HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06281994 - 1.89 1 . 89a
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on June 28, 19% by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Smith, Bishop, DieSaulnier, Torbkson and Powers
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
SUBJECT: Grand Jury Report No. 9410 of the 1993-1994 Contra
Costa County Grand Jury on County Counsel Legal Debacle
IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the Grand Jury Report No.
9410 of the 1993-1994 Contra Costa County Grand Jury on County
Counsel Legal Debacle is REFERRED to the County Administrator and
the Internal Operations Committee .
I iiereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of
an action taken and entered on the minutes of the
Board of Sup isors on the date shown.
ATTESTED: q 4
PHIL B CHELOR,Clerk of the Board
Superv1 and Cou Administrator
0
By ,Deouty
cc : County Administrator
Internal Operations Committee
County Counsel
Grand Jury
j
I
A
A REPORT BY
THE 1993-94 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GRAND JURY
1020 Ward Street
Martinez, CA 94553
(510) 646-2345
Report No. 9410
COUNTY COUNSEL
LEGAL DEBACLE
"No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we
ask any man s permission when we require him to obey it."
Theodore Roosevelt
.:; RECEIVE®
JUN 1 51994
CLERK BOARD OF S0RS
CONTRA COSTACO-
Approved by the Grand Jury:
Date:
uuiith M. Mullin
and Jury Foreman
Accepted for Filing:
Date:' , / f
Richard E. Arnason
Judge of the Superior Court
r
SECTION 933 (C) OF THE CALIFORNIA PENAL. CODE
§933. Comments and Reports on Grand Jury
Recommendations.
(c) No later than 90 days after the grand 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 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 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 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 impaneled"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 impan-
eled grand jury, where it shall be maintained for a
minimum of five years. Leg.H. 1961 ch. 1284, 1963 ch.
674, 1974 chs. 393, 1396, 1977 chs. 107, 187, 1980 ch.
543, 1981 ch. 203, 1982 ch. 1408 §5, 1985 ch. 221 §1,
effective July 12, .1985, 1987 ch. 690 §1, 1988 ch. 1297.
Cross-References
Admissible evidence. Penal Code §939.6.
"Grand jury." defined. Penal Code §888.
Grand jury report to be based only on own investigation. Penal
Code §939.9.
INTRODUCTION:
The 1993-94 Contra Costa County Grand Jury acknowledges that the
Board of Supervisors is free to act contrary to legal advice.
SCOPE OF INVESTIGATION:
Public outcries regarding secret settlements and the $40,000 The
Regional Institute of the Bay Area (TRIBA) donation controversy,
triggered an investigation into the Office of County Counsel's conduct
and operations and examined the Counsel's relationship with the Board
of Supervisors.
FINDINGS:
1. The County Counsel is appointed by the Board of Supervisors and
shall serve four years from the time of appointment and until a
successor is appointed (Government Code §27640 and §27641) . The
incumbent County Counsel for Contra Costa was initially appointed
in 1984 .
2 . The County Counsel is the legal adviser to the Board of
Supervisors and shall oppose all claims against the County and
shall prosecute all civil actions and proceedings on behalf of the
County (Government Code §26526) .
3. The Board of Supervisors establishes compensation, job duties, and
performance standards not otherwise mandated by law for County
Counsel.
4 . The County Counsel's salary and benefits package totals more than
$160, 000 annually.
5. It is not clear to whom County Counsel is accountable and to whom
County Counsel reports from an organizational perspective. Is it
the Board, the County Administrator or both?
6. The Office of Risk Management, under the direct supervision of the
County Administrator, approved secret settlements based on
recommendations from highly-paid independent legal counsel, hired
to defend County government. County Counsel did not question this
process.
7 . The Board of. Supervisors knew that there was no agreement between
the County Counsel 's• Office and the Office of Risk Management to
overview risk management.
8. In December 1991, Pipes Trade Council 51 donated $40, 000 to TRIBA,
a non-profit organization founded and chaired by Supervisor Tom
Powers.
9. There was a clear understanding and assurance that the $40, 000
from the labor union would, in turn, be gifted by TRIBA to Contra
.Costa County to assist the County in its legal battle defending a
local prevailing wage.
1
1
10. County Counsel was aware of the conditional nature of the gift and
the need to disguise the source; i.e, fear of public outcry that
it was the unions, not the County, defending the ordinance.
