The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 05221990 - 2.4 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS .5-... Contra c FROM: Costa Phil Batchelor, County Administrator 3 's County DATE: May 17 , 1990 SUBJECT: REQUEST FROM THE GRAND JURY FOR FUNDS WITH WHICH TO CONDUCT AN INVESTIGATION OF THE COUNTY PROBATION DEPARTMENT SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION Consider whether the Board of Supervisors wishes to take any action in regard to the request of the Grand Jury. BACKGROUND: The 1989-90 Grand Jury has indicated that it wishes to spend $28 , 500 on a contract with KPMG Peat Marwick, the County and Grand Jury auditors, to investigate the County Probation Department. The budget which the Board of Supervisors adopted for the 1989-90 Grand Jury does not provide sufficient funds for this purpose. Penal Code Section 914. 5 reads as follows: "The grand jury shall not spend money or incur obligations in excess of the amount budgeted for its investigative activities pursuant to this chapter by the county board of supervisors unless the proposed expenditure is approved in advance by the presiding judge of the superior court after the board of supervisors has been advised of the request." (emphasis added) . The attached letter from KPMG Peat Marwick is dated May 11, 1990 and was provided to County staff on May 16, 1990. The Board' s regular meeting of May 22 , 1990 is the first opportunity following receipt of this request to advise the Board of Supervisors of the Grand Jury' s request. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: AZeSYES SIGNATURE: "`'' RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON May 22, 1990 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER X The Board AUTHOPMZ D ; the County Administrator to meet with the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court and the Juvenile Court Judge relative to the Grand Jury ' s request and report to the Board on June 5 , 1990. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS X _ _ _ I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. CC: ATTESTED May 22 , 1990 PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF County Administrator SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR County Counsel Auditor-Controller :� M382 (10/88) Presiding Judge of the Sup. CourtBY DEPUTY Foreman, 1989-90 Grand Jury Once the Board of Supervisors has been advised of the Grand Jury' s request and has been provided an opportunity to appropriate the necessary funds, it appears that the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court is authorized by state statutes to permit the Grand 'Jury to proceed with their investigation and expenditure of funds, although the Board may wish to consult with County Counsel on this point before -making a final decision. i Peat Marwick Peat Marwick Main&Co. Three Embarcadero Center Telephone 415 951.0100 Telecopier 415 397-1129 San Francisco,CA 94111 Telex 62188300 703189 May 11, 1990 Mr. Dan Haydock Foreman,Grand Jury of Contra Costa County Office of the Grand Jury,Room 108 1020 Ward Street Martinez, California 94553 Dear Mr Haydock: This letter is written as a supplement to KPMG Peat Marwick's draft proposal to the Contra Costa Grand Jury entitled"A Proposal to the Contra Costa Grand Jury to Conduct a Management Review". It is also submitted as our final and best offer,and is based on our meeting with your committee on May 10. It is our understanding that you want a management review that focuses on the Contra Costa County Probation Department and specifically on the Juvenile and Institutions aspects of this department. Furthermore, you want a review that analyzes the actual organizational practices, actual management and supervisory practices,and clearly defines the communications patterns within the Probation Department,again, specific to the Juvenile and Institutions divisions. You also want an assessment of management effectiveness and an assessment of leadership and morale in these divisions. We are prepared to start this project on Monday,May 14 and based on our work plan complete our work by June 20, 1990 as per your request. We can do this because of our prior work as the auditors of the County and our understanding of the organization and issues facing the County. In reviewing the scope of work that you have requested and the short time frame we need to work within we still feel that a full 220 hours of professional time are necessary to adequately conduct this work on your behalf. We have,however,adjusted our fees and further refined our expenses based on the focus on the Juvenile and Institutions divisions. We are prepared to conduct this effort for a not-to-exceed amount of$28,500 that includes fees and expenses. (Our expenses are on an actual cost basis with no mark-up). The key staff on this engagement are shown'on the attached Exhibit 1. The people you see are the people that you will get for this work. We have identified senior and experienced staff in order to conduct this work because of its sensitivity and importance to the Grand Jury. We are aware that you are trying as a Grand Jury to conduct these Management Reviews in future years and that this fust effort is critical in several ways; first in setting the approach and the methodology to be used in the soon Member Firm of Klynveld Peat Marwick Goerdeler Peat Marwick Mr.Dan Haydock May 11, 1990 Page 2 future,and in developing credibility for this type of review in the future. The experienced yp people that we have identified have all worked successfully on this te of assignment in the past. We look forward to working with you on this important project. Sincerely KPMG Peat Marwick 16 D—t� Farnum K. Alston Director of Strategic Management r EXHIBIT I Contra Costa County Grand Jury Management Review Project Team Organization County of Contra Costa Grand Jury Engagement Principal Client Partner James D. Carney Lou Miramontes Engagement Manager Fornum Alston Project team Members Robert T. O'Neill Hal J. D'Ambrogia Julia Kirwan 9Z.13916(18) 925,13918 a y^r�• GRAND JURY—POWERS AND DUTIES § 915 Title 4 Law Review Commentaries Investigation of public office and officers Report of the grand jury committee, San by grand jury. (1962) 2 Santa Clara L. 81. Diego County Bar Association. (1972) 9 Investigatory powers of California grand San Diego L.Rev. 145. jury. Craig S. Dummit (1971) 46 S. Bar J. 467. Library References Grand Jury a23 to 27. C.J.S. Grand Juries §§ 21, 34 et seq. Notes of Decisions 1. In general call the attention of the grand jury to the If a proposed grand jury report concern- provisions of law prescribing the duties of ing the administration of local government boards of supervisors and all county offi- exceeds established legal limits the superior cers charged with protecting the interests court which convenes the grand jury and and rights of the people to ascertain by a which is responsible for its supervision may careful and diligent investigation whether properly refuse to file the report. People v. the provisions of the law have been com- Superior Court of Santa Barbara County lied with and to nate the result of the same (1975) 119 Cal.Rptr. 193, 531 P.2d 761, 13 p C.3d 430. in their report. Tulare County v. City of a It is made the duty of the judge of the Dinuba (1928) 270 P. 201, 205 C. 111. superior court of each county annually to § 914.5. Expenditures within budget; exception; procedure The grand jury shall not spend money or incur obligations in excess of the amount budgeted for its investigative activities pursuant to this chapter by the county board of supervisors unless the proposed expendi- ture is approved in advance by the presiding judge of the superior court after the board of supervisors has been advised of the request. (Added by Stats.1970, c. 740, p.,1421, § 1.) Cross References Expenses for grand jurors, see §§ 890.1, 931. § 915. Privacy; inquiry into offenses; discharge When the grand jury has been impaneled, sworn, and charged, it shall retire to a private room, and inquire into the offenses cognizable by it. On the completion of the business before the grand jury, the court shall discharge it. (Added by Stats.1959, e. 501, p. 2448, § 2.) Historical Note Former § 915, enacted in 1872, amended 1927, c. GS4, p. 1155. § 1, relating to inquiry by Stats.1905, c. 531, p. 694, § 2; Stats. into public offenses by grand jur}, was 799