v'Q o�. I PHONE: 1 l
ADDRESS' Cry 1 h a o
I am speaking formyself OR organization:
(NAME OF ORGANIZATION)Check one: Sz�i•:
I wish to speak on Agenda Item #
My comments will be: general ' for against
bSS��,aTi�
I wish to speak on the subject of
I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider.
DATE: h OV l j1
REQUEST To SPEAK FoRM
(THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT)
Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before
addressing the Board.
NAME: ��\�\.�,.\S ��y(� PHONE. S1 Z)
ADDRESS: �� A 1 YJ �Q�t`(1�4y_ (� (A CITY: 1 �)'f\Q(
i
I am speaking formyself OR organization., �ecfian
Che one: (NAME of ORGAINIZV ION)
eo�Y�..
I wish to speak on Agenda Item # ), 3 .
My comments will be: general for against ,"(
I wish to speak on the subject of
I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider.