HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 07131993 - 1.121 THE BOARD OR SUPERVISORS OF
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on July 13, 1993 by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Powers, Smith, Bishop, McPeak, Torlakson
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
SUBJECT: FINAL REPORT OF THE GRAND JURY
IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the Final Report of the
1992-1993 Grand Jury is REFERRED to the County Administrator and
Internal Operations Committee.
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of
an action taken and entered on the minutes of tn=
Boar+ Of Supervi"ors n tl e. ate sh wn.
ATTESTED: c l -•-•.
PHIL BAT ELOR,(Ark of the Doard
of Superviso s and County Administrator
By _ __ /____�_____ - ,Deputy
:..-
cc: County Administrator
Internal Operations Cte.
Grand Jury
do'do
E
Will
ro
dop
S
'G
�••---- ,
COU
GRAND
RY.
REPORT .
1992-93
f
RECEI- E
JUN 5
CLERK BOARD OF SUPER7-ORS
0000 ,,00.....*.. r coNrRa cosrA CO.54
1111111111111 !6
T' a s r
go OF solo=so 4111.�.�'•r
I i V
go
64
t
8 `T
....; � ��
♦♦ } _ 4f
(jrA'coin
GRAND
JURY
FI ARPORT
1992-93
LIBERTY MEANS RESPONSIBILITY
George. Bernard Shaw—
T
The. 1992-93 Contra.Costa County Grand Jury wishes to thank Nancy Tannehill,
Superior Court Secretary, for her able assistance throughout the year.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Table of Contents i
Letter From Judge Flier
Photograph-Judge Flier
Foreman's Letter of Transmittal iv
List of Jurors v
Photograph-Jurors vi
Approval of Final Report vii
Final Report 1
Reports-1992-93 Grand Jury
Report 9301-Hazardous Materials Program Violates Public Trust 2
Report 9302-Contra Costa Water District Consultant Costs 14
Report 9303-Summary Responses to 1991-92 Grand Jury Reports 20
Report 9304-Need for Management Audits-Contra Costa County 31
Report 9305-Process Used to Inform Voters-Benefit Assessments 36
Report 9306-Status of County Fleet Management 40
Report 9307-Alternate Defender Office-Contra Costa County 47
Report 9308-Not Issued
Report 9309-Management of Pittsburg Police Department 53
Report 9310-KPMG Peat Marwick Audit Report 60
Report 9311-Inmate Welfare Fund 69
Report 9312-Contra Costa County's Merit System 76
Report 9313-City of Concord Redevelopment Agency 83
Report 9314-Threat to the Grand Jury Process 87
Report 9315-Fire Protection Personnel Costs 91
Report 9316-Detention Facilities Inspections 101
-1-
SuperiorTourt rv�LORCO
RICHARD S.FLIER ye�,?
JUDGE �
fafe of Talifornin ;�� ►�
DEPARTMENT 15 COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA
COURTHOUSE
MARTINEZ.CALIFORNIA 94553
June 14, 1993
Members of the 1992-1993 Contra Costa Grand Jury
Courthouse
Martinez, California 94553
Dear Grand Jury Members:
On behalf of the Superior Court of Contra Costa County, THANK YOU
for your dedication and service to the people of this county. You
have certainly fulfilled your responsibility with perseverance,
determination, and objectivity.
These are extraordinary times. The pressures on government to
provide services, protect the populous, improve the basic
condition of life, and insure the reality of democracy have never
been so severely tested. You have helped all of us understand
these problems and offered possible solutions. Your work
exemplifies the critical evaluation of small problems as well as
major issues. You are to be commended for the variety of your
investigations and the depth of your analyses.
Your Foreman, Annemarie Goldstein, deserves.special thanks and
recognition. It is no easy task leading, organizing, and
administering a group of highly motivated people such as you. Don
Nesbit, Foreman pro tem, gave added guidance. The Grand Jury has
functioned very smoothly, operational problems have been
anticipated and resolved, and your reports have exhibited the
independence of thought so necessary to a successful Grand Jury.
It has been my pleasure and honor to work with you this year. I
look forward to observing the effects of your work. Certainly,
you wouldn't have accepted this responsibility unless you cared
about the present and future of our government. I hope this
interest continues. This county always needs people like you.
Sincerely,
Richard S. Flier
-ii-
r �M
40
s
t n Ka
e a
>t
a
a r
r
X n -
x
i
°5•r #
i i '
1020 Ward Street
Grand Jury Contra Martinez,California 94553-1360
Costa
County
June 15, 1993
The Honorable Richard S. Flier
Department 15
Superior Court
1020 Ward Street
Martinez, CA 94553
Dear Judge Flier:
On behalf of the 1992-93 Contra Costa County Grand Jury, I present this final
report to you. As members of the Grand Jury, we have had the opportunity to
explore many aspects of county government.
"It was the best of tunes, it was the worst of times":
So begins Dickens' A Tale of Two Cities, published in 1859. Then, as now, people
viewed the period in which they lived as the benchmark from which events were
measured.
Today, in Contra Costa County, we also view the present as encompassing the best
and worst of times. Resources are becoming increasingly scarce to all governing
bodies. The grand jury in its "watchdog" capacity must work with diligence to
assist the various departments of county government in recommending ways of
conserving dwindling tax dollars.
I am grateful for your "open door" policy and guidance during the past year,
which have benefited the jury and its work immeasurably.
Very truly yours,
Annemarie Golds in, Foreman
—iv..
THE 1992-93 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GRAND JURY
OFFICERS
ANNEMARIE GOLDSTEIN, FOREMAN
DONALD NESBIT, FOREMAN PRO TEMPORE
GREGORY L. OSHEROFF, RECORDING SECRETARY
LOIS SIZOO, CORRESPONDING SECRETARY
MEMBERS
DANIEL M.ARTEAGA NANCY D. KAPLAN
RICHMOND DANVILLE
MARY L. CHASE MERVIN B. KIPNIS
WALNUT CREEK DANVILLE
D. ALAN COMPTON WELLS C. LANE
CLAYTON MARTINEZ
JOHN A. CONNORS WILLIAM MITCHELL
PINOLE EL CERRITO
REBECCA DELEISSEGUES DONALD D. NESBIT
MARTINEZ LAFAYETTE
ELIZABETH L. FOLTZ GREGORY OSHEROFF
PLEASANT HILL BYRON
ANNEMARIE GOLDSTEIN PATRICK T. REEVE
DANVILLE PINOLE
HELEN V. GRUBB LOIS M. SIZOO
PLEASANT HILL WALNUT CREEK
HOWARD T. HERBERT DAVID S. RIDGE
WALNUT CREEK DANVILLE
RACHEL M. WONG
EL SOBRANTE
v
n.
q.
<x
q>
i�:::r.:?.:: ...<.,<ry#�„e z�.y.:...,:� x.N•'�..'..' S'g<eq"u4a•.L.
q: ro
M
�rmr s•.
, ..Via. ..•�.�«. �e
^
M�gID a��Y
"gy.
Re $�
.A
.e'
......� 'min. °�g�p,•»a ��� k �'..s�.w,':�..�e...a'..
..�;' g•�.e ems• �: '#�q.�w c�'�# ,a'b� b a��.�: <;°�
.aa�n' .. •' r'n ..
x
c `
9
Y
...�<..Po.:K'.. s:,. ,'s` ,.rx tea.:°� ..sr.a.»H ..<, Q.e•'' es$��,$'
aNi�•' .,..T a•'
<
� w
' .$. �.ee•.. .�<�'.fig. .:����.R�„k'seg`` ., �^':r.- «&�n�•.w
°u re
.m
<
.x#=".x:c,
a `n�:°'y..re _ ..w "� ^g�ee'i3� �14 ��� a4 x.v it Y'>i� ��•�.
k„>
!n.: "e. � .. a, �9;�a �'g•�x sed$: �'#+ fa*.. fi.<'8' .g.e.x}..�",�
.. t
THE 1992-93 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GRAND JURY
Front row, left to right;
Herbert, Kipnis, Kaplan, Chase,Arteaga, Deleissegues, Grubb, Mitchell.
Back row, left to right:
Sizoo, Compton, Nesbit, Ridge,Wong, Judge Flier, Reeve, Goldstein, Lane, Connors,
Osheroff, Foltz.
Vi
The 1992-93 Contra Costa County
Grand Jury
approved this Final Report
on June 9, 1993
Annemail G dstein
Fore an
I accept for filing this Final Report of the
1992-93 Contra Costa County Grand Jury
on June 16, 1993
Richard S. Flier
Judge of the Superior Court
-vii-
*� - SI = i
arm
`I ,• -
c40
oy
GRAND JURY
1REpOROT
L
19gz-93
AP EPORT BY.
THE 19,92-1993 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GRAND JURY
1020 Ward Street
Martinez, California 94553
(S 10) 646-2345
REPORT No. 9301
4.1
is '
Hazardous Materials Program. Violates Public Trust
APProved by the Grand Jury:
Date::`
Annemarie Goldstein
- Grand Jury Foreman
Accepted for'Filing:
Date:
.... . . . .. . ..... .
7. Richard S. Flier
Judge of the Superior Court
' .. _2- '
SECTION 933(c) OF TH CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE
Sec. 933. Findings and recortanendations; com—
ment of governing bodies, elective officers,
or agency heads
(c) No late:than 90 days after the end jury submits
a final report on the operations of any public agency
subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of
the public agency shall comment to the presidia,judge of
the: superior court on the findings and r=ommendatiors
pertaining to matters under the control of the governing
body,and every elective county office:or ascacy heed for
which the gland jury has responsibility pursuant to
Section 9114.1 shall comment within 60 days to, the
presiding judge of the superior court,with an information
copy sent to the board of supervisors,on the findings and
recommendations pe aininv to matters under the e:ontrol
of that county of+ncer or agency head and any agcmcy or
agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or
controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also
comment on the findings and recommendations. All
such comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted
to the presiding judge of the superior court who impar-
Bled the grand Jury. A copy of all responses to grand
jury reports shallbe placed on file with the clerk of the
public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the
mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those
off ccs. One copy shall be placed on file with the -
applicable grand jury final report by, and in the control
of the currently impaneled grand jury, where it shall be
maintained for a minimum of five years. (Added by
Sram 1961, c 1284, § 1. ..Amended by Stars 1963, c 674, �
§ I. Sra=1914, c 393. § 6.- Starz 1974, c 13.96, § 3:
Srats 1977. c 107, ¢ 6. S=1977. c 187, § I, Stam
1980, c 543. § 1: Stam 1981, c. 203, § 1, Stam 198? c
1408. § 5: Stats 1985, c 221, § 1: Stats,1987. c 690,
§ 1: Stats 1988 c 1297 § 5.)
Former § 9::, added by Stats.198?. e: 1408. § 6, nicndd by
stats.1985,a"I.§ :.operative Jan. 1. 1989,was rc?=Icd by Stats1987.
C. 690. §
Forac § 9:3. added by Stats.1959. G Sol. § 2.. was reDelled by
St21S.1959. C. 1312. § 3.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . 4
FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Organizational Structure/Financing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Inspection Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
EmergencyResponse Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6'
Safety and Training Management 7
CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
RECOMMENDA'T'IONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
GLOSSARY OF TERMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
-4-
SUNWARY
The largest concentration of petroleum and chemical production facilities in the State of
California is in Contra Costa County. They present a potential for incidents with hazardous
materials that could have a disastrous impact upon County residents. The safety of the residents
of Contra Costa County has been placed at an unacceptable risk primarily due to the lack of
effective leadership, management, and accountability in the Hazardous Materials Division of the
Health Services Department. The Grand Jury finds that the Health Services Department has
violated the public trust by failing to comply with the laws of the State of California. The Board
of Supervisors must take immediate action because of the risk to the public.
-5-
BACKGROUND
• In 1985, the California. Legislature enacted AB 2185, the Hazardous Materials Release
Response Plans and Inventory Law (Chapter 6.95, §25500 Health and Safety Code). This act
was in response to a series of hazardous release incidents which occurred throughout California.
AB 2195 requires each county to implement a Hazardous Materials Program which includes
responsibility for:
(a) on-site inspection of businesses that are subject to the act, and
(b) development of and necessary revisions to an Area Plan for Emergency Response
in the event of a release or threatened release of a hazardous material.
• In January of 1988, the Board of Supervisors stated:
"Contra Costa County is home to many companies and industries that manufacture, store,
use and dispose of toxic materials. These businesses are neighbors to a population in
excess of 700,000 people. One role of government is to maintain an environment where
businesses and the general population of the community co-exist as safely as possible."
• Contra Costa County's Basic Flan for Emergency Services, published in June of 1991, stated:
11be largest concentration of petroleum and chemical production facilities in the State
of California stretches along the Contra Costa County shoreline from Richmond, along
the bay and river, to Antioch. Large amounts of hazardous materials are transported
daily along 1-80, 1-680, and highway routes 4, 24, and 242. These present a potential
for incidents with hazardous materials that could have a disastrous impact upon the
County."
• The California Environmental Protection Agency reports over 15 million pounds of
chemicals were released throughout Contra Costa County from 1989 through 1991 and
that Contra Costa County, with its huge industrial base, ranked third in the state in off-
site hazardous waste:generation in 1989.
FINDINGS
Organizational Structure/Financing
1. In December 1985, the Board of Supervisors designated the Health Services Department
responsible for implementation of AB 2185.
2. A Hazardous Materials Division was created with program management delegated to the
County Health Officer (CHO).
-6-
3. The Board of Supervisors has the authority to impose fees and fines on regulated
businesses to cover the cost of the Hazardous Materials Program. Revenues for fiscal
year 1991-92 were approximately $2.7 million. Fees and fines generated 92 percent of
the total revenues. In August 1992, the Board of Supervisors approved Resolution 92-
563, establishing fees for Emergency Response services. It is the County's goal to
achieve 100 percent financial self-sufficiency for the Hazardous Materials Program.
4. In October 1990, a Deputy Director of Hazardous Materials was hired to provide
management at the Hazardous Materials'(Haz Mat) office and storage yard in Martinez.
The Deputy Director submitted his resignation in May 1992, and since that date there has
been no on-site manager. Funding for this position is derived from AB 2185 revenues -
not from County General Funds.
5. As part of the Phase One budget reduction process, the Board of Supervisors approved
the recommendation of the Health Services Director to eliminate the position of Deputy
Director from the 1992-93 budget.
6. The Haz Mat staff members have organized into teams with the role of team leader
rotated among peers. There is no on-site manager to provide functions such as
establishing objectives, monitoring and evaluating performance, assigning or changing
work schedules or approving overtime and payroll sheets.
7. All 26 Haz Mat staff members report directly to the CHO. In addition to supervising the
Hazardous Materials Program, the CHO has program responsibility for Environmental
Health and Emergency Medical Services as well as the state-mandated responsibility for
all clinical services in the county including hospitals, clinics, and public health.
Inspection Management
8. Businesses subjected to regulation under AB 2185 are identified through a variety of
means including self-reporting, surveys, permit issuance and agency referrals. There are
approximately 1500 businesses currently identified and entered in the Data Management
System (DMS). Haz Mat was unable to provide the total number of businesses in Contra
Costa County subject to regulation under AB 2185.
9. The Health Services Department is required by § 25503 (e) (2) of Division 20 of the
Health and Safety Code to establish and implement a data management system to insure
that subject businesses are identified and tracked for compliance. The Data Management
System is the only reasonable method to determine if required inspections are completed.
10. Section 25537 of the Health and Safety Code mandates that each subject business receive
an on-site inspection once every three years.
-7-
11. Contra Costa County's Hazardous Materials Inspection Plan requires a " uniform
inspection frequency of no less than once per year per facility."
12. Although there are state and county mandates, there are no documented staff performance
expectations for the number of inspections to be done. Staff members decide for
themselves which businesses to inspect and the frequency of inspection.
13. A Grand Jury audit of the DMS revealed that for the three-year period ending December
1992, only 30 percent of the known businesses had received a completed inspection as
mandated by law.
14. Based on interviews with Hazardous Materials staff, inspections of the Rhone-Poulanc
files, and the DMS, there was no completed on-site inspection of the facility during the
4.5 years preceding the disastrous explosion and fire of June 22, 1992.
Emergency Response Management
15. In January 1988 the Board of Supervisors approved the Hazardous Materials Area Plan,
as mandated by §25503 of the Health and Safety Code. Its purpose is to protect life,
environment, and property from the effects of hazardous materials release or threatened
release.
16. AB 2185 requires the Health Services Department to submit an update of the Plan to the
state every three years. As of December 1992, Contra Costa County's update had not
been completed.
17. Emergency Response staff members are available 24 hours a day to provide technical
assistance at events such as: chemical spills, illegal drug laboratory seizures, pipeline
leaks, or illegal dumping of hazardous materials.
18. Twelve persons are trained to respond to incidents and are assigned to three-person on-
call teams. Assignments are made by a team leader and are frequently changed by
members for their own convenience without prior approval of the CHO. In July 1992,
alone, there were 55 documented changes to the monthly assignment schedule.
19. A peer on each team has the responsibility for determining if a hazardous materials
incident warrants an emergency response and, if so, how many staff members will be
needed. This is done without management involvement or approval. At the onset of this
investigation there were no written Standard Operating Procedures to guide staff
members in reaching decisions or subsequent actions.
20. 'Mere is no requirement for minimum emergency response time for on-call staff
members. The 1988-89 Grand Jury concluded, and the Board of Supervisors agreed, that
-8-
an average response time of 42 minutes was not acceptable. The 1992 average response
time from notification to on-site arrival increased 71 percent since 1988.
21. The amount of overtime paid in fiscal 1991-92 for response to incidents was $138,244.
One team member received $21,860 in overtime pay, which is 40 percent of the base .
salary for that position.
22. As required by §25503(8)of the Health&Safety Code, the Emergency Response Teams
meet to critique the handling of hazardous materials incidents. There is no
documentation retained of these critiques.
23. Decisions are made at these meetings on whether or not to bill responsible parties for the
costs of providing emergency response. There are no written procedures or criteria to
guide staff implementation of the Board of Supervisor's Resolution 92-563 to recover
Emergency Response costs.
Safety and Training Management
24. The California Legislature passed SB 198 (Labor Code §6401.7) which required
establishment of an Injury, Illness Prevention Program. In January 1992, pursuant to SB
198, the Health Services Department adopted Policy 11-16. 241Pi a Hazardou's
Communication Program, to provide a safe working environment for employees. The
policy requires "that all workers whose jobs involve the handling of hazardous chemicals
are not only fully aware of the chemicals involved, but that they are thoroughly trained
to perform their jobs safely.",
25. In January 1992, the Health Services Department adopted Policy No. 158D, providing
inspection, hazards abatement, and training responsibility to work-site supervisors. The
policy requires Health Services Department employees to report unsafe work conditions
to their supervisors.
In March 1992, the CHO was formally notified by Haz Mat staff of improperly
labeled hazardous materials stored beyond the legal time limits at the Martinez
storage site.
Clerical staff further expressed concern that they did not know the hazards
presented by the chemicals stored at their work site, nor had they received the
required training on how to respond to an on-site emergency.
26. The Health Services Department has not provided hazardous materials training to all staff
members as required by Health Services Department Policy No. 241P.
-9-
CONCLUSIONS
1. The safety of the residents of Contra Costa County has been placed at an unacceptable
risk primarily due to the lack of effective leadership, management, and accountability in
the Hazardous Materials division of the Health Services Department.
2. It is poor personnel practice for a staff to function without an on-site director.
3. The current organizational design is flawed by having 26 staff members report directly
to an individual who already has the considerable responsibility of being the County
Health Officer and Medical Director as well as supervising Environmental Health and
Emergency Medical Services.
4. The elimination of an on-site Deputy Director position from the 1992-93 budget had no
positive fiscal impact since funding for a director was available from fees without using
County tax dollars. This position could be reauthorized with no additional cost to the
taxpayers.
5. The present procedure allows Emergency Response employees to authorize overtime for
themselves and their peers without prior management approval.
6. Gross non-compliance with state-mandated inspection requirements is evidence that the
regulation and enforcement of the provisions of AB 2185 have not been met. It is
unconscionable that the Rhone-Poulanc plant had not had a completed inspection before
the June 1992 explosion and fire.
7. With the ever-present threat of a hazardous materials incident, emergency response must
be a high priority. It is unacceptable that the County's Area Plan is two years late in
being updated.
8. The absence of written standard procedures to support Emergency Response policy may
result in inefficient, inconsistent, and untimely responses by staff members.
9. The Hazard Communications Program has not been implemented in a timely manner with
all employees in the Hazardous Materials Division. Contra Costa County is failing to
provide a good example as a handler of Hazardous Materials to all businesses subject to
regulation under AB 2185.
10. The Health Services Department has violated the public trust by not complying with
Labor Code 6401.5, Health & Safety Code 25500, and other applicable laws governing
hazardous materials. Immediate action must be taken because of the risk to the
community.
-10-
RECOMMENDATIONS
The 1992-93 Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors:
1. Immediately relieve the Health Services Department of responsibility for
implementation of Section 25500 of the Health and Safety Code.
2. Immediately reassign the Hazardous Materials Division, on an interim basis, to
the office of the County Administrator pending a complete assessment of
corrective actions necessary to bring the County into compliance with AB 2185.
3. Immediately authorize a new position, Director of Hazardous Materials, to be
funded from AB 2185 revenues and direct the County Administrator to fill the
position within sixty days of the authorization. Responsibilities of the Director
of Hazardous Materials should include developing and instituting standard
operating procedures and supervise staff. to insure the Hazardous Materials
Division operations comply with all county and state mandates.
4. Concurrently, appoint a Hazardous Materials Task Force comprised of
community, business, local government, -and fire district representatives. The
Task Force will evaluate organizational models including, but not limited to,
decentralization, integration within local fire districts of inspection and emergency
responses services as well as privatization of these services.
a. Within 120 days of appointment, the Task Force present its
recommendations for a proposed Area Plan and.Inspection Plan to the
Board of Supervisors. Funding required to support the Task Force to be
paid from AB 2185 revenues.
b. Within 30 days of receiving the recommendations of the Hazardous
Materials Task Force, the Board of Supervisors approve the updated Area
Plan and Inspection Plan and submit them to the State of California for
certification.
5. Immediately establish a method for continuous monitoring of the performance of
the Hazardous Materials Division to assure citizens of compliance with all county
and state Hazardous Materials mandates.
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
AB 2185
Administering agency
The department, office, or other agency of a county or city designated pursuant to
subdivision of § 25502 of the Health and Safety Code.
Area Plan
A plan established pursuant to §25503 of the Health and Safety Code by an administering
agency for emergency response to a release or threatened release of a hazardous material
within a city or county.
Business Plan
A separate plan for each facility, site, or branch of a business which meets the
requirements of §25504 of the Health and Safety Code. Business plans must include:
(a) inventory of information required by § 25509; (b) emergency response plans and
procedures in the event of reportable release of a hazardous material including: (1)
immediate notification to appropriate local emergency rescue personnel and the office;
(2) procedures for the mitigation of a release or threatened release to minimize any
potential harm or damage to persons, property, or the environment; and (3) evacuation
plans and procedures, including immediate notice, for the business site and for the
affected public. (c) training for all new employees and annual training, including
refresher courses, for all employees in safety procedures in the event of a release or
threatened release of a hazardous material.
Department
The State Department of Health Services and Director means the State Director of
Health Services.
Handle
To use generate, process, produce, package, treat, store, emit, discharge, or dispose of
a hazardous material in any fashion.
Hazardous Material
Any material that, because of its quantity, concentration, or physical or chemical
characteristics, poses a significant present or potential hazard to human health and safety
or to the environment if release into the workplace or environment. "Hazardous
Materials" include, but are not limited to, hazardous substances, hazardous waste, and
any material which a handler or the administering agency has a reasonable basis for
believing that it would be injurious to the health and safety of persons or harmful to the
environment if released into the workplace or the environment.
-12-
Inspection
On-site inspections shall ensure compliance with this chapter and shall identify existing
safety hazards or suggest preventative measures designed to minimize the risk of the
release of hazardous material into the workplace or environment.
Release
Any spilling, leaking, pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying, discharging, injecting,
escaping, leaching, dumping, or disposing into the environment, unless permitted or
authorized by a regulatory agency.
Threatened Release
A condition creating a substantial probability of harm, when the probability and potential
extent of harm make it reasonably necessary to take immediate action to prevent, reduce
or mitigate damages to persons, property, or the environment.
Policy 241P
Hazardous Materials
All hazardous substances found in the workplace under normal reasonably foreseeable
emergency conditions are included.
Hazardous Substance
Any substance which is a physical hazard or a health hazard, or is included in the
Director's List of Hazardous Substances pursuant to Labor Code Section 6382.
Health Hazard
A substance for which there is statistically significant evidence based on at least one
study conducted in accordance with established scientific principles that acute or chronic
health effects may occur in exposed employees.
Written Hazard Communication Program
A plan that is concise, understandable, accurate and containing the following elements:
(1) an explanation for meeting labeling MSDS and Employee Information and training
requirements, (2) a list of hazardous substances in the workplace, (3) a plan to make
employees aware of hazards that might be encountered while performing non-routine
tasks, and (4) a plan, if appropriate, how contractor employees will be informed of
hazardous substances to which they may be exposed.
-13-
A REPORT BY
THE.1992-93 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GRAND JURY
'1020 Ward Street
Martinez, CA 94553
(510) 646-2345
REPORT NO. 9302
CONSULTANT COSTS—CONTRA COSTA WATER DISTRICT
.1'
"Although retired employees may be hired as
considtantsi when justified, four years is an unreasonable
amount of time and an unconscionable waste of rate-payers' money."
Approved by the Grand Jury:
Dater .�Q
nnemane Goldst n
Grand Jury Foreman
Accepted for Filing:
Date:
Richard S. Flier
Judge of the Superior Court
-14-
SECTION 9311(c) OF THE CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE
Sec. 933. Findings and recommendations; com-
ment of governing bodies, elective officers,
or agency heads
(c) No lar..-:than 90 days aper the &-and jury submits
a final report on the operations of any public agency
subject to its reviewing authority, the ¢overrnin; body of
the public azcncy shall cornme--it to the presidia;judge of
the superior court on the fundings and recommendations
pertaining to matters under the control of the governing
body,and eve--y elective county office:or aetncy head for
which the =- --nd jury has responsibility -pursuant to
Section 91=.1 shall cormaent within 60 days to the
presiding judge of the superior court, with an information
copy sent to the board of supervisors,on the findings and
recommendations pertaining to matters under the control
of that county officer or agency head and any agency or
agencies which that off c:r or agency head'supervises or
controls. Iu any city and county, the mayor shall also
comment on the findings and recommendations. All
such cotissneats and resorts shall forthwith besubmitted
to the presiding judge of the superior court who impan-
eled the grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand
jury reports shall be placed on file v ith the clerk of the
public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the
mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those
offices. One copy shall be placed oa file with the
applicable =--nd jury final report by, and in the control
of the currmtiy impaneled grand jury, where it shall be
maintained for a minimum of five years. (ridded by
Scats 1961, c 1284,'§ 1. Amended by Stam 1963, c 674,
§ 1. Sra:s 1974, c 393. § 6,• S=1974. c 1396, §'j,-
Srats 1977 c 107, § 6: Stars 1977, c 187, § I. Stars
1980, c 1: Stars 1981, c 203, § 1. Stam 1982. c
1408, § -r,- S,.=I985. c 221. § 1: Stars 1987, c 690,
g 1: S,c._.=38. c 1_97,
F:,—c: i 4". _td:_' by Stau.198:. c.• 1�,18. 9 6. amended by
Stats.!955.c. operaave Ian. 1. I989.was r.-;—led by Sum 1987.
C.
=-rmcr = iddcd by Suts.1959, e 501. § 2. was repealed by
M9. c. 1312 ; ..
-15—
CONSULTANT COSTS—CONTRA COSTA WATER DISTRICT.
SUMMARY:
In addition to full pension and medical benefits costs, the Contra Costa Water
District (CCWD) Board of Directors has paid $152,181.97 in consulting services fees
and expenses to two CCWD retirees, a former elected Board Member and a former
General Manager. The payments were for services performed from May 1988
through November 1992. The retired member of the Board of Directors was paid
$22,647.11 and the retired General Manager of the District was paid $129,534.86.
The existing contracts for the• two consultants are non-specific in nature. The
contracts allow the two consultants to expend District funds without prior approval.
The work done by the two consultants could reasonably be performed by current
staff.
The Contra Costa County Grand Jury has found that the rate-payers, whose water
rates have increased 189% over the past five years, are ill-served by this situation.
Although retired employees may be hired as consultants when justified, four years is
an unreasonable amount of time and an unconscionable waste of rate-payers'
money. Any benefit to the Contra Costa Water District by the two consultants has
long-since expired.
FINDINGS:
1. A former member of the CCWD Board of Directors,who retired from the
Board on November 18, 1987,was hired as a consultant to the District by
the Board of Directors on May 3, 1988. The former director served on the
Board of Directors of CCWD for twenty years. On his retirement, he
received full pension and benefits,including lifetime medical coverage for
himself and eligible dependents.
2. A former General Manager of CCWD;who retired on November 1, 1989,
was hired as a consultant to the District on the same day. The former
General Manager was employed by the District for thirty-three years. He
received full pension and benefits, including lifetime medical coverage for
himself and-eligible dependents on his retirement.
-16-
3. The Scope of Service of the current contracts for the former Board
Member and former General Manager required by each of the Consulting
Services Agreements is non-specific:
"Consultant shall provide such consulting services-as the Board of Directors
or the General Manager may from time to time request,subject to the
consultant's availability, to perform any requested service as determined by
the consultant(emphasis added). District is not obligated to request, and
Consultant is not obligated to perform, any specific number or extent of
services. District shall provide for Consultant's use,without charge,office
space, telephone service,supplies and clerical assistance as may be
reasonably required by Consultant in the performance of this agreement."
4. The retired Board Member has a payment limit of$18,000 per annum on
his current contract.
5. The retired General Manager has a payment limit of$50,000 per annum on
his current contract..
6. From May 3, 1988, through November 30, 1992, the retired Board
Member's costs for consulting services and other expenses totaled
$22,647.11.
7. From November 1, 1989, through October 27, 1992, the retired General
Manager's costs for consulting services and.other expenses totaled
$129,534.86.
8. Each consultant's fee for services rendered is 5100 per hour, plus travel,
lodging, mileage and meals.
9. Each consultant's travel time was routinely charged to the District at the
rate of$100 per hour, in addition to actual transport costs.
10. The retired General Manager's expense account for March 12, 1992,
included an entry for one and a half hours for confirming hotel reservations
for Board Members and another one and a half hours far meeting with
hotel management to obtain a refund for non-attendees.
11. Section 3.20.040 of the CCWD Code of Regulations states: "...travel
expense claims are to be prepared, reviewed, approved and submitted to
the Finance Department within ten working days after return from travel
or within ten working days of the end of.the month in which non-travel
business expenses are incurred."
-17-
12. The retired General Manager has been submitting expense claims in an
untimely and inconsistent manner. In one instance, an expense claim was
submitted over a year late. Others were several months late.
13. The Internal Audit of CCWD travel and expenses does not include expenses
of any consultant employed by the District.
14. Administrative Procedures (H-8) adopted on August 20, 1990, by the
CCWD Board of Directors states that the practice of hiring retirees as
temporary consultants requires, in part"...an explanation of why the retiree
possesses unique knowledge,skills, or abilities that cannot be provided by
another person..."
15. The work done by the two consultants can reasonably be provided by
current staff at no additional cost to the rate-payer.
16. The Board of Directors of CCWD adopted a Code of Ethics on May 6,
1992, which states, in part: "...[Directors] shall not engage in any conduct
that they know or reasonably should know is likely to create in the minds of
reasonable, objective, fair-minded observers the perception that they have
used their public position improperly."
17. The current consultants' contracts, effective on July 1, 1992, state: "...at
its option, the District shall have the right to terminate this Agreement at
any time by thirty days prior written notice to Consultant."
18. CCWD water rates for a single-family, treated-water residence have
increased 189% in the five year period ending January 1, 1992.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. Although retired employees may be hired as consultants when justified,
in these cases, four years is an unreasonable amount of time and an
unconscionable waste of rate-payers' money.
2. Any benefit to the Contra Costa Water District by the hiring of the two
consultants has long-since expired.
3. The District work performed by the two consultants could be accomplished
by current staff.
-18-
4. It is inappropriate for CCWD board members to receive services from these
consultants at a cost of 5100 per hour that board members themselves or
support staff could provide at no additional cost to rate-payers.
5. The Board of Directors has not followed its policy requiring support
documentation and timely submission of expense claims by the two
consultants.
6. In view of the 189% rate increase during the past five years, the burden of
the increase should not be exacerbated by unnecessary consulting services.
7. The Board of Directors' current practice of contracting with former board
members is not in the public interest, has created an unacceptable
precedent and violates its own Code of Ethics.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Directors of CCWD;
1. Within thirty days, adopt a.policy prohibiting the hiring of retired
members of the Board of Directors as paid consultants.
2. Within thirty days,amend its policy to include a specific justifiable time
limit in the use of former employees as consultants.
3. Within thirty days,develop and implement a policy to insure that all
consultant contracts be specific in scope of service.
4. Direct the Internal Auditor to immediately include in his examination an
consulting expenses.
5. Immediately comply with its own Code of Ethics.
6. Immediately exercise its option to terminate the contracts of the two
consultants.
-19-
A REPORT BY-
THE-1992-93
YTHE1992-93 CONTRA COSTA.COUNTY GRAND JURY
1,026 Ward Street
Martinez, CA 94553
(510) 646-2345
1
Re ort No. 9303
Stimaiary Report of Responses
:..t
to'the 1991=92 Grand Jury Reports
1'
:;. .,A
pproved by the Grand Jury:
Annemarie Goldstein
Grand Jury Foreman
s
Accepted for Filing: .
��, Date:, -`��`'`idt. "� .'(;�'g 3 r�� •
Richard S. Flier
Judge of the Superior Court
.
-20-
SECTION 933 (c) OF '!'-nE CALIFORNIA PENN, CODE
Sec. 933. Findings and recamendations; com-
ment of governing bodies, elective officers,
or agenc-� heads
(c) No lat-than 90 days after the Lzrand jury submits
a final report on the operaadons of any public agency
subject to its reviewing authority, the cove.-nin;body of
the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of
the superior court on the findings and recommendations
pertaining to matters under the control of the governing
body, and every elective county ofizcw or aaecr�►head for
which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to
Section 9114.1 shall comment within 60 days to the
presiding judge of the superior court,with an information
copy sent to the board of supervisors,on the findings and
recommendations pertaining to matters under the control
of that county offs= or agency head and any agency or
agencies which that ofnc-r or agency head supervises or
controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also
comment on the findings and recommendations. All
such commects and reports shah forthwith be submitted
to the presiding judge of the superior court who impan-
eled the grand jury.. A copy of all responses to grand
jury reports shall be placed on file with the cleric of the
public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the
mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in.those
offices. One copy shall be placed on file with the
applicable grand jury final report by, and in the control
of the currectly impaneled grand jury, where it shall be
maintained for a minimum of five years. (Added by
Siam 1961, e 1284. ¢L Amended by S=1963, r 674,
¢ 1. Sra=1974, c 393, § 6,• Srars1974. c 1396 ¢ 3.
Srars 197 7, c 107, § 6,• Srarr 1977, c 187, ¢ I: Stam
1980, c 543, § I. Stam 1981, c 203, ¢ 1; Srau 198? r-
1408. ¢ 5,• S=1985, c 22L § 1; Stares 1987, .c 690.
¢ 1; Stam 1988, c 1797, § S.1
Former § 9:3. addcd by Smm1982. a 1403. § 6, amended by
Stat:0985.c.-_I.12.operative Jan. 1. 1989.was r;paald by SUCL 1987,
C. 690. § r.
Fomer § 933. added by Scam.1959, c 501. § 2. was mpealed by
Stats.1959. c. 1312. § 3.
-21-
Recommendations of and Responses to Grand Jury Reports
The principal role of County Grand Juries is to increase public awareness of activities of
local government and its many special districts.
When a Grand Jury publishes a report, the governing body of a public agency or its
designated administrator, in accordance with Section 933(C) of the California Penal Code, must
respond within ninety days to the presiding judge to the recommendationsof the report Elected
officials are required to respond within sixty days.
These responses are a natter of public record-
The
ecordThe recommendations of and responses to the 1991-92 Grand Jury reports are included in
this report as well as a summary total of the 1990-91 Jury reports.
The 1992-93 Grand Jury strongly recommends that the recommendations and responses of
the previous jury be included in its annual report so that the public will be aware of recent opinions
and actions of their local governmeat,
Analysis of Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations
Year Total Accepted Accepted as Modified Accepted/Partial Non-response Rejected
1990-91 389 287 67 Not Available Not Available 35
1991-92 75 43 9 2 1 20
EXPLANATION OF CODE WORDS USED
Code Word Meaning
1.Accept(A) Recommendation was/will be carried out
2.Accept/As Modified(AM) Essence of recommendation was agreed to,but
was/will be implemented in a different manner.
3.Accept/Partial(AP) Part of the recommendation was accepted and
was/will be acted upon and part was rejected
and will not be done.
4. No Response(1) No response to recommendation.
5. Rejcct-(R) Recommendation will not be implemented.
Report Number Title Agency Status
9201 Contra Costa Water District(CCWD) CCWD
Misuse of Public Funds
Recommendation#1 Accept
The Contra Costa Water District Board of Directors inform the California Fair Political Practices
Commission of the survey and its circumstances.
Recommendation#2 Acccpt
The Contra Costa Water District General Manager consider appropriate disciplinary action
concerning the District employees involved, with appropriate action to recover funds paid for the
su rvev.
-22-
Recommendation#3 Accept (A)
The Contra Costa Water District General Manager institute a system of controls consistent with
existing procedures that will prevent employees from originating, authorizing and approving
payment for work of any type without written description of work to be done and substantiation of
work done by contractors. These controls should be implemented within one month, and should be
verified by the District internal auditor.
Report Number Title Agency Status
9202 Investment Practices of the Town of Danville
Recommendation#1 Reject(R)
Reorganize the Finance Department to achieve a clear separation of investment and accounting
functions within 30 days.
