Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06161987 - S.7 TO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 51 FROM: TOM POWERS C=tra Supervisor, District #1 coos`sry ` DATE: June 4, 1987 ��C`+"' ") SUBJECT: REPORT ON SHERIFF-MARSHAL CONSOLIDATION STUDY SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) a BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION: Accept report from Tom Powers, First District Supervisor, on the implementation of the Sheriff-Marshal consolidation study and refer it to the Budget Committee. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION: I was asked by the other members of the Board of Supervisors to review the issues involved in consolidating court-related services in the Sheriff's Department or the Marshal's Department and return to the Board with a recommendation. A Task Force on Marshal/Sheriff Consolidation was formed, consisting of two Superior Court Judges, the Hon. Gary E. Strankman and Hon. E. Patricia Herron and two Municipal Court Judges, the Hon. John C. Minney and Hon. Allen L. Norris. I met with this Task Force on several occasions to discuss merging court functions. I also toured the central civil process office in each agency to better understand how each office provided services, and I . reviewed the "Report on the Feasibility of Consolidating Court-Related Services in Contra Costa County". After careful consideration, I submitted the attached report to the Task rorce, recommending that the Marshal's Department be merged into the Sheriff's Department. The report outlines the advantages to consolidating in the Sheriff's Department. The Task Force considered the report and voted 3 to 2 in favor of the recommendation with the Municipal Court Judges voting against the proposal. The Municipal Court Judges proposed consolidating civil process in the Marshal's Department and not merging bailiff functions. The Municipal Court Judges' proposal offers less cost savings and is not as organizationally efficient as a total merger in the Sheriff's Department. The Municipal Courts, during the Task Force process, offered to consolidate administration of the four municipal court districts as an alternative to proceeding with consolidation of court-related services. This is a good idea that eventually should result in a more efficient, perhaps more cost effective, and certainly better coordinated municipal court system. However,. initially, increased costs would be increased due to a need to establish a centralized management team. It is worth doing, not as an alternative, but, in addition to the consolidation of court-related services in the Sheriff's Department. I recommend referring this proposal to the Board's Budget Committee for consideration during the hearings on the 1987-88 proposed County budget. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: _ YES SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER $1GNATURE(S1: ACTION OF BOARD ON June 16, 1987 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT IV ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: I NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT; _ ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Superior Court /G �QC CC: Municipal Courts ATTESTED Q7 Sheriff-Coroner P L BATCHELOR. CLERK OF THE BOARD OF Marshal SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR CAO-Justice System Programs County Administrator M382/7-83 BY _,DEPUTY SEAL o� - BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ?� D� TOM POWERS r�4 SUPERVISOR.FIRST DISTRICT C'Os24 COUNt- To: TASK FORCE ON MARSHAL/SHERIFF CONSOLIDATION HON. GARY E. STRANKMAN, Superior Court HON. E. PATRICIA HERRON, Superior Court HON. JOHN C. MINNEY, President, Municipal Court Judges' Association HON. ALLEN L. NORRIS, Bay Municipal Court From: TOM POWERS, Supervisor 1st District Date: April 7, 1987 Re: SHERIFF/MARSHAL MERGER I was asked by the other members of the Board of Supervisors to return to them with a recommendation on consolidation of the bailiff and civil process functions in Contra Costa County. I met with you to.. discuss the issues related to the merging of these functions in either the Sheriff's Department or the Marshal's Department. I toured the central civil process office in each agency to better understand how each office provided this service, and I reviewed the "Report on the Feasibility of Consolidating Court-Related Services in Contra Costa County". The Sheriff's Department and Marshal's Department both have experienced and dedicated staffs. There is no reason that these two operations could not work together using the best of all possible worlds because of the fine staff of the Marshal's Office and the fine staff and automated system of the Sheriff's Office. After careful consideration I am ready to recommend that the Marshal's Department be merged into the Sheriff's Department. I believe this proposal offers the following substantial advantages: 1. Both the Municipal and Superior Courts will have increased bailiff and security resources. These resources can be applied to strengthen court safety. 