HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 02231999 - C185 C.185
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on February 23, 1999, by the following vote:
AYIES: Supervisors Gioia, Uilkema, Gerber, DeSaulnier and Canciamilla
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
On this date the Board of Supervisors considered accepting ReportNo. 9902 from
the County Grand Jury entitled "Failure To Enforce General Service Department
Policy, County Coffers or Private Pockets", and referring it to the County
Administrator and General Services Director.
Following'Board discussion, Supervisor Gerber moved to accept the report and
refer it as discussed, and Supervisor Uilkema seconded the motion.
IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that Grand Jury Report No. 9902 is
ACCENTED; and the Report is REFERRED to the County Administrator and
General Services Director.
I hereby certify that this is a true
and correct copy of an action takers
and entered on the minutes of the Board
of Supervisors on the date shown.
ATTESTED February 23, 1999
Phil Batchelor, er of the Board
of u emsor ounty inistrator
B
Barbara S. ant, eputy CIerk
C.C. CAO
General Services
A REPORT BY
THE 1998-99 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GrRkND JURY
625 Court Street
Martinez, California 94553
Report No. 9902
FAILURE TO ENFORCE GENERAL SERVICE DEPARTMENT POLICY
"COUNTY COFFERS or PRIVATE POCKETS"
APPROVER BY THE GRAND JURY
Date:
--,1Z2&-Zi, 2
Lawrence W. Jensen
Grand Jury Foreman.
ACCEPTED FOR FILING
Date: ,r
ohn F. an lie Po I
f The Superior Court
�q
Contra Costa{wand Jury Report No. 9902
Failure to Enforce General Service Department Policy
"County Coffers or Private Pockets?"
FHSTORY:
Since 1990,the County General Services Department has had a definitive directive
(90-1), regarding disposal of property, In addition, Administrative Bulletin 517, dated
Jan. 11, 1991, covered disposal of surplus property. During this time, some
telecommunications employees have not adhered to the directions contained within the
respective directive and bulletin.
FINDINGS:
1. General Services Department Directive dated October 10, 1990, stated:, in part,that
when the County no longer needed equipment, materials, or other items,"County policy
requires that such property must be declared surplus by the Board of Supervisors and sold
by taking items to an auction, advertising for bids,or going to a scrap collector. Items
which are discarded as waste are taken to a landfill or recycled. Such items are not to be
taken by County employees".
The wording of the General Services directive was revised and superseded on July 6,
1998, and in addition to general rephrasing,the following modifying sentence added,
'Under'no circumstances is County property available to be taken by employees without
prior approval by Administration".
2. In direct conflict with these directives and bulletin, some telecommunications
technicians have been arbitrarily and unilaterally declaring County telecommunications
property as scrap, and authorizing disposal of same in both County and private trash
containers. Once this property was planed into County and private trash containers, it was
available for anyone to take,use or sell with no salvage remuneration going to the County.
Page 1
s
3. The telecommunications technicians disposing of County telecommunications
property have declared they were not aware of the General Services directives or the
Administrative Bulletin specifying the manner of disposal for said property.
4. In a letter slated June 24, 1998 to the County Administrator,the Office of the District
Attorney, after completing an investigation of the telecommunications department,
stated that: ". . . since it appears that each technician is given almost total autonomy in
deciding what should be kept,disposed of, or re-cycled, decisions regarding disposal are
legally unassailable".
CONCLUSIONS:
1. Although the General Services Department and the County Administrator have
issued specific instructions regarding the disposal of County property,the directives
and bulletin may not have been communicated to the technicians handling the property in
the field.
2. General Services policy directive dated July 10, 1998, may weaken the original
directive dated October 10, 1990, by allowing some nebulous"Administration"individual
to approve the disposal of County property in an unacceptable manner
3. Some telecommunications technicians have been directing the disposal of County
telecommunications property in any manner that they see fit, without adherence to
the established County directives and bulletin.
4. Although the County directives and bulletin specifically prohibiting technicians from
arbitrarily disposing of property have been in effect since October 10, 1990, and January
11, 1991 respectively, some telecommunications employees have declared that they were
unaware of their responsibility regarding said disposal of property,or of specific policy
directives or a bulletin covering disposal of property.
5. 'Until all telecommunications technicians are held personally accountable for
understanding relevant current County policy:
A- General Services will be unable to discipline employees for improper disposal
of County property.
B. the office of the County District Attorney will be unable to prosecute
individuals taking County telecommunications equipment.
Page 2
b r
e
RECONIN ENDATIONS:
The 199899 grand Jury recommends that:
1. the department head, supervisors,technicians, and support personnel working
in the Department of General Services be given a copy of the new directive and
original bulletin describing disposal of County property.
2. the County directive regarding the disposal of property be amended,
deleting reference to"approval by Administration",as stated in the July 6, 1998
directive.
3. approval for the taking of County property shall be the responsibility of an
individual at the supervisorial level of d+epartmem head.
4. the department head, supervisors,technicians, and support personnel,when
issued the amended directive and original bulletin, sign a form acknowledging
receipt and understanding of each.
5, each individual signing receipt of said directive and bulletin be made aware
that disciplinary action and/or referral to the district attorney for possible criminal
prosecution may result from ignoring or willfully disobeying the contents of said
directive or bulletin.
Page 3