Response(R) "Duties in the Finance department are clearly identified and segregated within
budget resource I'unitations according to function to prevent any overlap. The department is
organized according to generally accepted principles as promulgated by the Federal Municipal
Finance Officer's Association and the California Municipal Treasurer's Association. Over the past
nine years, three independent audit firms have given the Town unqualified audit reports and have
.made no negative comments concerning internal control.No organizational changes are planned."
Recommendation#2 AcceptlPartial(PA)
Establish a mechanism within 30 days whereby consultation between :responsible:personnel is
required before investment decisions are committed or brokerage accounts are opened or closed.
Response(AP) "According to the CMTA, the Treasurer or official acting in that capacity is
responsible for the `review of (a) financial institution's financial condition, (b) safetyo'liquidity,
and potential yields of investment instruments, and (c) reputation and financial condition of
investment brokers' and approval of all investment transactions. The Financial Services Manager
has been performing this function since 1985, has returned an above market yield each year and the
Town has experienced no losses due to fraud or poor investment decisions. To require consultation
with `responsible personnel could encumber a function that frequently depends on prompt
decisions to take advantage of market opportunities. Staff, however, will establish with the
Council's Finance Committee procedures for opening and dosing brokerage accounts and will
consider establishment of a threshold dollar level requiring approval of the Town Manager before
investment decisions are made."
Recommendation#3 Accept(A)
Establish within 30 days a formal reporting of the status of investments on a regular basis for
approval of the Town Council.This report should include disclosuresof transaction activity.
Recommendation#4 Accept(A)
Within 10 days, establish that.security insurance provided by brokerage firms is sufficient to cover
investments held in each account.
Recommendation#3 Reject(R)
Obtain within 10 days an adequate individual surety bond for the employee performing the treasury
function.
Response(R) "Stiff will review the prevailing practices and recommend any appropriate actions
to the Council."
i
-23-
Recommendation#6 Reject
Establish a self-administered internal audit program to conduct random audits focused upon
investment activities within 60 days.
Response(R) "The Town lacks the staff to administer such a program. In fact,no municipality in
Contra Costa County has an internal audit staff. The Town's independent auditors, however,
conduct a thorough external audit of investment practices twice a year."
Recommendation#7 Accept
Rewrite the Town's Investment Policy within 90 days to specifically set forth the responsibilities,
controls,procedures and reports essential for managing investments.
Recommendation#8 Reject
Discontinue immediately the practice of lending funds for private purposes.
Response(R) "The Town currently loans 5250,000 each to the Town Manager and City Attorney.
Interest payments are based on the rate received by the Town in its LAIF" account`The loans are
secured by deeds of trust and must be repaid at the time the individuals leave Town employment.
Such loans are common practice in local government.They help to insure that key executives reside
in the community in which they work. In addition, they have become part of a competitive
compensation package for attracting and retaining key executives. In Danville, the practice began
when the first Town Manager was retained in 1983 and was continued when the incumbent was
hired in April 1988.It was extended to the City Attorney in September 1988. Nearly one-half of the
cities in Contra Costa County have some sort of housing assistance for their City Managers. If this
assistance takes the form of housing allowances, higher salaries or other fringe benefits,the cost to
the Town is increased. The housing assistance provision is part of each executive's employment
agreement. The City Attorney has stated that the housing assistance loans per se are not
discriminatory. Since this offer affects the author of this report directly, no recommendation is
made."
*Local Agency Investment Fund
Recommendation#9 Reject
Discontinue the practice of waiving interest on a loan.
Response(R) "In January 1990, the Town entered into a bank loan and a companion loan
arrangement with the Child Care Alliance whereby the Alliance received 5250,000 to be repaid in
ten years at the rate of 525,000 per year. At the end of the loan term, the Alliance is obligated to
repay all interest paid by the Town on its loan with the Bank of San Ramon in excess of 550,000.
The bank loan was the source of the money for the Town's loan to the Alliance,and is secured by the
Child Care Fund. In essence, the 550,000 `forgiveness' represents the difference in interest terms
between the Bank/Town loan and the Town/Alliance loan and is the Town's contribution to the
project. With the proceeds of the loan,the Alliance has installed two day care centers,one at Green
Valley School and one at Montair. The Alliance loan directly addresses the public purpose of
providing quality child care facilities at school sites, allowing two-earner families to continue
%vorking to support their families, deals with the issue of latch Lev children, and provides a host of
other benefits to society. There being a clear public purpose to the loan, the interest forgiveness
clause(in reality an interest deduction)docs not constitute a gift of public funds."
-24-
Report Number Title Agency Status
9203 County Sick Leave Program Bd. of Supervisors
Recommendation#1 Accept
Establish a new written sick leave policy within this fiscal year
Recommendation#2 Accept
Provide managers, on a regular basis, documentation of the sick leave usage of each person under
their supervision.
Recommendation#3 Accept
Require managers to emphasize their interest and concern about sick leave during regularly
scheduled meetings with their staff.
Recommendation#d Accept
Compel that an evaluation of sick leave usage be a factor in the employees' ,performance review.
Report Number Title Agency Status
9204 Voting Process County Clerk/Recorder
Recommendation#1 Accept
Continue efforts which have resulted in a smoothly functioning voting process and continue
innovative efforts for further mechanization of the process.
Report Number Title Agency Status
9205 Apparent Misuse of Bond Funds CCNVD
Recommendation#1 Accept
The District General Manager and the Board of Directors adopt and implement policies and
procedures applying bond spending restrictions within two months.
Recommendation#2 Reject
The District General Manager immediately have an independent auditor review all spending against
bond issues to identify all improper procedures within two months.
Response(R) "Employees involved in the use of bond funds have received training regarding the
appropriate expenditures of bond proceeds. Los Vaqueros Project staff review invoices for
appropriateness prior to authorizing payment. As an additional control„ the Project accountant in
the Finance Department reviews all approved Los Vaqueros invoices for any apparent
irregularities."
Recommendation#3 Accept
The District General Manager transfer all improperly spent bond proceeds to the proper accounts
within N-o months.
-25-
Renort Number Title Agency Status
9206 Replacement Merrithew Hospital Bd.of Supervisors
Recommendation#1 Accept
The Health Services Administration, the County Administrator and the Board of Supervisors
continue to operate in the manner so ably demonstrated by their diligence and professional
competence toward the goal of providing health care to those who most need these services.
Report Number Title Agency Status
9207 Apparent Conflict of Interest,CCWD CCWD
Recommendation#1 Accept
The Contra Costa Water District Board of Directors inform the California Fair Political Practices
Commission of this report and those matters which are the subject of the findings of the Grand Jury.
Recommendation#2 Accept
The Contra Costa Water District Board of Directors immediately adopt procedures to assure
compliance with Section 87103 of the California Government Code.
Report Number Title Agency Status
9208 Juvenile Hall Facilities Board of Supervisors
Recommendation#1 Accept/Modified
Within one month appoint one person with appropriate authority to lead and coordinate all efforts
to replace or renovate Juvenile Hall,Alternate sources of funding should be evaluated.These could
include: Bonds, County redevelopment funds, financing and lease-back by the Public Facilities
Corporation,private corporations that could provide financing on a lease/purchase arrangement.
Response(AM)
"On April 7 the Board of Supervisors referred to its Internal Operations Committee the
establishment of a Juvenile Hall replacement planning program. The Board also asked its Finance
Committee to review issues related to financing the planning process or the construction funding
alternatives. The County Administrator will lead and coordinate all efforts to replace or renovate
Juvenile Hall following the Board's review of its committee recommendations and subsequent
direction."
Recommendation#2 Accept/Modified
Within two months authorize an analysis of remodeling versus replacement to determine the best
course of action.This analysis is to be completed within six months.
Response(AM)
"Matters concerning replacement or renovation of Juvenile Hall have been referred to the Board's
Internal Operations and Finance Committee."
-26-
Report Number Title Agency Status
9214 Summary Report of Responses to 1990-91 Grand Jury Reports
Recommendation#1 Accept/Modified
Establish a computerized database to provide for and facilitate tracking of recommendations,
responsible agencies and officials, transmittal dates, responses, dates due and receipt and type of
response.
Response(AM)
"The 1992-93 Grand Jury accepts the Grand Jury's recommendation. We are in the process of
looking into options for forming and maintaining a database at the County's data processing center.
If financing is available,a working database could be in place within the year."
Report Number Title Agency __ Status
9211 Travel Expenses—CCWD CCWD
Recommendation#1 Accept
The Contra Costa Water District Internal Auditor again review travel expenses by July 1992 to
determine current performance.
Recommendation#2 Reject
Review by the Contra Costa Water District Internal Auditor be broadened to examine the
justification for trips and include verification and reporting of associated costs such as Directors'
fees and registration fees.
Response(R)
"...The Internal Auditor's report released in July 1991 addresses CCW"travel expenses.The report
primarily identifies indiscretions of the former General Manager, not the Board of Directors.
Directors' fees are considered a payroll expense rather than a travel expense and are therefore not
reported as a cost of travel. Registration at conventions is included in the employee's travel
authorization request which is approved by the employee's supervisor prior to the travel-."
Report Number Title Agency Status
9212 CCWD Board of Directors Interfere with District Operation CCWD
Recommendation#1 AcceptlModified
The Board of Directors clearly define the difference between making policy and operating the
District.
Response(AM)
"The Board of Directors appoints the General Manager,District Secretary,and Internal Auditor of
the District (Section 2.04.020 (D), District Code of Regulations). The administrative responsibility
for each individual is specifically set forth in class specifications. The General Manager's
responsibility is to `plan, direct and review the activities of the District'. The General Manager is
responsible for the administration of the District consistent with Board policy. A copy of the class
specification for General Manager is enclosed."
-27-
Recommendation#2 Accept/Modified
The Board of Directors immediately adhere to the policy they have established and allow the staff to
operate District business without Board interference.
Response(AM)
"It is the intention of the Board of Directors to continue to let the interim General Manager, and the
new General Manager,when appointed, be responsible for the administration of District activities,
consistent with his/herresponsibilities as set forth in the class specification.""
Report Number Title AQencv Status
9214 Juvenile.Hall Population County Probation Officer
Recommendation#1 Accept/Modified
Determine the causes of failure of the"early release"procedure to control the population and make
the procedure workable..
Response(AM)
"...In order to `make the procedure work" an alternative residential program for minors lacking
parental supervision, but:who are otherwise `releasable' could reduce the population by 24 youth.
Also needed are home super-Osion/home arrest staff and additional custody intake staff to effectuate
release and alternatives.to detention. It is unlikely that funds will be available for additional
Probation Department resources this fiscal year..."
Recommendation#2 Accept
Develop and improve procedures to expedite placement or transfer of detainees.
Recommendation#3 Accept
Assess the economic aspects of using additional permanent staff as opposed to routinely using
temporary or part-time employees(often involving overtime costs).
Report Number Title Agency Status
9215 Juvenile Hall Riot of November 16, 1991 County Probation Officer
Recommendation#1 Accept/Modified
Require at least one skilled and well trained permanent supervisor be on duty at the Hall at all
times.This should be implemented immediately.
Response(AM)
"Staff assigned to supervise Juvenile Hall are skilled and well trained. This recommendation has
been implemented except for temporary relief due to illness."
Recommendation#2 Accept
Hold quarterly training drills with Hall.supervisors and other personnel to make sure procedures to
be followed in emergencies such as riots,escapes and loss of keys are thoroughly understood.
Recommendation#3 Accept
Determine the highest ratio of temporary to permanent staff that can be tolerated to safely operate
the Hall,and establish procedures to ensure compliance.
-28-
Report Number Title Agency Status
9216 Employees' Retirement Association CERA
Investment Policies/Obligations
Recommendation#1 Accept
Continue to closely monitor the performance of the money managers.
Recommendation#2Accept
Institute a procedure within 3 months whereby assessments of real estate and foreign currency
investments are currently recorded.
Recommendation#3 Accept
Develop criteria within 3 months for screening the accuracy of the information provided to the
actuary.
Report Number Title Agency Status
9217 External Audit of Contra Costa County County Auditor/Controller
Recommendation#1 Accept
Modify and improve procedures to eliminate the need for substantive year-end, pre-audit
adjustments.Any and all necessary closing adjustments or consolidations should be performed prior
to commencement of the 1991-92 audit.
Recommendation#2 Accept
Insure timely reconciliation of all bank accounts. Use appropriate source documents to support
accounting entries.
Report Number Title Agency Status
9218 A Hazardous Admirtum of Detainees in Juvenile Hail County Probation Officer
Recommendation#1 ' Accepted/Modified
The 1991-92 Grand Jury recommends that the County Probation Officer prepare a plan to ensure
the separation of violence-prone detainees from the rest of the Hall population.
Response(An
.Violence-prone residents tend to be the older more sophisticated delinquents. The majority of
these are housed separately on the Diablo living unit. Occasionally pressures of high population
preclude this separation. The facility has three other living units, one for and-range boys, a coed
unit,and a unit for more disturbed youth.There is a need for a high security unit using an available
module,but funding is not available at this time.
"Every effort is made to properly classify and house residents according to their need and the safety
of others,including the residents' propensity toward violence.
"Refer the issue'of the location of violence-prone detainees to the Internal Operations Committee."
-29-
Report Number Title Agency Status
9219 Redevelopment Agency Debt Redevelopment Agencies See table below
Recommendation#1
For each redevelopment project, each Redevelopment Agency inform taxpayers in its District how
much property tax is to be diverted from the cities, the County and Special Districts within the
Redevelopment Area,and what measures are being taken to mitigate the loss of revenue.
Recommendation#2
Each Redevelopment Agency within Contra Costa County establish a citizens'advisory committee to
assist its Board of Directors in analyzing projects and their effect.
N.B.Responses are a matter of public record and are available on request
Agency Recommendation #1 Recommendation #2 s
Antioch Reject Reject
Brentwood Accept Accept
Clayton Non-response Reject
Concord Reject Accept
Contra Costa County Accept Accept
Danville Accept/Partial Reject
El Cerrito Reject Accept
Hercules Reject Accept
Pinole Accept Accept
Pittsburg Accept Accept
Pleasant Hill Reject Accept
Richmond Reject Accept
San Pablo Reject Reject
San Ramon Reject Accept
Walnut Creek Reject Accept
Report Number Title Agency Status
9220 Conditions of Detention Facilities CCC Sheriff
Recommendation#1 Accept
The Sheriff continue efforts to reduce overcrowding at Martinez Detention Facility.
Recommendation#2 Accept
The County Probation Officer compile and evaluate statistics on assaults on staff at the Hail.
Recommendation#3 AcceptlModified
The County Probation Officer provide the services described in the Ranch Orientation Packet.
Response(AM)
"Services provided to residents are designed to equip them with skills and knowledge necessary to
be a successful member of society. Changes to programs offered result from several factors,such as
a program being replaced by a better one,a new program is added,a program is dropped because it
is no longer adequate or participation is low, an outside resource no longer provides a program or
funding grants expire. The Probation Department continually seeks new resources and programs
that maximize graduates' chances for success upon release."
-30-
t-11 z
A REPORT BY
THE 1992-93 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GRAND JURY
: .:.... 1020.Ward Street
' Martinez, CA 94553
(510) 646-2345' .
Report No. 9304
T'HE NEED FOR MANAGEMENT AUDITS
1N CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
"Elected officials who are bylaw accountable for all
'expenditures of taxpayer funds have an obligation to insure
that those funds are used in the most cost-effective manner."
Approved by the Grand Jury:
.. Date: ,•��Jr �.3
nnemarie Goldstein
Grand Jury Foreman
Accepted for.' iling
Richard S. Flier
Judge of the Superior Court
SECTION 933 (c) OF THE CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE
Sec. 933. Findings and reconunend.ati.ons; com-
ment of governs ng bodies, elective officers,
or agenc•7 heads
(c) No laL-- than 90 days after the&--and jury submits
a final report on the operations of any public agency
subject to ITS reviewing authority, the Bove-ain;body of
the public ae=cy shall comment to the presiding judge of
the' superior court on the findings and recommendations
pertaining to matters under the control of the governing
body,and evcv elective county offices or agcy head for
which the and jury has responsibiilir pursuant: to
Section 914.1 shall comment within 60 days to the
presiding judge of the suncrior court,with an information
copy sent to the board of supervisors„on the findings and
recommendations Pertaining to matters under the control
of that county offies or agency head and any agency or
agencies which that officcr or agency head supervises or
controls. in any city and county, the mayor shall also
comment on the findings and recommendations. AD
such comm=ts and reports shall forthwith be submitted
to the presiding judge of the superior court who impan-
eled the grind jury. A copy of all responses to grand
jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the
public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the
mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those
offices. One copy shall be placed on file with the
applicabie grand jury final report by, and in the control
of the curr=tly impaneled grand jury, where it shall be
maintained for a minimum of five yews. (added by
Stam 1961, c 1284, § 1. Amended by Stam 1963 c 674,
§ 1. Stcu 1974, c 393. § 6.- Stats 1974, c 1396, § 3;
Srau 1977, c 107, § 6.• St=1977, c 187, § 1. Stars
1980. c 543. § 1. Stam 1981, c 203, § 1. Starr 198? c
1408. § S. Stam 1985. c 22L § 1; Stars 1987, c 690.
. 1; Srarx 1,988, c 1297 § 5.)
For-lcs § 9... added by Suts.19K c 1403. § 6. atncridcd by
Stau.1985.c-',1.S ,,operauvc.tan. 1. 1989.wzs r.-7o.1cd by Sum 1987.
c- 690. § --
Fornnc- § 9-3. MAA cd by Etats.1959. e 501. § ? was repealed by
Stats-1959. :. iS13. § 3.
-32-
THE NEED FOR MANAGEMENT AUDITS IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
SUMMARY:
In these days of diminishing revenues and resistance by the public to increased
taxes, Contra Costa County could benefit from an aggressive Management Audit
Program.
Such a program, properly directed, would allow the County to decrease casts
and/or maintain or increase services to the public without additional expenditures.
DEFINITION:
Management Audits.
'Mese audits are designed to investigate whether an operating unit is meeting its
objectives in the most efficient, economical manner.
Management audits have flexible methods of approach; however all contain
certain basic elements. They investigate and report on all duplication of effort,
overstaffing or other inefficient practices. Audits include critical reviews of
existing programs, the management systems used and any other factors that
inhibit maximum performance.
The basic objective of all Management Audit Programs is to improve performance
and/or reduce costs.
FINDINGS:
1. The State of California Government Code section 25250 states:
"...The Board of Supervisors shall examine and audit, or cause to be
audited, the financial accounts and records of all officers having
responsibility for the care, management, collection, or disbursement of
money belonging to the County or money received or disbursed by them
under authority,of law."
2. The Board of Supervisors meets the requirements of Government Code
25250 by engaging outside auditors to conduct an annual financial audit of
County activities.
-33-
3. The major objective of financial audits is to determine whether financial
statements fairly present the audited entities' financial condition according
to generally accepted accounting principles. This type of audit is commonly
referred to as "bean counting." Contra Costa County's Comprehensive
Annual Financial Report (CAFR) is an example of this type of audit.
4. An increasing number of cities and counties throughout the state are
conducting a type of Management Audit Program on an ongoing basis.
One example is the city of San Jose. From 1985 to 1989 their program has
shown savings in excess of 13 million dollars; which was more than three
dollars saved for each dollar of program expense.