11. The District Attorney's investigation of this incident found that
the act was not "money laundering" as defined by California law,
as it was not paid in furtherance of any illegal activity. The
District Attorney concluded that although the true source of the
gift and the specific reason for the gift was disguised, the
conduct was not illegal, but rather a matter of ethics and
politics.
12 . By statute, County Counsel may be removed at any time by the Board
of Supervisors for neglect of duty, malfeasance, misconduct in
office or other good cause shown.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. Public respect and confidence were eroded by the various charges
of misconduct, perpetuated with the Board of Supervisors' apparent
acquiescence, if not concurrence.
2. County Counsel neglected to intervene early in resolving the
conflicts that resulted in secret settlements.
3 . It is inexcusable' for any attorney, let alone the County's chief
legal adviser, not to analyze evidence and apply a curve for
decision consequences.
4 . County Counsel's failure to intervene on critical legal matters
was a neglect of his responsibilities.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Due to the critical role County Counsel plays in the daily
governmental operation, the 1993-94 Contra Costa County Grand Jury
recommends that the Board of Supervisors, within- 30 days:
1. Publicly reaffirm its responsibilities to supervise, direct, and
control all County legal matters.
2 . Implement a comprehensive assessment of the County Counsel 's
ability to provide the Board with competent legal advice.
3 . Publicly act upon and-execute options provided to the Board, based
on assessment findings.
4. Re-establish the accountability of County Counsel and thereby
restore credibility with the public.
COMMENTS:
Confidentiality clauses in lawsuits, settled with public funds,
can breed a stealth environment for incompetence.
2
Elected and public officials and employees must be held
accountable for consequences stemming from acts and omissions.
County government is an awesome responsibility entrusted by the
people for the benefit of an organized and humane society.
The Board of Supervisors should demand straightforward and
apolitical legal advice that can be trusted with unflagging confidence
and without reservation.
3
V
1 . 89b
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on June 28, 1994 by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Smith, Bishop, DeSaulnier, Torlakson and Powers
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT: Grand Jury Report No. 9411 of the 1993-1994 Contra
Costa County Grand Jury on Rodeo Sanitary District and
All Special Districts Must Conform To Standards of
Accountability and Good Government .
IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the Grand Jury Report No.
9411 of the 1993-1994 Contra Costa County Grand Jury on Rodeo
Sanitary District and All Special Districts Must Conform to
Standards of Accountability and Good Government is REFERRED to
the County Administrator and the Internal Operations Committee .
I hereby certify that this Is a true and correct copy of
an action taken and entered on the minutes of the
Board of Su (sora on the date shown.
ATTESTED:
PHIL B CHELOR,L erk of the Board
?%Supervir and Coun Administrator
J
By .DeDuty
cc : County Administrator
Internal Operations Committee
County Counsel
Grand Jury
I AI
A REPORT BY
THE 1993-94 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GRAND JURY
1020 Ward Street
Martinez, CA 94553
(510) 646-2345
RECEIVED
Report No. 9 411 A 2 0 1994
CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
CONTRA COSTA CO.
RODEO SANITARY DISTRICT AND ALL SPECIAL DISTRICTS
MUST CONFORM TO STANDARDS OF ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOOD GOVERNMENT
Approved by the Grand Jury:
Date:
dith M. Mullin
Grand Jury Foreman
Accepted for Filing:
Date:
Richard E. Arnason
Judge of the Superior Court
1
SECTION 933 (C) OF THE CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE
§933. Comments and Reports on Grand Jury
Recommendations.
(c) No later than 90 days after the grand 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 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 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 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 findines and recommendations. All such
comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the
presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled 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 impan-
eled grand jury, where it shall be maintained for a
minimum of five years. Leg.H. 1961 ch. 1284, 1963 ch.
674, 1974 chs. 393, 1396, 1977 chs. 107, 187, 1980 ch.
543, 1981 ch. 203, 1982 ch. 1408 §5, 1985 ch. 221 §1,
effective July 12, 1985, 1987 ch. 690 §1, 1988 ch. 1297.
Cross-References
Admissible evidence. Penal Code §939.6.
"Grand jury" defined. Penal Code §888.
Grand jury report to be based only on own investigation. Penal
Code §939.9.
