The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 02071984 - X.11 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTYs CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on February 7 . 1984 �by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Powers , Fanden , Schroder, McPeak, Torlakson NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None SUBJECT: Proposed Marshal/Sheriff Consolidation Supervisor Tom Powers having commented on a proposal to consolidate the Marshal 's office with the Sheriff-Coroner, and having provided an informational report on the San Diego County Marshal/Sheriff consolidation; On the recommendation of Supervisor Powers , IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the aforesaid report is REFERRED to the County Administrator for review and recommendation as to the feasibility of proceeding with the consolidation of Contra Costa County's Marshal and Sheriff Departments . 1 hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action tsken and entered on the minute* of the Board of Supervlsom on the fiat:-shown. ATTESTED: S2 7� /984/ .R. CLSSO,N, COUNTY CLERK and, ex o:flclo C;(;rk of the Board ByG—L.A_, �Deputy Orig. Dept.: Clerk of the Board CC: County Administrator Marshal Sheriff-Coroner 248 OFPCE OF THE MARSHAL pISNq� COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA 837TTAY BRANCH WANVILLE RANCH IUBRANCH EET. A LNUT RE E]DELTA CH 00 H. GNACVALLEY 9 45 CMC AVENUE 957 PARKSIDE DRIVE RICHMOND, CA. 94805 P.O. BOX 4817 STA P.O. BOX 431 CONCORD, CA. 94519 (4 15)231-3243 WALNUT CREEK, CA. 94596 PITTSBURG, CA. 94565 (415)671-4440 (415)934-8027 (415)439-4100 January 12, 1984 To: em Powers, Supervisor, District One Nancy C. Fanden, Supervisor, District Two Robert I. Schroder, Supervisor, District Three Sunne McPeak, Supervisor, District Four Tom Torlakson, Supervisor, District Five M. G. Wingett, County Administrator George Roemer, Criminal Justice Agency From: Rodger L. Davis, Marshal Subject: San Diego County Marshal/Sheriff Consolidation Report ------------------------------------------------------- Attached, for your information, is a copy of the San Diego County Marshal/Sheriff Consolidation Report, reviewing and summarizing the effects of the con- solidation of court-related services. RLD/did attachment 249 ROARD OF SUAIERVISORs TOMHAMILTONA"t "Z� CF1 k P A:J I 0 R 0 E M CHIEF ADNiiNISTRATIVE OFFICE PATRICK M. 60A HtAAN 1600 PAOIFiC HIGHWAY 0 SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101 LIZON L. WILLIAMS TELEPHONE (619) 236-2722 IPAU� rCKERT • .OISTYICT CLIFFORD W. GRAVES CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIZIR j)ecember 23, 1983 w TO: Supervisor Paul Fordem, Chairman Supervisor Tom Hamilton, Vice-Chairman Supervisor Patrick Boarman Supervisor Leon Williams Supervisor Paul Eckert FROM: Clifford VT. Graves Chief Administrative Officer INFOR*NIUATIONAL REPORT ON THE COU.',%TTY OF SAIN DIEGO COURT SERVICES CONSOLIDATION The attached report has been prepared by the 1-Marshal' s Office for your Board' s information, and also to respond to frequent in- quiries from other counties as to the results of our implementa- tion of AB 204 (Kapiloff) , the Marshal/Sheriff Consolidation Bill. Any questions related to this report may be directed to Dan Kelley at 236-2936 in the al' s Office or Rick Phetteplace at 236- 4047 in Financial -- anage ent. CLIFFORD GRAVES CWG: RP:lb Attachment 2 - 0 T5 THE CONSOLIDATION OF SHERIFF COURT SERVICE FUNCTIONS INTO THE _ OFFICE OF THE MARSHAL IN SAN DIEGO COUNTY DECEMBER 1983 SAN DIEGO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS PAUL W. FORDEM, CHAIRMA14 SECOND DISTRICT TOM HAMILTON, VICE CHAIRMAN FIRST DISTRICT PATRICK BOARMAN THIRD DISTRICT LEON WILLIAMS FOURTH DISTRICT PAUL ECKERT FIFTH DISTRICT CLIFFORD W. GRAVES, CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER DAN KELLEY PROJECT ANALYST RESEARCH AND DATA SUPPORT PROVIDED BY THE OFFICE OF THE MARSHAL 251 x i Summary E ecut ve S a y U" Two years after the consolidation of Marshal/Sheriff Court- related services in San Diego County, the -cumulative savings continue to accrue. In the first year of consolidation, the unified program generated more than $2.4 million in direct savings and $1.26 million indirect cost savings. Total savings realized by the County since the implementation of the consolidated court-related services program now exceed $6.72 million (Nov-1983). These savings result nr�, imarifrom .a ly decrease in staff, the introduction of the Court Service . Officer (CSO) classification, and the absorption of increased workload through automation and procedural changes. The consolidation of Sheriff Couns into the Office of the arshal in San Diego County occurred -in November 1981. Assembly Bill _204 (Ka iloff) amended the r Government Code to allow one agency, either the Marshal or the Sheriff, to serve all the State Courts in the County. After reviewing staffing and cost saving proposals submitted by the Marshal and Sheriff, the Superior and Municipal Court judges overwhelmingly selected the Marshal (63-6) to provide the consolidated court-related services. In cooperation with the courts, the Sheriff and Marshal consolidated services prior to the January 1, 1982 effective date of the legislation. When the Marshal submitted his consolidated court-related services proposal , it included a staffing schedule of 274 positions. That staffing level remains constant today despite the creation of-nine ne new a a diti ona J6--di ci a -,posit .ons and tbe �rrespoonding clerical and field service workload increase. s Th work oads have een absorbed through automa- tion, streamlining of procedures, an by the release of bailiffs by many judges when the court is hearing certain civil maters. 