5. Recent economic trends have reduced revenues available to public agencies.
6. There is a demonstrated resistance by the public for increased taxes.
7. Management audits have been successfully implemented in a public setting.
S. Management Audit Programs have been accomplished through the use of
private, qualified companies or by the establishment of in-house
departments.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. Changes resulting from an aggressive Management Audit Program can
meet overall operating objectives at less cost.
2. Contra Costa County meets the requirement of taw regarding financial
audits; however recent economic events coupled with public resistance to
increased taxes indicate the need to evaluate cost effectiveness of all County
operating units.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The Contra Costa County Grand Jury recommends that the ]Board of Supervisors:
1. Within six months, establish a Management Audit Program that insures
that monies expended will result in a net saving to the County.
2. The recommendations of the Management Audit Program should be made
to the highest possible level of responsibility.
-34-
COINUME\T:
i
Increasing fees or the establishment of benefit assessment districts should
not be seen as a substitute for increased efficiency. Elected officials who are
by law accountable for all expenditures of taxpayer funds have an
obligation to insure that those funds are used in the most cost-effective
manner.
I
f
-35-
A REPORT BY
" '>:,THE:1992-93 CONTRA.COSTA COUNTY GRAND JURY
1020 Ward Street
Martinez, CA 94553
(510) 646-2345
. .. .. . .::......::.
: : - R
. eport No: 9305
rocess Used`to Inform Voters
'
a:
of
Proposed Benefit Assessments
Approved by" the'Grand Jury:
Date 3 N1r y'93:
,
;.:,.:. :. .. •,,, , . Annemarie Goldstein
dJ
- Gran Jury Foreman
Accepted for Filing.-..
Dell 3
Richard S. Flier
f
Judge o the Superior Court
-3b-
SECTION 933 (c) OF T"ri� CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE
Sec. 933- Findings and recorimendations; com—
ment of governing bodies, elective officers,
or agencl heads
(c) No later than 90 days after the end jury submits
a final report on the operations of any public agency
subject to its reviewing authority, the soveraing body of
the public aeeacy shall comment to the presiding judge of
the superior court on the findings and recommendations
pertaining to matters under the control of the governing
body, and evc-y elective county office or apncy head for
which the =and jury has responsimury pursuant to
Section 9111'r.1 shall comment within 60 days to the
presiding judge of the superior court,with an information -
copy sent to the board of supervisors,on the findings and
recommendations pertaining to matters under the control
of that county officer or agency head and any agency or
agencies which that o$icc r or agency head supervises or
controls. In any city and county, the any shall also
comment on the findings and reccrnmendatiotis. AM
such comments and reports shall forthwith,be submitted
to the presiding judge of the superior cr-t= who impan-
ded the grand jury. A copy of all rc anses to grand
jury- reports shalt be placed on file with the clerk. of the
public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the
mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those
offices. One copy shall be placed on file with the
applicable grand jury final report by, and in the control
of the carr=tly impaneled grand jury, where it shall be
maintained for a minimum of five years. (Added by
Stasi 1961, c 1284, § L Amended by Stats 1963, c 674,
§ 1: Sta.-s-1974. c 393, § 6,- Stats.1974 c 1396, § 3.
Srars.l9 7 7, c 107, § 6.- Stars 1977, c 187, § 1; Stam
1980, c. 543, § 1: Stam 1981, c 203, § 1: Stam 198? c
1408, § S: Srau.1985, c 221. § 1: Scars 1987, c 690,
§ 1: Srars.1988, c 1297, § S.)
Fac-sir § 9:3, added, by Stats.1982, c. 1=08. § 6. amended by
Sum 1985.c.—"'1.§ 2.optative Jan. 1. 1989.wasr_�_led by Stau.1987,
C. 690. § I.
For:;c § 9:3, added by 'Scau.1959. c 501. y '_. was rr_pc�lcd by
Suts.1959. c. 1811. § 3.
-37-
SUMMARY:
In its January 1993 mailing to all parcel owners served by the Fire Districts
governed by the Board of Supervisors, the letter failed to inform the public that a
5% protest would force the measure to be placed on the ballot. The Grand Jury
believes that the public should be made fully aware of all pertinent information
when proposed tax assessments are recommended. The Board of Supervisors can ill-
afford being less than forthright with the electorate.
FINDINGS:
1, Government Code Section 50078.12 entitled Protest by persons obligated to
expend more than S percent but less than SO percent of expected revenue; required
vote or abandonment states:
"If the legislative body of a special district, including a county service area,
rinds that the protest is made by holders of property interests proposed to be
assessed and who will be obligated to pay the proposed assessment for fire
suppression service representing more than 5 percent but less than 50 percent of the
total amount of expected revenue from the assessment, and protests are not
withdrawn so as to reduce the same to less than 5 percent, the proposed assessment
so protested shall either be submitted to approval by a majority of the voters of the
district,city,zone,or area of benefit voting on the proposition or abandoned.
"If the value of the protests equals 50 percent or more of the total amount of
expected revenue from the assessment, and protests are not withdrawn so as to
reduce the same to less,than 50 percent, the proposed assessment so protested shall
be abandoned,"
2. The Board of Supervisors sent a letter to all parcel owners residing in the
areas serviced by the Fire Districts governed by the Board of Supervisors in January
1993 that summarized the urgent need for the proposed assessment for fire
suppression,
3. The mailing did not include any information concerning the provisions of
laws that provide for the submission of the assessment to approval of the voters.
-38-
CONCLUSIONS:
1. Although there may be a need for the special assessment, the failure of the
Board of Supervisors to advise voters of the 5% protest provision may create public
distrust
2. With the skeptical mood of the electorate concerning increased taxation, the
Board of Supervisors can ill-afford to be less than forthright in informative mailings
to the voters.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The Contra Costa County Grand Jury recommends that:
1. The Board of Supervisors immediately adopt a policy that requires. the
presentation of complete information concerning protests of assessments that can be
imposed without a vote of the people.
This proposed policy should include mailings, press releases and any other
avenue used by the Board of Supervisors in providing information to the voters.
-39-
-.- .....'•- - - -
_
A REPORT.BY
' is'.. _', `.:..`:.:.._; .:. : .• . .
�THE 1991993 CONTRA COSTA GRAND JURY
1020 Ward Street
-- - - - Martinea, California 94533
(510) 646-2345
:iREPORT No. 9306
1,
STATUS:OFAM.COUNTY FLEET MANAGE MW
Offae`space.. airangmuw `of servicz areas, and obsokte or ounnoded
i niadri{iery aad.tedrnology at the ACHANenue.site prema efficient operations.•
proved'by the Gland Jury
/ P -
*`
Annemari .19 14AM
e Gol
Grand Jury F
Accepted forlFiling:
Date= L` r�?�f3
Richard S. Flier
a_V22t
o Superior
Judge f the u Court
-40-
SECTION 933(c) OF T-HE CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE
Sec. 933. Findings and reco=endations; com-
ment of governing bodies, elective officers,
or agenc-,1 heads
(c) No later than 90 days afte--the C and jury submits 4
a final report on the operations of any public agency
subject to its reviewing authority, the gove.-ning body of ja
the public ag=cy shall cor mens to the presiding judge of ;
the superior court on the findings and recommendations
pertaining to matters under the control of the governing
body, and every elective county officer or agency head for
which the Band jury has responsibility pursuant to
Section 9114'.1 shall comment within 60 days to the
presiding judge of the superior court,with an information
copy sent to the board of supervisors,on the findings and -
recommendations pertaining to matters uncle.-the control
of that county ofnrcr or agency head and any agency or
agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or
controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also
comment on the findiam and recommendations. All
such cotluaeats and reports shall forthwith be submitted
to the presiding judge of the superior court who impar-
Bled the grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand
jury reports shall be placed on file with the cleric of the
public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the
mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those
offices. One copy shall be placed on file with the
applicable grand jury final report by, and in the control
of the currently impaneled grand jury, where it shall be
maintained for a minimum of five years. (Added by
Scars 1961, c 1284 §L Amended by Stars 1963, e 674,
§ 1: Sra=1974, c 393, § 6: Str=1974, c 1396, § 3.
Stam 1977, c 107, § 6: Stats 1977, c 187, § 1: Star
1980, c 543. § 1: Starz 1981, c 203, 1: Stats 198? c
1408, § 5: Stacy 1985, c 221. § 1: Sta=1987, c 690,
§ 1: Srarn 1988, c 1297, § 5.)
Former § 9:3, added by Stats.1982, c 1403. § 6, amended by
Stats1985,a 321.§ 2.operative Jan. 1. 1989,was rcpetld by Stats1987.
c. 690. §
Formcr § 933. added by Stats.1959, c 501. § 2. was repealed by
Stats.1959. c. 1311. § 3.
-41-
Summary
Fleet Management is a division of Contra Costa County General Services Department. It
currently operates on an annual budget of$6,000,000. A comparison of the budget with fleet
service operations in other counties and cities in California suggests this figure to be higher than
the established norms.
Shortcomings were noted in accounting systems, short and long-term planning, the vehicular
replacement budget, diagnostic and service equipment, accuracy of parts inventory and controls,
productivity objectives, and a lack of modem time-saving methodology.
I
it is the opinion of the Grand Jury that many of these deficiencies are caused by maintaining the
garage in an unsuitable and antiquated facility that was not designed for its present use. The
Grand Jury found that the Fleet Management does not practice prudent fiscal planning bemuse
of a diminished source of funds and an inability to stay abreast of the newest developments in
the field of government-6perated fleet service.
Findings
1. The annual budget for Fleet Management is in excess of$6,000,000, and is produced by
charging other departments-for the services it provides.
2. Fleet Management employs 28 persons and is responsible for repair and service of over
400 County-owned automobiles and 700 other units which includes trucks, road building
machinery, and generators.
3. The budgets of individual general-funded departments are established by the managers
of those departments, based on the prior fiscal year's experience and projections of
expenses for the coming year. The service and maintenance costs of department-owned
vehicles are included in the department budgets, but the amount of money is determined
and spent by the managers of Fleet Management as vehicle service is provided.
4. Accounting practices do not include depreciation schedules for the funding of replacement
of high mileage and aging vehicles. Depreciation schedules were established and
commensurate funds retained on more recently purchased sheriff department vehicles,but
the fund was appropriated by the County Administrator in the last budget cycle to offset
the loss of state funds.
5. More than 75 percent of the vehicles owned by the County have over 100,000 miles of
service according to staff testimony.
-42-
6. Departments were charged almost $800,000 for fuel and oil expenses and nearly
$2,500,000 for vehicle maintenance in fiscal year 1991-1992. Sheriff patrol vehicles,
which accumulate high mileage, had maintenance costs which averaged $1300 each for
the first 11 months of 1992 while Social Service department cars, which register fewer
miles, were $980 each for the same period.
7. On occasion,, the costs of repairs are greater than the market value of the vehicle being
repaired.
$. Charges for loaner vehicles continue to accrue when department-owned vehicles are,kept
by Fleet Management longer than promised for service or repairs. The State of
California and other jurisdictions stop charging departments when delays exceed a
predetermined time.
9. Departments incur additional charges when repairs aren't complete or effective and the
vehicle must be returned to the garage for further service. The exception to this practice
occurs when the problem is caused by a "flagrant" mistake of the mechanic. The
judgement in these cases is made unilaterally by Fleet Management"
10. It is not possible to capture the costs incurred by departments in lost man hours used
driving vehicles to and from the Martinez garage from outlying locations in Byron,
Marsh Creek and Richmond.
11. There are no standards for, or review of, the productive hours charged departments for
work done by Fleet Management auto mechanics, nor are 'there consequences for less
productive mechanics. Contradictory testimony was presented to the Grand Jury and
there was no written evidence of expectations for mechanics or histories of discipline for
the less productive mechanics. Fleet Management does not make use of industry
standards available in "flat rate" books, but makes judgements on what are "reasonable"
time factors for given tasks.
12. Office space, arrangement of service areas, and obsolete or outmoded machinery and
technology at the Shell. Avenue site prevent efficient operations.
• The general work areas appear unkempt and lack planning and organization.
• A number of fire extinguishers are inaccessible.
-43-
• Some oil changes are made without use of hoists or auto lifts and require that
mechanics crawl under the vehicles.
• On the day of inspection, the parts room was cluttered with parts and equipment
was scattered on the floor.
13. Contrary to industry standards and prudent business practice, the responsibility for
ordering, receiving, and maintaining parts inventory is not separated among stock room
personnel.
• A poor key control system results in lost time and additional charges while
mechanics look for them.
• Stock balances are not reviewed to establish minimum/maximum balances for
each item.
• The computer program for tracking costs, repairs, service history, and schedules
of maintenance on individual vehicles is outdated. An upgraded program,
although funded in 1991, is not yet on line.
14. Fleet Management has been located in the same inadequate building for over 40 years.
15. The County is negotiating for the sale of the present site of the Fleet Management
garage.
16. Architectural Services are in the planning stages of a new garage to be located on
presently owned County property.
Conclusions
1. Individual departments are penalized with increased vehicle costs when the Fleet
Management garage takes longer than the estimated•time to complete repairs, or if a
vehicle is returned to the garage because the repairs were not properly done.
2. There is no incentive for the Fleet Garage to operate in the most modern or cost-effective
manner when vehicles belong to other departments and charges to those departments are
increased by delays in accomplishing repairs and service.
3. The high mileage of fleet vehicles adds dollars to the cost of upkeep and repair.
-44-
4. The lack of production standards for mechanics prevents the Fleet Management from
operating at the highest level of efficiency and hampers its ability to compete with cost
of service of private providers. Without standards, comparisons of cost are not possible.
Recommendations
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors:
1. Direct Fleet Management to complete a study to measure the savings that
would be realized by its owning all county vehicles and leasing them to
the various general-funded departments. The study should incorporate
departments being charged on a depreciation schedule that would allow
savings over'the life of individual vehicles for replacement costs. The
study should be completed before January 1994.
2. Require that Fleet Management costs be compared, on an ongoing basis,
to private garages, and when similar services can be provided by private
vendors at less cost, work be let out by contract based on the lowest
responsible bid.
3. Explore more efficient assignment of tasks such as having mechanics
assigned to service similar make vehicles on a routine basis rather that
rotating assignments based on arrival of vehicles.
4. Enjoin Fleet Management to expedite installation of the new computer
program for record maintenance.
5. Acknowledged experts should be engaged to consult with Architectural
Services in the design of the new garage to insure inclusion of all recent
advances made in garage architecture. Plans for the new garage should
incorporate planning for the growth of the County's fleet needs for the
next 20 years.
6. Expedite planning and construction of the garage to increase efficiency
and cost-effectiveness of the Fleet Management.
7. Establish industry-based standards of productivity for Fleet Management
mechanics.
-45-
8. Explore alternative providers for the routine oil change and service of
vehicles by Fleet Management mechanics.
-46-
A
-REPORT BY
,THEI.1992-93 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY e-RAND JURY
1020 Ward Street
Martinez; CA 94553
.(510) 646-2345
Report No. 9307
CONTRA COSTA.COUNTY
ALTERNATE DEFENDER OFFICE
fal
Approved by.th.Grand.Jury.:
DatelYb4�;%93
Annemarie Gol in
. Grad Jury Fuerman
Accepted for Filing: ;.
Date:
Richard S. Flier
Judge of the Superior Court
-47
SECTION 933 (c) OF T-riE CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE
Sec. 933. Findings and recouuaendations; com-
ment of governing bodies, elective officers,
or agenc•-1 heads
(c) No late than 90 days after the &and jury submits
a final report on the operations of any public agency
subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of
the public ag=cy shall comment to the presiding judge of
the superior court on the findings and recommendations
pertaining to matters under the control of the governing
body, and every elective county officer or aamcy head for
which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to
Section 914.1 shall comment within 60 days to the
presiding judge of the superior court,with an information
copy sent to the board of supervisors,on the findings and _--
recommendations perttnin-to matters trade:the coa=l
of that county o£fi= or agency head and any agency or
agencies which that ofn-=- or agency head supervises or
controls. Ia any city and county, the mayor shall also
comment on the findings and recommendations. All
such comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted
to the presiding judge of the superior court who impan-
eled the grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand
jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the
public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the
mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those
offices. One copy shall be placed on file with the
applicable grand jury final report by, and in the control
of the curr=tly impaneled grand jury, where it shall be
maintained for a minimum of five years. (ridded by
Stars 1961, e 1284, §L Amended by Stam 1963, c 674,
¢ 1. St=1974, c 393. ¢ 6: Stars.1974, c 1.396, ¢ 3:
Srars 1977, c 107, § 6; Scars 1977, c 187, ¢ 1: Stam
1980, c. 543, § 1: Stars 1981, c 203, ¢ 1: Srars.1982 c-
1408,
1408, § 5: Scars 1985, c 22L ¢ 1: Stam 1987, c 690,
¢ 1: Sram1988, c 1297, § 5.)
Former § 9-3. added by Stam-1982. C- 1403. § 6. am=dcd by
Start 1985.c. 1.1 2.operative Jan. 1. 1989.was ruled by Stats.1987,
c690. § 2. _.. .
Forme. § 913. added by Stars.I959, c- Sol. § 2, was repealed by
Stats.1959. C. 1312 § 3.
-48-
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ALTERNATE DEFENDER OFFICE
Report 9307
BACKGROUND:
In criminal court cases wherein there is more than one defendant, circumstances
exist which would create a conflict of interest. When one defense attorney
represents two or more defendants, an alternative criminal defense system must bb
present. An example of the circumstances necessitating this alternative criminal
defense system would be when two or more defendants.are charged in one case
and one of the defendants agrees to testify against the other(s).
In Contra Costa County, until recently, the alternative defense need for indigent
defendants was addressed exclusively by the courts through the appointment of
private attorney members of the local bar association to represent them. The
private attorneys' fees were paid by Contra Costa County. In the latter part of
1991, the Contra Costa County Office of Public Defender established an Alternate
Defender Office (ADO).
The positive theory, of the Alternate Defender Office was to provide a legally
sufficient, effective and ethical defense mechanism which would be available to
indigent defendants-in the Contra Costa County defense system at a lower cost to
the taxpayers. An economy of expenditure with a balanced maintenance of service
quality was and is particularly important during this time of fiscal shortfall for all
public agencies.
Systemically, the ADO is composed of county-employed attorneys who are
assigned cases which cannot be defended by the regular Public Defender attorneys
because of conflict of interest. Private attorneys are still utilized in this program,
but to a lesser degree than in the past. A need still exists in some cases of conflict
of interest which may involve both the Office of the Public Defender and the
ADO.
The operations of the ADO are directed by branch supervisors," who exercise sole
control in decision making as it affects tactics, direction of attorneys and
allocation of most resources in the conduct of the cases assigned to the ADO. An
office manager reports to the Public Defender.
-49-
The ADO theoretically precludes the possibility of conflicts, of interest in cases
represented by the Office of Public Defender through the concept of legally-
sufficient
egallysufficient "ethical walls." The "ethical walls" theory, which is advanced by the
Office of Public Defender, would permit the ADO to handle cases "conflicted out"
by regular Public Defender attorneys. This is done by preventing breaches of
confidence. The client-attorney confidence would be preserved by devices designed
to maintain professional ethics. These devices include:
• ADO offices separate in distance from regular public defender offices.
• An independent communications system for the ADO.
• Branch supervisors who are solely responsible for the conduct of cases.
• Access to ADO client files which is only available to ADO personnel.