2. Consolidation in the Sheriff's Office offers the County greater long-term savings in operational costs. The Sheriff has much greater potential to civilianize throughout the .Department, including- the majority of civil process servers. This will yield major- savings in -salary costs. =Tire Marshal can civilianize only - - through a lengthy .-period of attrition and, then, not to the extent of the __Sheriff. - Even - without this consideration, consolidation in the Sheriff's Office saves close to $400,000 per year more than consolidation in the other direction. 100-37th STREET,ROOM 270,RICHMOND.CALIFORNIA 94805 • TELEPHONE(415)231-3231 Sheriff/Marshal Merger,. 2 April 7, 1987 3. There will_ be increased efficiency because the Sheriff's automated system--w-ill be employed for all civil processes. 4. There will be increased career opportunities for both sworn and clerical staff now in the Marshal's Office because they will be part of a larger organization. The Sheriff is offering the clerical staff in both agencies the opportunity to be promoted to the civilian civil process server position. An implementation proposal will have to be developed that addresses the concerns expressed by the judiciary during the course of the discussions regarding consolidation. These concerns included: 1. Access of the legal community and general public to local offices throughout the County to which they can go and deliver civil process and receive prompt action; 2. Ability of individual judges to retain their current bailiffs and select their future bailiffs, and improve the overall level of security in their courtrooms; 3. How job security would be provided to employees moving from one organization to another; and 4. The Municipal Court judges as a group want selection and retention authority over the person in charge of providing court security services. In the agreement effecting a changeover, certain protections will be provided in legislation to ensure these concerns are addressed. These include: 1. Establishment of a Court Security Services Unit in the Sheriff's Department. The division would be directed by the Court Services Officer. The Court Services Officer will be selected, and serve at the pleasure of, the judges of the Municipal Courts and Superior Court. The current Marshal could continue, with the approval of the judges of the Municipal Courts and Superior Court, to direct Court Security Services. Assignment of bailiffs and delivery of additional courtroom security would be provided by this division. 2. Creation of a committee to prepare an implementation plan for the consolidation of court services under the Sheriff. The committee would be primarily composed of judges from the Superior and Municipal Courts, as well as the Sheriff and County Administrator. 3. Establish an oversight committee, which could be" --the _ — implementation committee 9s another committee;--to provide. ongoing management of Court Servic-es. The oversight committee- would e — r-USponsible for directing the activities of the Court Security — Services Unit, including reviewing the Court- Security Services budget,— and hearing grievances related to consolidation. Juudges , Sheriff/Marshal Merger ' 3 April 7, 1987 will keep their current bailiffs and have approval over the assignment of any future bailiff. Judges -will have- primary discretion over additional security measures to be takenin their courtrooms. The security resources available to judges will be increased with the merger. The Court Security Services Unit will be responsible for providing security in both the Municipal and Superior Courts and, thus, will have a larger pool of qualified personnel from which to draw. 4. There will be no layoffs of current staff. All Marshal's. personnel will be- transferred at their existing classifications, salaries, and benefits and will carry over their County time in service for purposes of determining seniority. There will be no loss of peace officer status. 5. The bailiffs in Court Security Services could develop their own identity by wearing a uniform or emblem that is distinct from that of the Sheriff's Department. This has occurred in the cities that contract for police services with the Sheriff. 6. There will continue to be local offices for persons who want to deliver processes to be served, pick up forms, or ask questions. There will be a person in each Municipal Court Clerk's Office knowledgeable in civil process matters. These locations and merged operations will be at least as convenient as they are currently. I am prepared to work with the judges in the Municipal and Superior Courts and the Marshal and Sheriff to develop the appropriate guarantees -that will be needed in a consolidation agreement. The design of the combined bailiff and civil process functions must be a joint effort of the Sheriff and oversight committee. There is urgency in moving forward with consolidation. It is clear that the delay in resolving this issue has cost the County a substantial amount of money. These funds could have been used for other much-needed programs and services. I am convinced that the efficiency and security of our courts will be enhanced by this consolidation proposal. cc: Richard K. Rainey, Sheriff-Coroner Rodger Davis, Marshal