252 THE CONSOLIDATION OF SHERIFF COURT SERVICE FUNCTIONS INTO THE OFFICE OF THE MARSHAL IN SAN DIEGO COUNTY Section I : Introduction On July 20, 1981 Governor Jerry Brown signed into law the Marshal/Sheriff Consolidation Bill , (AB-204 Kapiloff). The chaptering of this bill as Government Code Sections 26666 and 72114 provided the vehicle for consolidating duplicative court- related services into a single unified organizational structure in the Office of the Marshal . Assembly Bill 204 was supported by the Judges of the San Diego Superior and Municipal Courts, the San Diego County Board of Supervisors, and the Marshal . There .was no opposition to the bill . Specifically AB-204 stated, "The Board of Supervisors of San Diego County may find after holding a public hearing on the issue, that cost savings can be realized by the consolidation of court-related services provided by the Marshal and the Sheriff within the County. . .". The legislation also stated that "There shall be conducted among all of the superior and municipal courts of such county (San Diego) an election to determine the agency, either the Marshal or the Sheriff, under which court-related services shall be consolidated. ..". Although the Governor signed AB-204 into law in July of 1981, the bill did not actually become effective until January 1, 1982. However, despite the almost six month gap between pas- sage of the bill and the effective date of the legislation, the Court, in conjunction with the Board of Supervisors, determined to consolidate court-related services on a voluntary basis prior to the effective date of the legislation. In a spirit of cooperation, the Marshal and the Sheriff each submitted consolidation proposals for review by the Board of Supervisors to determine if cost savings could be realized through a consolidated court-related services program. The Board considered these proposals on September 30, 1981 and made a finding that savings could in fact be realized through a unified program. After making this finding, the Board request- ed both the Superior and Municipal Court judges to conduct a vote prior to the January 1st effective date of the legislation to determine which agency, the Marshal or the Sheriff, should be given the responsibility for the consolidated court services program. 253 On October 29, 1981 the San Diego Superior and the four Munic- ipal Courts of the County conducted a straw vote in which the Marshal was favored as the administrator for the consolidated court-related services program. On November 16th, just 18 days after the courts' vote, the Marshal assumed all bailiffing and court security functions for the Superior Court. The- consolidation of court-related services was implemented voluntarily by the Marshal and the Sheriff a month and one half in advance of the actual effective date of the new law. In accordance with the new law, the judges officially selected the Marshal by a vote of 63 to 6 on January 18, 1982. By formal resolution, the San Diego County Board of Supervisors official- ly consolidated court-related services into the Office of the Marshal on January 26, 1982. Two years .have passed since the Marshal assumed all court- related duties from the Sheriff. This consolidation has resulted in the formulation of new policies, procedures, and personnel classifications which better serve the judiciary, meet the needs of the public, and are more cost effective to the taxpayer. This report focuses upon these changes and savings. Section II: Workload The workload of the court-related services program revolves around four functional areas: Court Security, Prisoner Control , Field Operations and Clerical Office Operations. The Marshal assumed the Sheriff's court-related services work- load adding staff only to bailiff in the Superior Court. All other functions were assumed from the Sheriff without adding staff. The Marshal was able to absorb this additional workload through system improvements and automation. The savings associated with the merger are due primarily to the Marshal 's ability to assume the added workload without additional staff. The table on the next page reflects the increased workload absorbed by the Marshal as a result of the consolidation of court-related services. 