FINDINGS:
1. For the fust seven months of fiscal year 1992-93:
• The total of public moneys spent on defense of indigents in Contra Costa
County was $7,791,481.
• $4.559.022 or 58.51% was spent on the Office of Public Defender.
• $2,557,059 or 32.81% was spent for private bar association attorneys.
• $675,400 or 8.66% was spent for ADO conflict expenses.
2. For the first seven months of fiscal year 1992-93, the cost per felony case
defense assigned to the private bar was $1816.05: the cost per felony case
defense handled by of Office of Public Defender was $1110.64.
3. For the first seven months of fiscal year 1992-93, the cost per misdemeanor
case defense assigned to the private bar was $305.44: the cost per misdemeanor
case defense handled by the Office of Public Defender was $184.57.
4. For the first seven months of fiscal year 1992-93, the cost per juvenile case
assigned to the private bar was $929.00: the cost per juvenile case handled by
the Office of Public Defender was $452.17.
-50-
5. The legal concept of "ethical walls" which had its etiology in the case of Castro
v. Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors (1991) 232 Cal. App. 3d 1432, is a
subject of debate among public and private attorneys. The public attorneys of
the Office of Public Defender argue that the concept is valid for a public
defender's office ADO program. Private attorneys argue that it is
inappropriate in the present circumstances. An ADO program has existed for
some time in San Diego County, but apparently no case decisions have arisen
which would nullify the implementation of "ethical walls" in the structure of
an ADO program like Contra Costa County's.
6. On April 1, 1993, Presiding Judge Richard L. Patsey ruled under Section V. of
his decision:
Disposition
The motion by Conflicts Amicus to strike brief and declarations is denied.
The Court finds that James-Nolan have met their burden of proof that the
architecture of the indigent criminal defense system in Contra Costa
County does not create a substantial risk nor does it support the inference
that any represented defendant in that system is denied due process of law,
nor denied his or her Sixth Amendment right to counsel by virtue of that
system. Were the matter to proceed to a trial, the likelihood that James
and Nolan will not prevail on the merits is negligible.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. Thus far, the ADO program has proven cost-effective and capable of
conserving scarce public resources while providing a professional level of
public service.
2. There is presently no known legal restriction, either statutory or in case law
which impedes the implementation of an ADO program.
3. The ADO program, still in its infancy in Contra Costa County, needs to be
monitored for an extended period in order that a longer-range evaluation can
be made of its efficiency and continuing cost-effectiveness.
-51-
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The 1992-92 County Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors:
1. Continue its support and overseeing of the Alternate Defender Office of the
office of Public Defender.
2. Evaluate granting official departmental status to the ADO.
3. Require the monitoring of case decisions arising out of ADO-defended cases,
either in this county or elsewhere in the state.
CONIl 'N',T:
It is the opinion of the Grand Jury that the Board of Supervisors and the
County Administrator should be commended for their forward-looking
approval and overall direction of the ADO office of the Public Defender. As it
progresses into its second year of operation and faces operational and legal
challenges, the program concept is worth exploring to its greatest possible
potential.
-52-
ARE PORT BY
THE 1992.-93 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GRAND JURY
1020 Ward Street
Martinez, CA 94553
(510) 646-2345
Report No. 9309
I.
;MAN AGEMENT_OF PITTSBURG POLICE DEPARTMENT
"The Grand Jury is appalled by the actions of those sworn
officers whose unprofessional behavior
tolerated."
• has•been
Approved by.the Grarid Jury:
Date: ^i ldbi JJ
nnemarie ein
Grand Jury F eman
Accepted for Filing:;
t.99
Date: ,
Richard S. Flier
Judge of the Superior Court
-53-
SECTION 933 (c) OF THE CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE
Sec. 933. Findings and recommendations; com-
ment' of governing bodies, elective officers,
or agency heads
(c) No Iater than 90 dans after the Viand jury submits
a final repor: on the operations of any public agencv
q.
subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of
the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of
the superior court on the findings and recommendations
pertaining to matters under the control of the governing
body, and every elective county officer or agency head for
which the gland jury has responsibility pursuant to
Section 91=.1 shall comment within 60 days to the
presiding judge of the superior court, with an information
copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and
recommendations pertaining to matters under the control
of that county officer or agency head and any agency or
agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or
controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also
comment on the findings and recommendations. All
such comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted
to the presiding judge of the superior court who impan-
eled the grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand
jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the
public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the
mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those
offices. One copy shall be placed on file with the
applicable grand jury final report by, and in the control
of the currently impaneled grand,fury, where it shall be
maintained for a minimum of five years. (Added by
Stats 1961, c 1284, §1. Amended by Stats 1963, c 674,
§ 1; Sram 1974, c 393, § 6; Stara 1974, c 1396, § 3;
Srats.1977, c 107, § 6; Stats 1977, c 187, § 1; Stati
1980, c. 543, § 1; Stats1981, c 203, § 1, Stats.198?, c
1408, § 5; Stars 1985, c. 221, § 1; Stars 1987, c 690,
§ 1; Srars1988, c 1297, § 5.)
Former § 933, added by Stats.1982, c. 1408. § 6. amended by
Stats.1985.c. 721.§ 2,operative Jan. 1, 1989,was repealed by Stau.1987,
c. 690, § 2.
Former § 933. added by Stats.1959, c. 501. § 2, was repealed by
Stats.1959. c. IS12, § 3.
—54—
COMMENT:
Pittsburg, the City of New Horizons, has a culturally diverse population of
50,374 (April 1993) and a premium geographic location. These two factors
contribute to Pittsburg's potential for a vibrant future. The city is entitled to a
police department that such a promising future merits.
SCOPE OF INVESTIGATION:
Members of the public and City of Pittsburg employees requested that the
Grand Jury investigate allegations that the administration of the Pittsburg Police
Department (PPD):
(1) tolerated the harassment of subordinate employees by supervisors and
sworn high-ranking officers by its failure to provide a safe work environment;
(2) failed to maintain adequate records control;
(3) allowed favoritism to determine assignments and influence disciplinary
actions.
FINDINGS:
1. The Pittsburg Police Department administration includes the Chief of
Police, who reports to the City Manager, the Records Supervisor and four
Lieutenants, who report directly to the Chief, and eight Sergeants, who report to
the Lieutenants.
• There is no Captain or Commander level position.
• Three Lieutenants act as Division Commanders.
• One Lieutenant acts as a Community Policing Program manager.
2. Policy ##86.001 established the sexual harassment policy for the City of
Pittsburg in 1986.
3. In October of 1992, the City of Pittsburg revised the policy to require that
all city employees attend a training course on sexual harassment.
4. Until employees attended this course, there was little or no understanding
by employees of the legal aspects of sexual harassment, nor were they aware of
reporting procedures.
-55-
5. There have been numerous instances of sexual harassment of unsworn
personnel by supervisory and management staff in the Police Department.
• No reports were made by the victim or witnesses for fear of retaliation.
d. Hourly employees are "at will" employees and serve at the pleasure of the
appointing authority.
7. A command-level officer threatened lawsuits against employees if they
testified against him.
8. There was a noticeable hesitancy by some employees to testify, for fear of
retaliation.
9. One command-level officer has sexually harassed female employees. Prior
to attending the sexual harassment course, many of the female employees believed
that the behavior had to be tolerated.
10. Two command-level officers who denied any knowledge of specific incidents
of sexual harassment, not only had such knowledge, but one had reprimanded the
other on more than one occasion for sexual harassment.
11. There is a commonly held belief among Department employees that
assignments were based on favoritism.
12. There is no procedure in place that requires Lieutenants/Division
Commanders to submit monthly, quarterly or annual reports to the Chief of
Police.
13. Staff meetings for support personnel are held infrequently. As of March
1993, a meeting had not been held for five months.
14. One supervisor was unavailable to supply training and direction to
subordinates.
15. Supervisors spread rumors of matters told to them in confidence by
subordinates.
16. Statements by supervisors such as "You're lucky to have a job," were made
to subordinates.
17. Although there is a departmental procedure for handling evidence,
including narcotics, procedures were not followed in all cases.
-56-
18. The authority for signing for release of monies from department funds is
inadequately monitored. Control of access and prudent auditing of the funds are
lacking.
19. The Chief of Police does not maintain a secure and adequate retrieval
system for documents, memos, or staff communications.
20. Subpoenaed original documents could not be produced by police officials.
21. Penal Code §1534 mandates that search warrants must have a Return of
Service submitted to the Court within 10 days. There were no consequences for an
officer who had 17 warrants with Return of Service overdue for as long as nine
months.
22. In response to a multitude of problems within the Pittsburg Police
Department, the City of Pittsburg assigned a management consultant to investigate
and 'recommend changes in the operation of the department. The Career
Development Program (CDP) was the result of that investigation.
• The Management Consultant has no formal contract.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. There is internal strife and disarray within the Pittsburg Police Department
because of years of inadequate management.
2. There is widespread mistrust, harassment and a fear of intimidation among
Police Department personnel at all levels.
4. Clerical personnel are frustrated because of little supervision or direction
due to the unavailability of their supervisor.
5. The spreading of rumors by supervisors of matters told to them in
confidence by subordinates has fostered mistrust.
6. Statements by supervisory personnel such as "You're lucky to have a job,"
were perceived by employees as intimidation.
7. Threats of lawsuits against employees were also perceived as intimidation.
8. Existing Police Department Policies and Procedures are not consistently
followed or enforced.
-57-
9. Although the CDP is a positive step toward alleviating perceived favoritism
and requiring more accountability from employees, it is one reason for the present
dissension within the PPD because it requires the rotation of Sergeants and
Lieutenants from positions that are considered favored assignments in law
enforcement.
10. Good inter-departmental communication is the responsibility of the Chief
of Police. The Chief is either unaware of serious problems in the department or
chooses not to hold violators accountable.
11. The Grand Jury is appalled by the actions of those sworn officers whose
unprofessional behavior has been tolerated.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The 1992-93 Grand Jury recommends that the Pittsburg City Council require
that:'
THE CITY MANAGER AND THE CHIEF OF POLICE:
1. Aggressively enforce Policy #86.001 to ensure that all employees have a
clear understanding of how to report sexual harassment complaints without fear of
retaliation; and to protect employees against sexual harassment.
2. Immediately apply to the Commission on Peace Officers Standards and
Training (POST) for an in-depth management study.
THE CITY MANAGER:
3. Direct the Chief of Police to complete the implementation of the Career
Development Program.
4. Immediately develop a formal contract with the Management Consultant
that outlines expectations and time frames for specific projects.
• Require a monthly progress report on specific projects.
Within 90 days:
5. Review and evaluate Police Department Policies and Procedures.
6. Put in place a system to enforce compliance with these Policies and
Procedures.
-58-
7. Re-open and aggressively pursue follow-up on cases involving drug-buy
money and narcotics.
S. Require the -Chief of Police to submit written monthly, quarterly and
annual activity reports to the City Manager.
THE CHIEF OF POLICE:
9. Require monthly, quarterly and annual written reports from each Division
Commander.
10. Immediately create a retrieval system for all memos and documents,
including requests, suggestions, concerns and complaints. In addition, a written
response, when appropriate, should be directed to the originator.
11. Require accountability and follow-up for the handling of search warrants.
12. Require that .a support services supervisor be readily available for support
services staff.
13. Hold quarterly meetings with support services staff.
-59-
A REPORT BY
THE 1992-93 CONTRCOSTA COUNTY. GRAND JURY
A
1020.Ward Street
Martinez, CA 94553 .
- (510) 646-2345
Report No. 9310
KPMG PEAT MARWICK AUDIT REPORT
7-7
ved by the Grand Jury:
Dates/
unemarie Gol is
Grand Jury Fo man
Acce ted for.Fi1in
Date: : 19 3
64
Richard S. Flier
Judge f e Superior Court
-60-
SECTION 9 3 3 (c) OF TE—E CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE
Sec. 933. Findings and recot=endations; com—
Ment of governing bodies, elective officers,
or agenc-i heads
(c) No Iaz`:than 90 days after the and jury submits
a final recon on the operations of any public agency
subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of
the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of
the superior court on the findings and =omtmendations
pertairuing to matters under the control of the governing
body,and rvey elective county officer or ag=cy head for
which the Viand jury has responsioiliry pursuant to
Section 91=.1 shall cotament within 60 days to the
presiding judge of the superior court,with an information --
copy sent to the board of supervisors,on the findings and
recommendations pertaining to matters under the control
of that county officcr or agency head and any agency or
agencies which that offic,= or agency head supervises or
controls. in any city and county, the mayor shall also
comment on the findings and resomiaendations. All
such comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted
to the presiding judge of the superior court who impan-
Bled the grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand
Jury- reports shall be placed on file with the cleric of the
public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the
mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those
offices. Cte copy shall be placed on file with the
applicable grand jury final report by, and in the control
of the carr=tly impaneled grand jury, where it shall be
maintained for a minimum of five years. (Added by
Stars 1961, c 1284, ¢ 1. Amended by Stars 196.1, c 674,
y 1; Src:s1974, c. 393, § 6,• Stars1974, c 1396, ¢ 3,
Sram 1977, c 107, § 6: Stars 1977, c 187, § 1: Stam ;
1980, c 543, ¢ 1: Stasi 1981, c 203, § 1: Stats 198? C-
1408.
1408. § 5,• S,=1985, c 22L § 1: Stars 198'7, c 690,
§ 1, Sram 1988, c 1297, § 5.)
Former § 9:., added b1 SraM1982. c 14—S. § 6, amended by
stats.19as.e.'—n.§ =.operative Jan. 1.1989,was r_-,eslcd by Stam1987,
c. 690. § Z.
Forme- § 933. addcd by Suts.1959. a 501. § ? was repelled by
stats.1959. c. 131", § 3.
-61-
AUDIT REPORT-KPMG-PEAT MARWICK
Report No. 9310
SUMMARY:
The Grand Jury accepts the audit report by KPMG Peat Marwick and
concurs with the observations and recommendations given in the Management
Letter of December 20, 1992 (copy attached). However, the Grand Jury
emphasizes that the prompt completion of the Comprehensive Annual Financial
Report (CAFR) must be assured.
FINDINGS:
1. The Government Finance Officers' Association (GFOA) is a professional
organization that issues Certificates of Achievement (COAs) for excellence
in financial reporting by various governmental agencies.
2. The COAs are considered by the financial institutions that establish
Financial ratings for various businesses and other organizations.
3. A high financial rating allows the various organizations to have better
access to and a lower rate of interest for borrowed funds.
4. To qualify for a COA, financial reports must be submitted on or before
December 31.
5. Contra Costa County has received a COA Certificate from GFOA for the
past ten years.
CONCLUSION:
Failure to submit the financial report to GFOA before the end of the year could
ultimately result in a lower financial rating for the County. A lower rating
restricts the ability of the County to attract needed funds and would increase the
cost of borrowing funds.
RECOMMEENDATION:
The 1992-93 Grand Jury recommends that the County Administrator work with
the Auditor/Controller to insure the timely completion of the Comprehensive
Annual Financial Report. If necessary, the assignment of additional personnel
should be considered to assist in accomplishing its timely completion.
-62-
KeRffl' G'APeat Marwick
Certified Public Accountants
2121 No. California Blvd.. Suite 840 Telephone 510 943 1555 Telefax 510 946 0371
Walnut Creek.CA 94596-7304
December 30, 1992
CONFIDENTIAL
The Honorable Grand Jury
The Honorable Board of Supervisors
County of Contra Costa,California
We have audited the general purpose financial statements of the County of Contra Costa for
the year ended June 30, 1992, and have issued our report thereon dated November 13,
1992. In planning and performing our audit of the general purpose financial statements of
the County of Contra Costa, we considered its.internal control structure in order to
determine our auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinion on the general
purpose financial statements and not to provide assurance on the internal control structure.
We have not considered the internal control structure since the date of our report.
During our audit we noted certain matters involving the internal control structure and other
operational matters that are presented for your consideration. These comments and
recommendations, all of which have been discussed with the appropriate members of
management, are intended to improve the internal control structure or result in other
operating efficiencies and are summarized in the attached letter.
Our audit procedures are designed primarily to enable us to form an opinion on the general
purpose financial statements and, therefore, may not bring to light all weaknesses in
policies or procedures that may exist. We endeavor, however, to use our knowledge of the
County's organization gained during our audit to make comments and suggestions that we
hope will be useful to you. We would be pleased to discuss these comments and
recommendations with you at any time.
This report is intended solely for the information and use of the Grand Jury, Board of
Supervisors and management of Contra Costa County.
Very truly yours,
-63-
KPMG-Peat Marwick
BUDGETARY PROCESS
During the 1992-93 fiscal year, the State of California experienced significant difficulties in
balancing its budget. The State implemented a realignment program which transferred a
portion of property tax revenues from California counties to school districts in addition to
reducing funding of various other programs. Additionally, the effects of the state and local
economic recession have driven property values down causing a decrease in the growth rate
of property tax revenues from the previous years. For the year ended June 30, 1992, the
County's General fund had an operating deficit of approximately$10 million reducing its
ending fund balance 24% from the previous year to$41.5 million.
In response to these difficult economic conditions, the County eliminated some 560
positions including the layoff of over 300 employees in the 1992-93 fiscal year. Because
the economy has not shown marked improvement over the past year, it is possible that
further reductions in personnel and/or programs will have to be made in the future.
Therefore, we urge the County to continue to evaluate its operations in light of these
conditions and incorporate their potential impact into the annual operating budget.
POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
INVESTMENT POLICY-REAL ESTATE
We noted in the previous year that the investment policy of the Employees' Retirement
Association (ERA)did not address how to account for temporary or long-term declines in
the market value of its real estate investments. We also noted that the likelihood for a
decline in market values has increased given the current condition of the real estate market.
Our review of the real estate investments this year indicated that one of the portfolio
properties had suffered an impairment which was deemed to be other than temporary.
The total carrying value of real estate investments at June 30, 1992 was$74.4 million with
a market value of $67 million. For the fiscal year ended June 30, 1992, the County
recorded a loss of$2.5 million on one of its investment properties to reflect a decline in the
market value of the property below its carrying value. An additional $1.35 million was
recorded to reflect the decline in value of another property which was in the process of
being sold.
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) specify that long-term investments
whose values have been impaired should consider whether the impairment is a temporary .
condition. If the impairment is determined to be other than a temporary condition--not
necessarily permanent—a write-down of the investment is required.
Beginning in 1990, the ERA implemented an informal policy to have its real estate
properties appraised every two years by an independent appraiser. Subsequent to June 30,
1992, the ERA's Board amended its investment policy to include a section for real estate
market value declines. Where a property is repeatedly appraised at a value lower than its
cost,the Board stated it would consider reflecting the market value in the ERA's financial
statements. Additionally, where the Board has determined that a property will be sold in the
near future, the lower of market value or cost would be reflected in the financial statements.
-64-
kAMG;Peat Marwick
With respect to the Board's policy, we recommend ithat the ERA be more definitive in its
proposed treatment of a situation in which a property s repeatedly appraised at a value
below its cost. We support a two year appraisal period in which to re-evaluate the market
value of a property. However, a property that has been appraised a second time at a value
below its carrying value should reflect the appraised value unless there is persuasive
evidence indicating that the property value will recover. Such treatment is consistent with
GAAP.