I
INTRODUCTION:
The Grand Jury is empowered to examine the policies and practices
of special districts in Contra Costa County. It has examined three
concerns regarding the Rodeo Sanitary District on these matters:
• lack of sufficient policies on the bidding process for
vendors in providing materials and services,
• unfair application of rules on sewer rates for businesses,
and
• confusion over the sphere of influence of the District and
its boundaries in regard to the discharge of sewage along and
near San Pablo Bay.
FINDINGS:
These findings are based on sworn testimony of witnesses, field
observations, and attendance at, and review of, the minutes of meetings
of the Rodeo Sanitary District Board of Directors, and the examination
of District records. The findings are:
1. The Rodeo Sanitary District lacks sufficient policy to direct the
District Manager and the Board of Directors on the preparation and
announcement of bids for materials/services provided by vendors.
2. The Board of Directors allows the District Manager independent
judgement in the definition of types of businesses and the
application of sewer rates.
3. Many San Pablo Bay waterfront properties adjacent to the Rodeo
Sanitary District boundaries and within a few hundred yards of the
District's sewage treatment plant are not part of the District's
legal boundaries, and currently rely upon unconventional and
outdated sewage disposal methods.
4 . The District has a multi-year contract for solid waste disposal
with BFI Pleasant Hill-Bayshore Disposal Inc. that covers areas
adjacent to its legal boundaries.
CONCLUSIONS:
The Rodeo Sanitary District lacks accountability in standardizing
policies and practices for contracting with outside vendors,
discriminates in the application of its sewer rates, and ignores envi-
ronmental protection issues at its doorstep and within its obvious
sphere of influence; specifically:
1. It approves bids for services that are not governed by board
policy or by commonly-recognized sound business practices for
government agencies, thus disregarding the best interests of the
rate-payers in the District.
2 . The Board of Directors and the District Manager do not
consistently apply the sewer rates to businesses.
2
t .
3. The District has improperly disavowed responsibility for outdated
and harmful sewage discharge practices in an area adjacent to its
boundaries.
4. The District's domestic and commercial solid waste disposal
contract with BFI Pleasant Hill-Bayshore Disposal Inc. creates a
sphere of influence over properties that are adjacent to the Dis-
trict boundaries, and establishes a responsibility of the Di:61trict
to work towards the enactment of contemporary standards to protect
the environment of the District and San Pablo Bay.
5. The Board of Supervisors, through the Building Inspection and
Health Services Departments, neglected its responsibility for
eliminating these health and environmental protection hazards
within Contra Costa County.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The 1993-94 Contra Costa County Grand Jury recommends that:
A. The Rodeo Sanitary District Board of Directors immediately:
1. Establish sound standards and procedures for procuring
materials/services in excess of $5, 000, and to instruct the
District Manager to implement those policies.
2 . Direct the District Manager to cease and desist: any
unilateral action in defining types of businesses alnd to
strictly apply the prevailing District ordinance on sewer
rates, and to
a. Consult with the County Health Department and the State
of California Alcohol Beverage Control office, to assure
uniformity in the definition of types of businesses,
b. Establish written appeal procedures for any ratepayer
seeking adjustment for unsubstantiated billing for the
last five years.
3 . Write, and accept as policy, a statement that prescribes the
sphere of influence of the District in relationship to its
legal boundaries.
4 . Align its legal boundaries to its sphere of influence,
especially with regard to all properties adjacent to San
Pablo Bay and along Parker Avenue, and/or within a few
hundred yards of the District's sewage treatment plant.
5. Affirm a District goal, with a definite time frame, for the
connection of sewage discharges from Rodeo's environmentally-
sensitive areas along San Pablo Bay and Parker Avenue to the
District's sewage treatment plant.
6. Establish a budget, and seek internal and external sources of
funding, to connect all properties within the Dist lict's
proposed legal boundaries to its sewage treatment plant.
3
L
B. The Board of Supervisors take the leadership role in resolving
" these environmental and public health hazards.
COMMENTS:
The Board of Supervisors and the boards of director of all special
districts must be accountable in all matters and become more responsive
to the standards of good government and the issues and means of
environmental protection.
4
1 . 89c
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on June 28. 1994 'by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Smith, Bishop, DeSaulnier, Torhdmn and Powers
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
SUBJECT: Grand Jury Report No. 9412 of the 1993-1994 Contra
Costa County Grand Jury on Detention Facilities
Inspection.
IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the Grand Jury Report No.
9412 of the 1993-1994 Contra Costa County Grand Jury on Detention
Facilities Inspection is REFERRED to the County Administrator and
the Internal Operations Committee.
I WPreby certify that this is a true and correct copy of
an action taken and entered on the minutes of the
Board of Su isora on the date shown.
ATTESTED: lei 1-(4L
PHIL TCHELOR, IeC rk of the Board
4
Su and CoWW Administrator
By AAA j .Deauty
cc : County Administrator
Internal Operations Committee
County Counsel
Grand Jury
SECTION 933 (C) OF THE CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE
§933. Comments and Reports on Grand Jury
Recommendations.
(c) No later than 90 days after the grand 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 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 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 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 impaneled 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 impan-
eled grand jury, where it shall be maintained for a
minimum of five years. Leg.H. 1961 ch. 1284, 1963 ch.
674, 1974 chs. 393, 1396, 1977 chs. 107, 187, 1980 ch.
543, 1981 ch. 203, 1982 ch. 1408 §5, 1985 ch. 221 §1,
effective July 12, _1985, 1987 ch. 690 §1, 1988 ch. 1297.
Cross-References
Admissible evidence. Penal Code §939.6.
"Grand jury" defined. Penal Code §888.
Grand jury report to be based only on own investigation. Penal
Code §939.9.
r
A REPORT BY
THE 1993-94 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GRAND JURY
1020 Ward Street
Martinez, CA 94553
(510) 646-2345
Report No. 9412
DETENTION FACILITIES INSPECTION
�K
RECEIVED
11994
CLERKSN 14 COSTSUPERVISORS CO�SOR I
Approved by the Grand Jury:
I
Date:
ith M. Mullin
llin
nGrand Jury Foreman j
Accepted for Filing:
Da j
Richard E. Arnason
Judge of the Superior Court
INTRODUCTION:
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.
California Penal Code §925 allows the Grand Jury to
investigate the operations of the Probation Department. This
includes juvenile holding and detention facilities.
FINDINGS:
1. The Contra Costa County Sheriff 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 near Point Pinole. The booking
section 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.
2. 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.
3. These facilities, as well as holding facilities at police
departments, have been inspected and are in compliance with
State of California standards.
4. Populations and incidents at these five facilities are:
MDF WCDF MCDF Hall Ranch
Present state-rated capacity 515 *816 300 160 74
Average monthly population 587 491 240 133 70
(May 93-April 94)
Escapes (past 12 months) 3 1 4 0 **41
Deaths in custody (past 12 months) 0 0 0 0 0
Assaults on staff (past 12 months) 61 22 1 N/A 0
* WCDF rated capacity was originally 608. Effective January 1, 1994, due to
female housing program improvements, the Board of corrections changed the
approved rating to 816.
** This figure represents a fifty percent increase in escapees from the Ranch as
compared to last years report.
1
5. Statistics on assaults on staff are not compiled for Juvenile
Hall.
6. Population at MDF exceeds the number for rated capacity.
7 . Juvenile Hall and Byron Boys Ranch are being sent a higher-
risk population than previously. i
8. The General Services Department of the county does not respond
in a reasonable time to requests for maintenance and repairs
at Byron Boys Ranch.
CONCLUSIONS
1. On the dates of the Jurors' inspections, all facilities were
in with state standards.
2 . There is an unacceptable time-lag for completion of
maintenance and repairs at Byron Boys Ranch.
3 . There is an intolerable amount of deferred maintenance at both
Juvenile Hall and Byron Boys Ranch.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The 1993-1994 Contra Costa County Grand Jury recommends that the
Board of Supervisors, Superior Court, Sheriff's Office, and the
Probation Department jointly accept the responsibility for the
following recommendations:
1. Statistics on assaults on staff be maintained for Juvenile
Hall as they are for all other facilities.
2. This Grand Jury reiterates the recommendation of the 1992-93
Grand Jury (Report No. 9316) to declare the Ranch an off-site
facility, as permitted by Government Code 33000, in order to
have repairs performed by independent contractors.
i
3. Establish and monitor a schedule that will resolve the repair
and maintenance problems at Byron Boys Ranch and\ Juvenile
Hall.
4. The Board of Supervisors take the leadership role in resolving
the deficiencies at these facilities.
I
2
I