254 Consolidated Court-related Services Workload Prior to Nov. 1981 1982-83 1983-84 Number of Courts Marshal 46 96 98 Sheriff 45 0 -0 Total 91 96 9tS Prisoners Handled Marshal 66,371 80,362 84,380 Sheriff 12,500 0 0 Total 78,871 80,362 84,380 Process Served Marshal 133,573 183,251 190,000 Sheriff 54,150 0 0 Total 187,723 183,251 190",000 Warrants Cleared Marshal 141,001 162,642 165,000 Sheriff 3,584 0 0 Total 144,585 162,642 165,000 Active Warrants Marshal 228,763 263,304 310,135 Sheriff 2,016 0 0 Total 230,779 263,304 310,135 255 Section III: Staff Savings When the Marshal submitted his consolidated court-related services program to the Court and the Board of Supervisors in 1981, it included a staffing schedule of 274 positions. Today, two years later, the Marshal is still operating the program with 274 staff. This staffing level has remained constant in spite of the creation of nine new and additional judicial posi- tions as well as the corresponding increase in clerical and field workload. Two key factors have allowed the Department to cope with the increasing workload without adding staff. First, many judges, in accordance with Government Code Sections 26603 and 71264, have been releasing their bailiffs for other assignments when the court determines that the public safety is not in jeopardy if a bailiff is not present. Second, the Department has devel- oped computer programs to absorb a portion of the labor inten- sive clerical warrant and civil process functions. The brief chart below reflects the overall staff savings gener- ated by consolidation: Staff Years Pre-Consolidation Post Consolidation Staff Savings Marshal 224 274 +50 Sheriff 102 0 (102) Total 326 274 ( 52) In addition to the staff savings generated by consolidation, the Marshal 's Department has developed and implemented a new cost-effective personnel classification entitled Court Service Officer (CSO). There are currently thirty CSO's onboard and working in the courts. CSO's perform traditional bailiffing functions including the movement of prisoners. Since the CSO does not perform the full range of peace officer duties expected of a deputy marshal , the training for a CSO focuses on courtroom functions, defensive tactics, firearms and prisoner control . CSO's are paid 75% of the salary of a deputy marshal . They are classified as peace officers under Penal Code Section 830.4. 256 Section IV: Cost Savings The consolidation of court-related services into the Office of the Marshal in November of 1981 has resulted in the savings of millions of dollars to the taxpayers of San Diego County. These savings are due to several factors: -1. Judges releasing bailiffs when not needed in civil matters. 2. The elimination of the Sheriff's court services and civil divisions. 3. Implementation of the cost-effective court service officer program. 4. Expansion of the cadet program. 5. Complete automation of office functions and procedures. The chart below clearly reflects the direct savings associated with the consolidation of court-related services under the Marshal . Consolidation Savings Pre-consolidation Canbined Cost Consolidation Consolidation Cumulative Sheriff/Marshal Under Marshal Under Marshal Consolidation Savings 1981482 1982-83 1983-84 1982-83 1983-84 Direct Cost $10,858,471 $8,435,626 $8,874,299 $2,421,845 ,460,017 Staffing 326 274 274 52 104 In addition to the Direct Cost savings accruing as a result of consolidation there are significant Indirect Cost Savings realized through the reassignment of trained personnel , re-deployment of surplus vehicles and indirect support cost reductions. These Indirect Cost Savings, identified below, reflect those economies originally proposed in the Marshal's consolidation plan submitted in 1981. These savings are in addition to the cummulative direct cost savings detailed above. Indirect Cost Savings Vehicles Vehicles (re-deployment) 9,200 @ x 34 312,800 Equipment and Communications Gear 1,135 @ x 34 38,590 Subtotal 351,390 257 Indirect Cost Savings (continued) Training Personnel Cost 13,000 @ x 35 455,000 Training Supplies 300 @ x 35 10,500 Subtotal 46595uu Indirect Support Cost Savings Elimination of Required Indirect Support Due to Personnel Reduction 7,166 @ x 52 372,632 Subtotal 372,632 Total Indirect Cost Savings $1,189,522 Consolidation of Court-related Services Total Cumulative Savings 1982-83 1983-84 Direct Cost $2,421,485 $5946031017 Indirect Cost * 1,189,522 * 1,189,522 Total $3,611,007 $6,649,539 * One Time Cost Savings SUMMARY This report attests that the consolidaton of court-related services in San Diego County has proven to be a most worth- while, tremendously successful experiment designed to improve government organization. It should be acepted as a prototype for other California Counties to duplicate. The two-year savings cited in the report will continue to compound annually saving the taxpayers an unprecedented amount of money. The following staffing schedules reflect both pre-consolidation staffing for the Marshal 's and the Sheriff's court services programs, as well as the current staffing for the consolidated program under the Marshal ' s Office. 259 Consolidated Court-related Services Department of the Marshal Staffing 1981 1983 Pre-Consolidation Staffing Post-Consolidation Uniform Personnel Sheriff Marshal Total Staffing Marshal Marshal 1 1 1 Assistant Marshal/Inspector 1 1 2 1 Captain 1 4 5 4 Lieutenant 2 3 5 4 Sergeant 4 14 18 16 Deputy 82 127 209 140 Court Service Officer 0 0 0 30 Cadet 0 19 19 20 SUB-TOTAL 90 169 259 216 Civilian Personnel Chief, Administrative Services 1 1 1 Administrative Assistant 1 1 1 Principal Clerk 0 2 2 2 Supervising Clerk 1 0 1 0 Legal Procedures Clerk III 0 5 5 6 Legal Procedures Clerk II 3 12 15 18 Legal Procedures Clerk I 5 8 13 6 Senior Clerk 1 5 6 6 Administrative Secretary 1 1 2 1 Communication Dispatcher 0 1 1 2 Intermediate Clerk 1 19 21 15 SUB-TOTAL 12 55 67 58 TOTAL 102 224 326 274 259