CLAIM PAYMENTS
The County contracts with an outside contractor,Delta Dental,to administer dental claims
filed by County employees. The administrator submits a detail of the claims received
during the month to the County. The County then remits to the administrator the amount of
claims payable. Upon actual payment of the claims by the administrator,a confirmation of
payment notice is sent to the County at which time the expenditure is recognized in the
accounting records. The expenditures related to claims reported as of June 30, 1992 were
not recognized in the financial statements.
We recommend that the County recognize the liability and related expenditure for the dental
claims filed by employees through fiscal year-end at the time it receives notification of the
claims from the administrator rather than when the claims are paid. Implementation of this
procedure will improve the County's financial reporting,
ACCOUNTING POLICY AND PROCEDURES MANUAL
As noted in our previous year's letter to management, we recommended that the County
develop a comprehensive written manual to document its accounting policies and
procedures. Although we noted that the County was in the process of compiling such a
document,it has not yet been completed.
We recommend that the County continue its efforts to develop and complete this manual
which addresses the various aspects recommended in our previous year's letter.
INTERNAL ACCOUNTING CONTROLS
ASSET ACCOUNTABILITY
The County Treasurer is responsible for safekeeping and investing the cash of all County
funds,school districts, and other entities for which the County is a custodial agent of cash
deposits. In fulfilling this responsibility,the Treasurer is authorized to invest these monies
in time deposits, bankers' acceptances, securities, mortgages, repurchase and reverse
repurchase agreements. The Treasurer is able to identify the ownership of its investments,
by fund, through the use of a sophisticated computer software system that generates a
report indicating the respective ownership interests.
The County Auditor-Controller's department is responsible for maintaining an accounting
system which represents the official accounting records of the County. These records are
maintained on the County's general ledger system. This system reports all of the assets,
liabilities,revenues and expenditures of the County including cash and investments held by
the Treasurer. We noted that a periodic reconciliation between the Treasurer's internal
records and the County's general ledger is currently not performed.
-65-
KPMG-Peat Marwick
We recommend that the Treasurer reconcile its internal reports to the general ledger on a
monthly basis. This reconciliation should be documented in the form of a worksheet in
which all reconciling items are explained and supported by proper documentation. Upon
completion of the reconciliation, a copy of the worksheet should be forwarded to the
Auditor-Controller's department for concurrence with its records.
This reconciliation is an important internal control for the County in that it establishes
accountability over its liquid assets. Implementation of this procedure will significantly
improve the County's internal control structure over cash and investments by helping the
County ensure that: o
- Cash and investments recorded in the genual ledger are properly accounted for,
- Cash and investments under the control of the Treasurer are properly recorded
in the County's general ledger,
- The possibility of misappropriation of assets is significantly reduced.
INVESTMENT ACCOUNT RECONCILIATION
The ERA has numerous investments in its portfolio. One such investment is with an
international fund (Brinson Parmers). We noted that'a reconciliation of this investment
account.as recorded in the County's general ledger,-to the monthly investment statement
was not performed at year end. We noted a difference of a.ppmximately$3 million between
the County's general ledger and the fund statement. This situation was caused primarily by
timing differences that were eventually reconciled when brought to the attention of County
management
We recommend that a reconciliation of the international fund account be made between the
general ledger and the fund statement on a monthly basis. This reconciliation should be
performed by the ERA and may be reviewed by the Intemal Audit department during the
course of their annual audit of the ERA's financial statements. Performance of this
procedure will ensure that all reconciling differences are addressed satisfactorily and that
the investment account is properly stated
YEAR-END ACCRUALS
We noted two revenue accruals made at the end of the 1990-91 fiscal year which were not
reversed during 1991-92 fiscal year. This resulted in an overstatement of revenues and
accounts receivable. The first accrual related to supplemental taxes in the special revenue
fund for approximately $800,000. The other accrual,of approximately $115,000, related
to the Health Services department.
We recommend that the County establish a system of controls to ensure that all year-end
revenue accruals are reversed in the beginning of the next fiscal year. Implementation of
this procedure will improve the accuracy and reliability of the County's financial statements
and ensure that they are in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles.
-66-
KPMGi Peat Marwick
INTERNAL ADJUSTMENTS
We noted the Auditor-Controller's department made a number of"post-closing" accounting
adjustments and reclassifications to the financial statements. These adjustments were
primarily an extension of the closing process which prepares the financial statements for
audit and publication in the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. We noted,however,
a significant decrease in the number and dollar value of audit adjustments from the previous
year.
We recommend that the County address internal adjustments as part of its closing process
to ensure that all necessary adjustments are completed prior to commencement of the y=-
end audit. A comprehensive closing checklist should be used to assist the County in this
regard.
OPERATIONS
ENCUMBRANCES
The County uses a system of encumbrances to reserve fund balance for goods and services
for which it has a legal commitment. The encumbrance is relieved upon receipt of the
invoice and an expenditure and payable is established. The County has a policy whereby
encumbrances outstanding at the end of the next fiscal year are automatically purged from
the purchasing system and the fund balance is released. A report is produced that details
the encumbrances that were deleted. The Accounts Payable department is responsible for
researching the status of these encumbrances and determining if they should be re-
established into the system. An effort is made to obtain input from the departments in
making this determination; however, in the absence of their response, the encumbrance is
re-established. This situation could potentially result in the unnecessary reservation of fund
balance which could otherwise be used by the County to fund other needed expenditures.
We recommend that the County purge all encumbrances outstanding longer than one fiscal
year. The departments which originally established the encumbrance should be notified
and allowed to determine whether it should be re-established. This will place the
responsibility of determining the validity of the encumbrance on the respective departments,
ensuring that only necessary encumbrances are established and that the County makes
efficient use of its available resources.
FINANCIAL REPORTING
REPORT PREPARATION
The Comprehensive Annual Financial Report represents the culmination of effort on the
part of many departments and individuals in the County. This report, which is submitted
annually to the Government Finance Officers Association(GFOA), has received from this
organization a certificate of achievement for its excellence in financial reporting for ten
consecutive years- In order to qualify for this award, the report must conform with
rigorous standards of financial reporting and disclosure. It must also be submitted to the
GFOA by December 31. The receipt or lack of receipt of an award may impact the County
with respect to its investment ratings by such investor agencies as Moodys and Standard
-67-
OXI
KPMG�Peat Marwick
and Poor. This, in turn, may directly impact the County's cost of issuing debt. Therefore,
it is important that the County receive this award annually.
We noted that the County encountered difficulties in preparing this year's report which
lengthened the time to complete its publication. The preparation of a Comprehensive
Annual Financial Report is a lengthy process which requires a sufficient amount of
resources both at the technical and clerical levels. Personnel assigned to the process should
possess the necessary qualifications to adequately perform the tasks assigned to them. The
preparation process should also include a system of independent review in which all
sections of the CAFR are reviewed by a person independent of the one who prepared theta.
We recommend that the County evaluate the adequacy and sufficiency of its resources in
determining the necessary steps to ensure adequate preparation of its CAFR.
-68-
'A REPORT BY
THE 1992=1993' CONTRA COSTA GRAND JURY
1020 Ward Street
Martinez, California 94533
- = (S1U) 64l-2345
REPORT No. 9311
USE.OF THE-INMATE-WELFARE FUND
0.
"7he: County's., Inmate Welfare Fund policy requires that expenditures for
ur'l es'lie solei':kr the benefit,education and welfare of the inmates.
;. Approveri by the Grand Jury:
•
Date: r1 193
emarie Go in
Grand Jury Fer6man
Accepted for.Filing:
_.. .Date:-
. Richard S Flier
Judge of the Superior Court
-69-
SECTION 933 (c) OF Tran CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE
Sec. 933. Findings and recc=endations; com-
meat of governing bodies, elective officers,
or agent,.r heads
(c) No later than 90 days after the&ad jury submits
a final report on the operations of any public ;agency
subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of
the.public agency shall comment to the prsi.ding judge of
the superior court on the findings and recommendations
pertaining to matters under the control of the,governing
body,and every elective county once or mercy head for
which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to
Section 914.1 shall comment within 60 days to the
presiding judge of the superior court,with an information
copy sent to the board of supervisors,oa the findings and
recommendations pertaining to matters under the control
of that county officer or agency head and any agency or
agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or
controls. In. any city and county, the mayor shall also
comment on the findings and recommendations. All
such commerts and reports shall forthwith be submitted
to the presiding judge of the superior court who impan-
eld the grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand
Jury reports shaIl be placed on file with the clerk of the
public agency and the office of the county cleric, or the
mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those
offices. One copy shall be placed on file with the
applicable grand jury final report by, and in the control
of the currently impaneled grand jury, where it shall be
maintained for a minimum of five years. (Added by
Stam 1961, a 1284. ¢Z Amended by Stats 1963, c 674,
1; Sr=1974, c 393. ¢ 6; Stars1974. c 1396. § 3;
Srau1977 c 107. ¢ 6. Star=1977, c 187, 11; Sram
1980, c 543, 11. Stars 1981, c 203. 11.- Stars198? c
1408, § 5; Srau 1985, c 221, ¢ 1; Starz 1987, c 69Q
¢ I. Stars 1988, c 1297 ¢ 5.)
Fortner 1 913. added by Stat0982, c. 140L 16. =ended by
StatL1985.a"=1.12.opcadve Jan. I.I989.was rid by Stau.2987.
C. M. § :.
Fortner § 933, added by Stats 1959. c. 5o 1. 12. vas repc:lei by
Smm1959. c. 1812. § 3.
-70-
Findings:
1. Title 15 of the California Code of Regulations sets the standards for an accounting of the
Inmate Welfare Fund in Section 1043.
2. Section 1043 requires that each facility administrator develop a written policy regarding
the appropriate use of the Inmate Welfare Fund in accordance with Penal Code Section
4025.
3. Penal Code Section 4025 dictates that "money and property deposited in the inmate
welfare fund shall be expended by the sheriff solely for the benefit, education, and
welfare of the inmates confined within the jail." (emphasis added)
4. Contra Costa County Detention Facility Policies and Procedures -Inmate Welfare Fund,
issued September 22, 1988, governs the use of this county's Inmate Welfare Fund and
provides guidelines for the Committee that controls its expenditure.
5. The Inmate Welfare Fund Committee is composed of Sheriffs Department employees,
the Director of Inmate Services (whose salary is paid with Inmate Welfare Funds), and
the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Corrections and Detention Services Advisory
Commission.
6. There are no inmates or former inmates on the Committee. The Sheriffs Department
maintains that the transient nature of the inmate population prevents any direct
involvement on the Committee by inhabitants of the jail.
7. Upon release, former inmates are not allowed to return to the facility. If an inmate were
on the Committee he or she would not be able to attend the quarterly meetings which are
held in the detention site.
8. Inmates may pass their suggestions for expenditures of the Welfare Fund to any staff
member for forwarding to the Committee.
9. County policy requires that the Inmate Welfare Fund Committee meet during the first
month of each quarter of the year, and more often as necessary. Minutes of each
meeting are to be maintained in the Inmate Welfare Fund file and a copy forwarded to
the Sheriff.
10. There were only five meetings held between October 1989 and May of 1993.
-71-
11. The County's Inmate Welfare Fund policy requires that expenditures for purchases be
"solely for the benefit, education and welfare of the inmates."
12. The Committee has the responsibility of reviewing prices charged; considering profit
margins; establishing and reviewing inmate spending limits; planning and recommending
major expenditures; recommending an annual budget to the sheriff; and examining the
accounting practices and procedures employed.
13. The Committee is required to prepare an itemized annual report of all Inmate Welfare
Fund expenditures for approval by the Sheriff and review by the Board of Supervisors.
14. The Director of Support Services is required to do an annual inventory of Inmate Welfare
Fund property.
15. In the List seven years the Committee has spent $164,505 for the purchase of weight
machines for use at the three facilities.
16. Article 6, Section 1065 of Penal Code Section 6030 [Exercise and Recreation] states the
"Facility administrator shall develop and implement an exercise and recreation program,
in an area designed for recrtation, which will allow a minimum of dU= hours of such
activity distributed over a period of seven days."
17. The minutes of the meeting held October 2, 1989 state that $7,800 was requested to
install acoustical material on E module in the Martinez Detention Facility. The request
was approved by the Committee.
18. The minutes of June 5, 1990 Committee meeting report that it was agreed that the inmate
Welfare Fund would spend "up to $75,000 for partial replacement of the carpet at the
Martinez Detention Facility. The facility commander will decide which areas are to be
given priority." This justification for this expenditure was that the existing 11-year-old
carpets were worn and smelled bad.
19. In the last six months of 1992 the Inmate Welfare Fund paid $82,709 for the partial
replacement of carpets in the Martinez Detention Facility.
20. Article 8, Section 1105 of Penal Code Section 6030 [Design Requirements] sets the
standards for design and construction of housing areas so that the average noise level
does not exceed 70 decibels during the day or 45 decibels during sleeping periods.
-72-
21. At the meeting of June 5, 1990, it was unanimously agreed that the Inmate Welfare Fund
would pay $20,000 "to study the effects of the DEUCE program, recidivism, etc."
DEUCE is a 90-day class room program on substance abuse taught by the County Office
of Education staff.
22. The research project contract was issued August 16, 1991 and was due to terminate
August 31, 1992.
23. At the meeting of September 3, 1992, it was agreed to continue funding the DEUCE
research project and to make the final payment of$5,000 in fiscal 1992193.
24. The project is now scheduled to be finished in October 1993. It will provide research
material based on a study of 50 inmates.
25. The Inmate Welfare Fund paid $106,065 for the construction of a parking.lot at the
Marsh Creek Facility. The parking lot was dedicated to the use of visitors of the inmate
population. The Sheriff reported that the previous small parking lot was inadequate
because "it was unpaved and downhill from the visiting center so that it was used only
by those who were physically able to make the climb and excluded the elderly and
handicapped."
26. The unaudited books for fiscal 1991-92 reflect that the Inmate Welfare Fund started the
year with $404,369 and increased its assets by $558,804 during the year. The Fund
expended $163,253 for maintenance and repair of county-owned and operated facilities
and equipment. During that same time it spent $5,640 on personal care items for the
inmates of the three facilities.
27. Over the last 30 years the Sheriff has asked for the County Counsel's opinion when
considering purchasing equipment or making improvements to various facilities under his
jurisdiction. The County Counsel has cautioned the Sheriff to be certain that the primary
and direct benefit of any purchase not flow to the Sheriff rather than the inmates. In
1970, the Sheriff asked the County Counsel if Inmate Welfare Funds could be used to
purchase a cash register to assist in proper accounting for personal monies removed from
prisoners when being booked into the jail. County Counsel replied that thd Sheriff's
statutory duty to account for, and properly handle, the property and money of inmates
overrides any incidental benefit to the inmates and the inmates already have a right to any
benefits that may indirectly ensue for them from the purchase of a jail cash register.
-73-
Conclusions:
1. Seven of the nine members of the Inmate Welfare Fund Committee are employees of the
Sheriff. Authorization for expenditures requires a simple majority of the Committee.
2. There is not a prescribed method for suggestions from the inmate population to get
directly to the Committee, nor does a video prepared for new inmates and paid for by
the Inmate Welfare Fund, mention the Fund or how it is to be used.
3. The Inmate Welfare Fund Committee'does not holding meetings at the frequency
required by the Sheriff's Department Policy and Procedure manual; nor are minutes of
Committee meetings posted in the living units or facility public areas as required.
4. The purchase of weight machines at the exclusion of most other qWS of recreation
equipment reflects a limited view of possible forms of exercise.
5. The Penal Code requires that the Sheriff provide a recreation and exercise program for
inmates.
6. Carpet replacement is a facility maintenance responsibility of the Sheriff and should have
been funded from his budget. The original carpets were installed as part of the structure
when the building was erected. Without carpets the State would not have approved the
jail for occupation. It is no more reasonable to use Inmate Welfare Funds for carpet
replacement than it would be to use them for replacement of water heaters or air
conditioners.
7. The State requires that buildings and facilities be accessible to physically challenged
persons. Using Inmate Welfare Funds to pay for a parking lot is beyond the "solely for
the benefit, education and welfare of the inmates" limitation, regardless of who uses it.
8. The research project of the DEUCE program is not solely for the benefit or education
of the inmates and would have been better funded by some other source.
9. The expenditure of less than $6,000 on personal items for the inmates of all three
facilities out of the $558,804 generated by the inmates is unconscionable.
10. Over the last thirty years the Sheriffs Department has sought direction from County
Counsel on the expenditure of Inmate Welfare Funds. County Counsel has consistently
advised the Sheriff to use the Fund only when it will be solely and directly for the
benefit, education or welfare of the inmates.
-74-
Recommendations•
The 1992-93 Contra Costa Grand Jury recommends that the Sheriff:
1. Immediately remove three Sheriff Department employees from the Inmate
Welfare Fund Committee.
2. Within the next 90 days recruit and select both a Municipal and a Superior Court
Judge to serve on the Inmate Welfare Fund Committee.
3. Through the offices of Friends Outside or a similar organization, begin a
recruiting process to find two former inmates to serve on the Inmate Welfare
Fund Committee. The recruitment and selection of new members should be
completed within 120 days;
4. Immediately establish an on-going system of review with the County Counsel's
office to assure the Committee that future purchases are for the sole benefit,
education, and welfare of the inmates of the County facilities.
S. Immediately stop the use of Inmate Welfare Funds for facility maintenance.
6. Within 60 days design, promote, and institute a formal method for inmate
suggestions to be forwarded for consideration by the Inmate Welfare Fund
Committee. The system should include a process for decisions made by the
Committee to be communicated back to the inmate making the suggestion.
7. Through proper over-sight and supervision, be certain the Committee is following
its own policies and procedures governing meetings, posting of minutes, and
capital purchases.
-75-
A REPORT. BY
-' '.. .THE 1992-1993 CONTRA.;COSTA GRAND JURY
1020 Ward Street
_- Martinez, California 94533
(510)'646-2345
REPORT No. 9312
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY'S MERIT SYSTEM
'!'h�nflids bdween the power of the people and the rota gists
of f.the union, the "ll,of ;he people to ensure public
accountability must pre►ail.' .
'. :.Approved:by the Grand Jury
Date: l9 /uG�f
. Annemarie GolMfein
Grand Jury Foreman
Accepted for;Filing:
D-afe
Richard S. Flier
Judge of the Superior Court
-76-
SECTION 9 3 (c) OF '?-.:E CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE
Sec. 933. Findings and reco=endations; com-
ment of governing bodies, elective officers,
or agenc-1 heads
(c) No IzL than 90 days after the C..nd jury submits
a final report on the opemdons of any public agency
subject to its reviewin; authority, the governing body of
the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of
the superior court on the findings and recommendations
pertaining to matters under the control of the governing.
body,and every elective county officer or agency head for
winch the pand jury has responsioility pursuant to
Section 914.1 shall comment within 60 days to* the
presiding judge of the.superior court,with an information -
copy sent to the board of supervisors,on the findings and
recommendations pertaining to matters under the control
of that county offics or agency head and any agency or
agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or
controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also
comment on the findings and recommendations. All
such comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted
to the presiding judge of the superior court who impan-
eled the grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand
jury reports shah be p1.1=d on file with the clerk of the
public agency and the ofn-= of the county clerk, or the-
mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those
offices. One copy shaII be plan,.-d on file with the
applicable grand jury final report by, and in the control
of the currcatly impaneled grand jury, where it shall be
maintained for a minimum of five yeah. (Added by
Start 1961, e 1284, ¢1. Amended by Sx =1963. <_ 674,
§ 1. Sra=1974, c 393, § 6. Stau1974, c 1396, § 3;
Srau 19 i7, c 107, ¢ 6. Start 197.7, c 187, § I. Stats
1980, c 543, § 1. Srau 1981, c 203, § 1, Stars 198? c
1408. § 5; Sxm 1985. c 22L ¢ I. Stars 1987, c.690,
§ I. Stau 1988 c 1297. § 5.)
Former § 913, added by Scau.1982. c. 1403. § 6. amended by
Smmt9ss.c?._t.§ t op=&e Jan. 1.1989.was rrpalei by Star&1987,
c. 690. § :.
Former §.93s, added by S:zm1959. a 501. § ?. was mpenled by
StaM1959. c. 131:.. § 3.
-77-
SCOPE OF INVESTIGATION:
In response to citizens' inquiries, the Grand Jury initiated an investigation to determine if Contra
Costa County's Personnel Management Regulations (PMR), legally binding regulations that
implement the voter-approved Merit System, have been preempted by agreements negotiated
with employee unions.
SUNIlViARY:
In June of 1980, the voters of Contra Costa County approved a Merit System Reform Ordinance.
In December of 1981, the Board .of Supervisors (Board) adopted legally binding Personnel
Management Regulations to implement the Ordinance. One of the objectives of the Merit
System Ordinance was to assure the public that those responsible for malting and implementing
public personnel policy, the Board of Supervisors, would be held accountable.
The voter-mandated Merit System has been compromised. Over the past twelve years, unions
have negotiated agreements causing Memorandum of Understanding (MOLT) sections to conflict
with the Merit System's PMR.
The Board is required to give appropriate notice and to adopt PMR amendments in public
session. The Board has not consistently used this procedure, but instead has ratified conflicting
MOU sections resulting in de facto amendments to the PMR
In the context of a voter-mandated merit system, the will of the people to insure public
accountability must prevail.
FINDINGS:
1. California Government Code §31100 empowers Contra Costa County to adopt, by
ordinance of the Board, a merit service system for the employees of the County. Any
such ordinance, however, shall not go into effect unless approved by the voters of the
County.
2. On March 18, 1980, the Board passed Resolution 80/290 submitting to the voters a
reformed merit system to modernize the existing 36 year-old civil service system.
3. The Merit System Ordinance was placed on the ballot as Measure "A". The argument
in favor of the Merit System Ordinance stated the measure represented an effort to:
-78-
• "...fix public accountability for personnel matters clearly on the
Board..."
• "...provide County department heads with more management
flexibility while increasing their accountability to the Board..."
• "...insure that merit principles form the foundation for every
action and regulation..."
No argument against Measure "A" was filed.
4. On June 3, 1980, the voters of Contra Costa County adopted the new Merit System
Reform Ordinance 80-47. Its provisions include:
• Incorporation of "...all existing civil service and personnel
rules, regulations and administrative bulletins relating to personnel
matters..." into all existing memoranda of understanding. (Section
V)
o Provision for adoption of a legally binding set of merit system
regulations: The Board"...shall by resolution establish regulations
for the merit system to carry this division into effect. These
regulations shall have the force of law and shall be administered
by the County Administrator or designee..." (Section 1, part 12)
5. On January 27, 1970, the Board passed Ordinance 7-17 (codified as Ordinance Code
Division 34) which enacted a set of general rules governing Employer-Employee
Relations. Chapter 34-8 defined the exclusive right of the County to administer the Merit
System, to make all decisions of a managerial character and to direct its employees. On
October 6, 1981, Ordinance Code Division 34 was repealed and replaced by Resolution
81/1165, which incorporated its provisions.
6. On December 15, 1981, the Board adopted Resolution 81/1468 enacting legally binding
Personnel Management Regulations (PMR) implementing the Merit System for affected
County employees (union represented and management personnel).
• Resolution 81/1468, however, states "...that where a provision
contained in the Personnel Management Regulations conflicts with
a provision contained in a Memorandum of Understanding with a
recognized employee organization, the provisions of. the
Memorandum of Understanding shall prevail..."
-79-
7. Government Code §3505.1 authorizes the Board to approve MOUs with recognized
employee organizations. In Contra Costa the Board has approved MOUS with eleven
bargaining units and in each MOU there is a section subordinating the PMR to the terms
of the MOU by stating:
Where 'a specific provision contained in a section of this
Memorandum of Understanding conflicts with specific provision
contained in a section of the Personnel Management Regulations,
the provision of this Memorandum of Understanding shall prevail.
8. During the past twelve years, unions have negotiated agreements with the Board causing
sections of the MOU to conflict with the Merit System's PMR. An example is PMR
§503, "Promotion By Reclassification Without Examination" as compared with §15.3 of
an existing MOU. There are differences between the documents.
• Most significantly, the.PMR states that after consultation with
the appointing authority, the Director of Personnel may promote
an employee from one job classification to another without
examination as long as certain conditions are met. The MOU
requires all of the conditions listed in the PMR and adds that the
union must approve the promotion before it can be made.
The claim by a union to a veto right over the Personnel Director's power to promote
without examination is an irreconcilable conflict between the Merit System's PMR and
the MOU.
9. PMR§1701 defines the method by which the Board shall make amendments to.the PMR.
The procedure requires public notice and a majority vote of the Board.
CONCLUSIONS•
1. The Merit System Reform Ordinance (Measure "A") and related resolutions contain
contradictory language.
2. The MOUS are styled to appear*to be in harmony with the PMR, however, there are
irreconcilable differences among the documents.
3. Contra Costa County Resolution 81/1468 allows for MOUS to supersede applicable
provisions of the PMR contrary to the Merit System Ordinance and the ballot arguments
in support of Measure "A". The intent of the Merit System was to subordinate MOUs
to the system of merit service adopted by the voters.
-80-
in support of Measure "A". The intent of the Merit System was to subordinate MOUS
to the system of merit service adopted by the voters.
4. The Board has compromised management prerogatives by its ratification of MOUS which
contradict the provisions of the PMR.
5. Ratification of an MOU'should not constitute a de facto amendment of the PMR. The
ballot argument in favor of the Merit System Ordinance describes the measure as an
effort "... to fix public accountability for personnel matters clearly on the Board of
Supervisors..." For that reason, it is important that the prescribed amendment procedure
be consistently utilized.
For the Board to modify PMR provisions to accommodate a negotiated change in the
MOU, each Supervisor must accept accountability for his/her actions. That can be done
only if they are required to give notice in meeting agendas of their intent to amend the
PMR, to propose those amendments in writing, and to adopt them by majority vote in
public sessions.
6. By adopting Measure "A", the electorate of Contra Costa County voted to insure that
merit principles formed the foundation for personnel matters. In conflicts between the
power of the people and the interests of the union (in the context of a voter-mandated
merit system), the will of the people to ensure public accountability must prevail-
RECONUVEENDATIONS:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors reaffirm the intent and spirit of the
voter-mandated Merit Reform System and the Board's commitment to insure that merit principles
form the foundation for all personnel action and regulations by:
1. Within 60 days, require the County Administrator:
A. Identify for the Board all provisions of the respective Memoranda of
Understanding which are now in conflict with the Merit Systems's
Personnel Management Regulations.
B. Resolve the identified conflicts by recommending to the Board whether the
PMR should prevail or be amended to accommodate the existing provision
within the MOU.
-81-
• Decision criteria should include: (a) complying with merit
principles, (b) maintaining management prerogatives, and (c)
serving the public interest.
2. Resolve that in the future, provisions of the PMR and MOU shall be in
agreement.
• Direct the County Administrator to incorporate the recommended
resolution in all Memoranda of Understanding at the time of future
contract negotiations with the respective unions.
3. Immediately agree to utilization of PMR §1701 to make any amendments to the
PMR, giving appropriate notice and voting in public session.
-82-
A REPORT BY
.THE 1992-93 CONTRA'COSTA COUNTY GRAND JURY
1020 Ward Street
Martinez, CA 94553
(510) 646-2345
Report No. 9313
CITY OF CONCORD REDEVELOPMENT
--------- -- --.."The Grand Jury-finds it-unacceptable that the City of Concord
...:.:.:..
has'not maintained careful historical records of such large
expenditures of pub ic'funds."
Approved by the Grand Jury:
Date'
Annemarie GoWAein
Grand Jury Foreman
Accepted for Filing:
Date:
--•---, .,. ._......:..._....._._. .......--_.--=--- --. .. _... .. -.:. . .. - . Richard S. Flier
Judge of the Superior Court
-83-
SECTION 9 3 3 (c) OF THE CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE
Sec. 933. Findings and recommendations; com-
ment of governing bodies, elective officers,
or agency heads
(c) No 1az.-:than 90 days after the end,jury submits
a final reaort on the operations of any public agency
subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of
the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of
the superior court on the findings and recommendations
pertaining to mattes under the control of the governing
body, and every elective county office:or agency head for
which the ==d jury has responsibility pursuant to
Section 9114.1 shall comment within 60 'days to the
presiding judge of the superior court,with an information
copy sent to the board of supervisors,on the findings and - -
r amrnendations pertain to matters under the control
of that county officer or agency bead and any agency or
agencies which that office.-or agency head supervises or
controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also
comment on the findings and recommendations. All
such comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted
to the presiding judge of the superior court who impan-
eled the grind jury. A copy of all responses to grand
jury reports shaIl be placed on file with the clerk of the
public agency and the office of the county clerk, ar the
mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those
offices. One copy shall be placd- on file with the
applicable _=and jury final report by, and in the control
of the currently impaneled grand jury, where it shall be
maintained for a minimum of five years. (Added by
Stats 1961, c 1284. §1. Amended by Stars 1963, c 674,
§ 1. Sra=1974, a 393. § ei Sta=1974, e 1396, § 3,
Stats 1977, c 107. § 6. Stats 1977, c 187, § 1. Stars
1980, c 543. § 1. Stars 1981, c 203, § 1. Stam 1987 c
1408. § 5. Stats 1985, c 221. § 1; Stars 1987, c 690.
§ 1; Stats 1988, c 1297. § 5.)
Forcer § 9,3, added by Sma.1982. c 1403. § 6, amended by
Stats-1985,e.':1.§ Z.operative tats. 1. 1989.was repcied by Stats1987,
c. 690. § 2.
Former § 933, added by Stats1959, c 501. was repelled by
Stau.1959. c. 1312. § 3.
-84-
i
CONCORD REVELOPINIENT AGENCY
Report No. 9313
SUMMARY:
The Concord Redevelopment Agency (Agency), established in 1974, has identified
twenty-nine projects in its Redevelopment area. Of these projects, twenty-one have
been completed. In June of 1993, the Agency reported a debt of $110,674,805.
The Contra Costa County Grand Jury was appalled to learn during its
investigation that the Agency could not provide sufficient documentation
evaluating each project on how it met community needs, met established goals,
improved the quality of life, and rated its financial success or failure.
FINDINGS:
1. The Concord Redevelopment Agency, established in 1974, has twenty-nine
projects, completed or under construction, as of June, 1993.
2. The Agency has a Board of Directors (the City Council), a Citizens'
Advisory Committee and four full-tune employees.
3. The Statement of Indebtedness as of June 1993 was $110,674,805.00.
4. The Agency has identified twenty-nine projects within the Redevelopment
Area. Twenty-one are completed, two are in progress and the balance is land held
for development.
5. The Agency provides a yearly audit as required by law; however, the audit
does not address the expenditure of tax dollars for individual projects.
6. Individual project expenditures are available, but have not been compiled
in a report for the Board of Directors (The City Council), or the public.
7. The current budget for the Agency is $1.4 million, $800,000 of which is
paid to the City of Concord for support services.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The absence of comprehensive reports on individual projects limits the
Board's ability to make sound management decisions.
2. The lack of documentation prevents the Board of Directors, the Advisory
_ Council and the public from determining whether or not individual projects have
met community needs or pre-established goals.
-85-
3. The absence of individual project financial analyses inhibits the Board's
ability to determine whether or not these projects are generating sufficient revenue
to service their current debt.
4. The Agency's budget of$1.4 million would seem to be sufficient to compile
a comprehensive report of completed projects.
S. Without a clear, recorded history of redevelopment projects and their
fiscal and social impacts on the community, the Grand Jury concludes that staff
recommendations and the Board of Directors' decisions may have been made
without adequate historical background.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The Contra Costa County Grand Jury recommends that, within six months, the
Board of Directors of the Concord Redevelopment Agency:
1. Direct the Agency to compile a report for each completed project which
would include, but not be limited to the following:
a. Projected vs. actual expenditures.
b. Projected vs. actual revenues.
c. Evaluation as to whether anticipated goals were met.
d. The value of the project to the community.
e. Evaluation as to whether the project is meeting current debt service.
Z. These reports should be made available to the Board of Directors, the
Agency's Advisory Committee and the public.
3. These reports should be accessible on a current basis and compiled in an
annual report.
COMMENT:
The American philosopher, George Santayana, has said that those who
cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. The Grand Jury finds it
unacceptable that the City of Concord has not maintained careful historical
records of such large expenditures of public funds. Community needs can and will
change through the coming years; an adequate record for future decision makers
is essential for the efficient operation of all governing bodies.
-86-
-
A REPORT BY
THE-1992=1993 CONTRA COSTA GRAND JURY
1020.Ward Street
Martinez, California 94533
(510) 646-2345
REPORT No. 9314
THREAT TO THE GRAND JURY PROCESS
Board of Sqw viaora forr f Grand Jurors to subsidize rhe County for
(,raird Jury.servfix, it could remit in taorrming the patipdion that the Grand
Jury is not intewW to rrpwrsent all geographic and socio-economic segments of
the.Co s populatto' ' n.'.
- ' - only
Approved by. the Grand.Jury:.
Date:,- .[1(,Q ✓3 l/YX11i'KQ,� f
emarie Go ds in
Grand Jury Foreman
Accepted for.Filing:
Date: /k 1 993
AM
Richard S. Flier
Judge of the Superior Court
-87
SECTION 933 (c) OF T-HE -CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE
Sec. 933. Findings and recommendations; com—
ment of governing bodies, elective officers,
or agenc--1 heads
(c) No Iz.tc:than 90 days after the grand jury submits
a final report on the operations of any public agency
subject to its reviewing authority, the governillg body of
the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of
the superior court on the findings and recommendations
pertaining to matters under the control of the governing
body, and every elective county officer or ag_ncy head for
which the grand jury has responsibiiiry pursuant to
Section 91-.1 shall comment within 60 days to the
presiding judge of the superior court,with an information
copy sent to the board of supervisors,on the findings and
recommendations pertaining to matters under the control
of that county officer or agency head and any agency or
agencies which that offic:r or agency head supervises or
controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also
comment on the findings and recommendations. A11
such commcats and reports shall forthwith be submitted
to the presiding judge of the superior court who impan-
eled the grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand
jury- reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the
public agency and the office of the couny clerk, or the
mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those
offices. One copy shall be placed on file with the
applicable grand jury final report by, and in the control
of the currently impaneled grand jury, where it shall be
maintained for a minimum of five years. (Added by
Stam 1961, c 1284, § L Amended by Stam 1963, c 674,
§ 1. Sram!974, c 393, § 6, Stats.1974, c 1396, § 3,
Stats 1977, c 107, § 6.• Stats.1977, c 187, § 1. Stam ;
1980, c 543. § 1. Stals 1981, c 203, § 1, Stam 198? c
1408, § 5; Starz 1985, c 221, § 1; S=1987, c 690,
§ 1; Stars1988. c. 1297, § 5.)
Former § 9:3, added by Stats-1982. c 1403. § 6, amended by
Stau.1985,c.'_1.§ t operative Jan. 1.1989,was ruled by StaM1987,
c690, § 2.
Former § 933, added by Stats,1959, c. 501. § 2. was repealed by
Stau.1959. c. 1312. § 3.
-88-
ndin s•
1. The Grand Jury is the official "watchdog" of all local governments. It is charged with
the authority to investigate the accounts, operations, and records of local government
and is armed with the power of subpoena to aid it in its work.
2. The Grand Jury inspects entities for inefficiencies, irregularities; and when necessary,
it brings indictments or accusations against county employees, officers, or departments
for wrongful performance of duties. To date the 1992-93 Grand Jury has responded to
over 170 communications of concern from citizens.
3. The State of California requires that each county pay Grand Juror expenses from the
general fund of the county. (Penal Code §§890 and 890.1) The State has established
minimum compensation at $10 per Jury meeting. While only one Committee meeting
per day is reimbursed, many Contra Costa Grand Jury members attend two or more
during the course of a day and evening.
4. Last year's Grand Jury expenditures were $101,887, which included rental of office
space, outlay for telephone charges, publishing costs, secretarial help, outreach and
recruitment costs, and other necessary expenses.
5. The County Administrator's Office has arbitrarily recommended a budget of$55,000 for
the Grand Jury, without regard to prior years' expenses.
6. Qualifying mileage and meal costs are reimbursed to Grand Jurors on the same schedule
as county employees.
7. The State Controller's review of Grand Jury appropriations for comparable California
counties in fiscal year 1991-92 found that Alameda County's per capita costs were$.21,
Mann's $.21, San Mateo's $.35, while Contra Costa's were $.09.
8. If the County Administrator's recommended budget is approved by the Board of
Supervisors, the per capita cost to the residents of Contra Costa County for its Grand
Jury will be reduced to approximately$.06 and will force jurors to subsidize the County.
9. Recruitment efforts are made to include representatives of all ethnic, geographical and
socio-economic groups within the County.
10. Grand Jurors are expected to commit a minimum of 20 hours per week to the work of
the Grand Jury. The hours spent by the Foreman and Committee Chairs are substantially
more than 20 per week.
11. Based on the average meeting attendance, Grand Jury members receive $120 a month.
That equates to approximately $1.50 per hour.
-89-
12. Because of budget cuts, the time allotted this year for jury assistance by the assigned
Superior Court secretary has been reduced by 50 percent from the previous year. Jury
reports, correspondence, general typing,and other clerical chores are now done by jurors
at home, on their own time.
Conclusions:
1. The budget recommended by the County Administrator's Office will cripple the Grand
Jury's ability to perform its mandated functions.
2. Forcing jurors to subsidize the County for Grand Jury service could risk losing equal
representation of all geographic and socio-economic groups within the County.
3. A comparison of past Grand Jury budgets with those of other Counties demonstrates that
Contra Costa County has grossly underfunded its Grand Jury.
4. The County Administrator puts at risk the Grand Jury's ability to perform the over-sight
responsibilities,the State legislators were addressing when they required counties to pay
Grand Juries out of county general funds.
Recommendations:
The 1992-93 Contra Costa Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors:
1. Accept the proposed $107,800 1993-94 Grand Jury budget.
2. Reaffirm the policy that Grand Jury members will receive compensation and will
be reimbursed for mileage and meal expenses. at the same rate as county
employees.
Comment:
If the Board of Supervisors forces Grand Ju'rors to subsidize the County for Grand Jury
service, it could result in confirming the perepetion that the Grand Jury is not intended
to represent all.geographic and socio-economic segments of the.County's population.
-90-
A REPORT BY
t ,
THE 1992-1993 CONTRA COSTA GRAND JURY
1020 Ward Street
Martinez,.Califomia 94533
(510) 646-2345
REPORT No. 9315
Fire.Protection Personnel Costs
'A Frcfghier, after three and a half years of service. co=
-
;he appraurnately$80,O00 annually. The Board of
Supervisors; responsible for approving labor contracts,has a
unique'opportunity to lighten the burden of the taxpayers.
Approved by.the Grand Jury:..
.: .;..Date: Z
4e!arie Go in
Grand Jury Foreman
Accepted for Filing:
• Date:
-
Richard S. Flier
Judge of the Superior Court
= -91-
SECTION 933 (c) OF THE CALIFORNIA PEINAL CODE
Sec. 933. Findings and reco=endati.ons; com-
ment of governing bodies, elective officers,
or agenc- heads
(c) No lest-:than 90 days after the;=d jury submits
a final report on the operations of any public agency
subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of
the public ag=ncy shall comment to the presiding judge of
the superior court on.the findings and recommendations
pertaining to matters under the control of the governing
body,and every elective county officer or agency head for
which the rand jury has responsibility pursuant to
Section 9114.1 shall comment within 60 days to the
presiding judge of the superior court,with an information
copy sent to the board of supervisors,on the findings and
recommendations pertaining to matters under the control
of that county officer or agency head and any agency or
agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or
controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also
comment on the findings and recommendations. All
such comm--n and reports shalt forthwith be submitted
to thep residing judge of the superior court who impan-
vied the grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand
jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the
public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the
mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those
offices. One copy shall be placed on file with the
applicable grand jury final report by, and in the control
of the curr=tly impaneled grand jury, where it shall be
maintained for a minimum of five years. {Added by
Stats 1961, c 1284, § L Amended by Stats 1963, c 674,
§ I; Sra=1974, c 393. § b; Stats 1974, c 1396, § 3;
Srars 1977, c 107, § 6; S=1977, c 187, § 1; 'Stam
1980, c 543, § I: Stats 1981, c 203, § 1, Stats 198? c
1408 § 5: Stars 1985 c 22L ¢ 1; Sr=1987, c 690,
§ 1; Stars 1988, c. 1297, § 5)
Former § 933, added bt St=.1982, c. 1405.' § 6, amcndd by
suts.19m c.''1.§ 2.operative Jan. 1. 1989,was rcp=ld by Suts.1987,
C. 690. § 2.
Former § 933. added by SLats.1959. c- 501. § ? was repeald by
Suu.1959. c. 1S1?. § 3.
-92
Scope of Investigation:
In response to citizens' concerns about the potential reduction of fire protection services due to
Contra Costa County's financial crisis, the Grand Jury initiated an investigation to determine
how fire service salaries, which account for 89% of the Fire Protection Districts' budgets, are
established.
Summary
Over the past eight years, the firefighters have received a compounded actual salary increase of
71.3 percent and management personnel has received a compounded actual salary increase of
62.1 percent. These percentages do not include benefits.
The Board of Supervisors Board approved a Memorandum of Understanding for a four-year
period ending December 31; 1992. The Memorandum defined a "ratcheting" formula designed
to ensure that fire service salaries would at least equal the "average of the Top Ten Fire
Districts in the Bay Area". The formula;which may raise salaries to progressively higher levels
contains key elements over which the Board has no control or influence. By agreeing to this
formula, the Board of Supervisors has lost the flexibility to set salaries according to the County
Fire Protection District's ability to pay.
At this time of fiscal crisis, the Board of Supevisors has a unique opportunity to redefine all
aspects of its Memorandum of Understanding with Fire Fighters' Local 1230.
F ndings:
1. The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors (Board) serves as ex-officio Governing
Board of the Contra Costa County, Moraga, Orinda, Riverview, and West County Fire
Protection Districts (FPD).
2. Pursuant to Government Code §3505.1 (Myers-Milian-Brown Act), representatives of
Contra Costa County and the United Professional Fire Fighters, IAFF,Local 1230(Local
1230) reached agreement on wages, and other terms and conditions of employment. On
February 28, 1989, the parties signed a non-binding Memorandum of Understanding
(MOLT) and presented it to the Board determination.
3. Subsequently, the Board approved the Memorandum between the FPD and Local 1230
for salary and employee benefit adjustments for a four-year period beginning
(retroactively) January 1, 1989 and ending December 31, 1992.
-93-
4. Section 5.1 of the MOU [Attachment 1] specifies how the General Wage Increases are
to be determined. It defines a formula designed to ensure that fire service salaries will
at least equal the "Average of the Top Ten Fire Districts in the Bay Area." ("Average
of the Top Ten")
• The primary components of the formula are the Consumer Price Index and
the "Average of the Top Ten."
5. Prior to the 1989 MOU, the General Wage Increases were determined without being
indexed to a formula.
6. In addition to General Wage Increases, §5.13 of the MOU provided for an "Acting Pay
Differential" [APD] for all classes represented by Local 1230. Previously,a represented
employee was paid "Pay for Work in a Higher Classification" only when the employee
actually*worked in the place'-of a person in a higher classification. Beginning on
February 1, 1989, all employees in represented classes were given an APD of two
percent whether or not work was done in place of a person in a higher classification.
7. Review of a 90-day period ending September 1992, indicates the percentage of times
incumbents actually worked in a higher classification:
Class Hider Class Percent of Total Time
Captain Battalion Chief 0.0
Sr. Firefighter Captain 7.8
Firefighter Sr. Firefighter 27.5
8. All represented classes, including Firefighter, Senior Firefighter, Captain, Dispatcher,
Senior Dispatcher, and Inspector receive the two percent "Acting Pay" regardless of
whether or not they are eligible to act in the higher classification or if even such a
position exists.
• The rationale for an "across the board" acting pay differential was an anticipated
reduction in administrative costs by no longer having to track work done in a
higher classification on an hourly basis.
0 Neither the Fire Protection District Administration nor the County
Administrator's office was able to provide the Grand Jury documentation to
support this rationale.
-94-
9. According to an October 1991 Board of Supervisors Workshop on Fiscal Issues of Fire
Districts, the general wage increases received by all employees represented by Local
1230 over the past eight years were as follows:
Effective date Percent Increase
1/1/85 6.8
6/1/86 7.7
8/1/86 1.5
1/1/87 5.0
7/1/87 2.0
4/1/88 3.9
1/1/89 4.4
1/1/90 8.3*
1/1/91 9.9*
1/1/92 6.3*
* Does not include the two percent "Acting Pay
Differential" given to all employees represented by
Local 1230.
Total Increase: 55.8%
Compounded Actual Increase: 71.2%
10. Annual overtime compensation averages over $6,200 per eligible employee.
Compensation is paid for work performed during major emergencies, weed abatement,
and to comply- with minimum staffing requirements negotiated with Local, 1230 and
specified in §25 of the MOU.
• For example, in calendar year 1992, the Contra Costa County Fire Protection
District paid a total of 1,158 shifts (of 24 hours) to comply with the minimum
staffing requirement. At an average overtime cost of$700 per individual, per
shift, the total cost of overtime to accommodate minimum staffing in one FPD
was over $800,000.
11. The annual compensation package plus the estimated cost of employee benefits equals the
taxpayers' total expense for the following classifications:
-95-
Annual Compensation* Benefits Total
Captain $72,060 $23,780 $95,840
Senior Firefighter . $64,032 $21,1131 $851163
Firefighter $60,096 $19,832 $79,928
Includes Base Salary (current top step), Holiday Pay, Basic Life Support Differential,
Acting Pay Differential, Uniform Allowance, and average overtime.
12. A Firefighter, after three and a half years of service is at the top of the classification and
costs the taxpayers approximately $80,000 annually.
13. Fire Protection District management has been given General Wage Increases identical to
those granted union-represented employees with the exception of the last increase in
1992. Union-represented employees were given a 6.3 percent increase and Fire
Protection District managers 1.0 percent. The General Wage Increases received by
managers over the last eight years were:
Total increase: 50.2%
Compounded Actual Increase: 62.1%
14. The annual compensation package plus the estimated cost of employee benefits for the
following &-tssifications,was:
Annual Compensation* Benefits Total
Battalion Chief $87,732 $28,952 $116,694
Assist. Fire Chief $98,544 $32,520 $131,064
This includes base salary (current top step), Basic Life Support
Differential, Uniform Allowance, Educational Incentive, Stand-by
and Emergency Recall Differential, and Management Longevity
Pay.
15. Eighty-nine percent ($39.7M) of the$44.6 million Fire Protection Districts' operating
budgets for fiscal year 1992-93 are personnel costs.
-96-
16. Contra Costa County is in a financial crisis with projected revenue shortfalls of$70 to
$120 million. The Board of Supervisors is evaluating reorganization plans and other
cost-saving alternatives to maintain adequate levels of fire protection and emergency
medical services. The Board has placed a Fire Protection District parcel assessment on
the June 1993 ballot.
17. In cases of emergency, Government Code §3504.5 (Notice of proposed act relating to
matters within scope of representation) allows the Board to determine that a resolution
may be adopted immediately without prior notice or meeting with the union; with the
understanding 'the Board will meet with the union at the earliest practicable time
following such an action.
18. In October, 1992, the County formally notified Local 1230 of its intent to amend, modify
or terminate the MOU which expired on December 31, 1992.
19. In January, 1993, Local 1230 informed the County that it was willing to extend the
expired Memorandum of Understanding until September, 1994. Loral 1230 stated it was
not willing, however, to change the formula of General Wage Increases being tied to the
"Average of the Top Ten." The County has indicated it will not extend the expired
Memorandum of Understanding.
Condusions:
1. Over the past eight years, the firefighters have received a compounded actual salary
increase of 71.2 percent excluding benefits; fire management received a compounded
actual salary increase of 62.1 percent excluding benefits. With personnel costs
representing 89 percent of the Fire Protection Districts' $44.6 million operating budget,
these increases have contributed, directly and substantially, to the bottom-line cost of
providing fire protection and emergency medical services in Contra Costa County.
2. The salary increases appear to be at variance with the County's on-going financial crisis.
3. By agreeing to maintain salaries at the "Average of the Top Ten", the Board of
Supervisors has lost the flexibility to set salaries according to the County Fire Protection
Districts' ability to pay.
4. It is not prudent for the Board of Supervisors to agree to the use of a "ratcheting
formula" such as the "Average of the Top Ten", which may raise salaries to
-97-
progressively higher levels, over which the Board has no control or influence, and which
has no maximum ceiling.
5. The unproven rationale of reducing costs by providing all employees represented by
Local 1230 a two percent "Acting Pay Differential", regardless of whether or not they
worked "out of class", at best demonstrates administrative inefficiency. At worst it
borders on being a "gift of public funds", paying for work not performed, or the
granting of a low-profile, de,facto pay increase without formally including it as a part
of the general wage increase which is subject to greater public scrutiny.
6. Current negotiated Minimum Staffing Requirements increase the cost of providing fire
protection services while limiting management's flexibility.
7. With the expiration of the four-year old Memorandum of Understanding with Local
1230, the Board has a unique opportunity to redefine all aspects of the MOU and appears
to be motivated to exploit this opportunity.
8. The Board of Supervisors has the legal authority to determine that an emergency exists
and to pass a resolution to immediately and unilaterally reduce costs in order to continue
to provide an adequate level of fire protection and emergency medical services to the
public.
Recommendations:
The 1992-93 Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors:
1. Not agree to any labor contract that contains a formula which ties employee
salaries to an index which is beyond the control of the Board and which does not
contain a maximum allowable increase in salary either yearly or during the life
of the contract.
2. Eliminate in future contracts clauses that provide premium pay for work that is
not, in fact, performed.
3. Restore to management the responsibility and the authority to establish prudent
staffing requirements.
4. Consider the County's present financial crisis an emergency as defined in
Government Code§3504.5, and pass a resolution to immediately and unilaterally
reduce wages, benefits, and present minimum staffing requirements while
continuing to provide an adequate level of fire protection and emergency medical
services to the public.
-98-
[ATTACffiMENT]
SECTION 5 SALARIES
5.1 General Wage Increases
B. Effective January 1, 1990, January 1, 1991, and January
1, 1992, each represented classification shall receive a
general wage increase of that number of levels on the
County Salary Schedule closest to the percentages
generated in the following manner:
1. During the Fall of 1989, 1990, and 1991, the County
and the Union shall jointly survey the same
eighteen (18) San Francisco-Bay Area Fire Districts
and Departments (hereinafter "jurisdictions") which
the County and the Union surveyed in the Fall -of
1988. The survey shall be completed no later than
January 10 of each year, and shall reflect data
available at that time. The number and identity of
the jurisdictions surveyed may be changed by mutual
agreement. The salary survey generated from the
data received from said jurisdictions shall be
displayed in a chart listing each jurisdiction by
name, Base Salary (top step firefighter) , Holiday
Pay, -Differential Pay, Uniform Allowance, and the
total of such pay categories (hereinafter" Pay
Subtotal") for each jurisdiction. The surveyed
jurisdictions shall be ranked according to the Pay
subtotals for each jurisdiction. The county and
the Union shall thereafter determine the average
Pay Subtotal for the ten (10) highest ranking
jurisdictions (hereinafter !'Average of the Top Ten"
and shall also determine the percentage difference
between the Average of the Top Ten and the Contra
Costa County Fire Protection Districts, using the
same pay categories and resultant Pay subtotal.
Such percentage shall hereinafter be known as the
Percentage Difference with the Top Ten" . (sic)
2. The preliminary determination of the general wage
increase shall be the percentage increase
(decrease) in the Consumer Price " Index for Urban
Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, revised, San
Francisco-Bay Area, all items, (1982-84 = 100) for
the period December 1988 through December 1989,
December 1989 through December 1990, and December
1990 through December 1991, respectively
(hereinafter "CPI-W") . The final determination of
the general wage increase shall be the amount of
-99-
the increase (decrease) in the CPI-W (rounded to
the nearest tenth of a percent) , plus that
percentage amount in excess thereof which equals
the percentage difference with the Top Ten (or
minus that percentage amount less than the average
with the Top Ten, in the event the average of the
Top Ten should be less than the CPI-W) , provided,
however, that the final determination of the
general wage increase determined by the foregoing
process shall not exceed the percentage increase
(decrease) in the CPI-W plus two percent (2%) and
shall not be less than the percentage increase
(decrease) in the CPI-W minus two percent (2%) .
C. Effective January; 1990, January. 1, 1991, and January 1,
1992, each represented classification shall receive an
Equity wage increase of twenty (20) levels on the County
Salary Schedule, in addition to the increase generated by
the process outlined in 5.1B hereinabove.
-100-
A REPORT BY
THE 1992=93 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GRAND JURY
1020 Ward Street
Martinez, CA 94553
(510) 646-2345
..Report No..9316
DETENTION FACILITIES INSPECTION
Approved by.the Grand Jury:
Date:. 7 .
nnemarie Goldsrein
Grand Jury Fore
Accepted for Filing.
Date:
Richard S. Flier
J
Judge o f the Superior Court
-101-
SECTION 933(c) OF THE CALIFORNIA PENAL CGDE
Sec. 933. Findings and recaazmendati.ons; com-
ment of governing bodies, elective officers,
or agenc1 heads
(c) No Iate:than 90 days aftc the L..ad jury submits
a final report on the operations of any public agency
subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of
the public agency shall cornment to the presiding judge of
the superior court on the findings and re=mmendations
pertaining to matters under the control of the governing
body,and every elective county ocw or agcy head for
which the Band jury has responsic%uy pursuant to
Section 91-4.1 shall comment within 60 days to the
presiding judge of the superior court,with an information
copy seat to the board of supervisors,on the findings and
recommendations pertaining to matters under the coatroI
of that county officer or agency head and any agency or
aszencies which that officer or agency head supervises or
controls. In any city and county, the mayor shallalso
comment on the findings and recommendations. AIl
such comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted
to the presiding judge of the superior court who impar-
ded the grand jury. A copy of all responses to ;rand
Jury reports shall be placed on file with the cleric of the
public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the
mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those
offices. One copy shall be placed on file with the
applicable grand jury final report by, and in the control
of the currently impaneled grand jury, where it shall be
maiataind for minimum of five years. (Added by
Stag 1961, c 1284, §1. Amended by Srars1963, r_ 674,
¢ I. Sra=1974, c 393. § 6. Starr.1974, c 1396, § 3:
Srars1977, c 107, ¢ 6: Sous1977, a 187, ¢ I. Stars
1980, c 543. § 1. Stars 1981, c 203, § 1. Scars 198w r-
1408, § S: Srau 1985, c 221. ¢ 1. Staa.1987. a 69Q
¢ 1: Scars 1988, c 1297, § 5.)
Fortner § 933. added by Sm=1982, c 1:03. 16. amended by
Scam Z 985.a 1.§ 2.operative Sart.1.1989,was rrp=1ed by Stats.1987.
G 690, §
Forrter § 933. added by Stam1959. c. 501. § 2. was repealed by
Stats.1959. c 181:. § 3.
-102-
DETENTION FACILITIES INSPECTIONS
Report #9316
FINDINGS:
1. California Penal Code §919b states: "The Grand Jury shall inquire into
the condition of the public prisons within the county." This includes
temporary holding facilities found in police agencies.
2. California Penal Code §925 allows the Grand Jury to investigate the
operations of the Probation Department. This includes Juvenile holding and
detention facilities.
3. The Sheriffs Department operates three adult detention facilities in Contra
Costa County:
• Martinez Detention Facility (MDF) is rated as a maximum-security
facility located in downtown Martinez.
• West County Detention Facility (WCDF) is rated as a medium-security
facility located at Point Pinole. The booking facility is not utilized due to
budgetary restraints.
• Marsh Creek Detention Facility (MCDF) is rated as a minimum-security
facility located near Clayton. This facility is now being assigned higher-risk
inmates.
4. The Probation Department operates two juvenile facilities in Contra Costa
County!
• Juvenile Hall (Hall). This is a locked holding facility located in Martinez.
• Byron Boys' Ranch (Ranch). This is an unlocked detention facility
located east of Byron.
5. These facilities, as well as holding facilities at Police Departments, have
been inspected and are in compliance with State of California standards.
-103-
6. Populations and incidents at these five facilities are:
MDF WCDF MCDF ]Hall Ranch
Present State-rated capacity 505 560 360 :140 74
Average monthly population 642 492 309 115 66.1
(Jan.-April-1993)
Escapees(past 12 months) 15 9 8 5 20
Assaults on staff(past 12 months) 81 5 1 NIA NIA
(Statistics on assaults on staff are not compiled by Juvenile Hall)
Deaths in custody(past 12 months) I 1 0 0 0 0
7. Population at MDF exceeds the number for rated capacity.
8. MCDF is being sent higher-risk inmates than previously.
9. The Superior Court has imposed a population capacity (1.30) on the Bali due
to budgetary limitations.
10. The General Services Department (GSD) of the county does not respond in a
timely fashion to requests for maintenance and repairs at the Ranch.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. On the dates of the Jurors' inspections, all facilities were in compliance with
state standards.
2. There is an unacceptable time-lag for completion of maintenance and repairs
by GSD at the Ranch.
RECOMtVSENDATIONS:
The 1992-93 Contra Costa Grand Jury recommends that:
1. The Sheriff and Chiefs of Police continue to comply with State standards.
2. The Director of GSD declare the Ranch an off-site facility, as permitted by
Government Code 33000, in order to have repairs performed by independent
contractors.
-104-