HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 07121994 - 1.117 •� 1 . 117A
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on July 12, 1994 by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Smith, Bishop, DeSaulnier, Torlakson and Powers
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT: Grand Jury Report No. 9413 of the 1993-1994 Contra
Costa County Grand Jury on The Housing Authority of the
County; of Contra Costa.
IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the Grand Jury Report No.
9413 of the 1993'1994 Contra Costa County Grand Jury on The
Housing Authority of the County of Contra Costa is REFERRED to
the County' Administrator and the Internal Operations Committee.
hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of
an action taken and entered on the minutes of the
Board of Su iso on the date shown.
ATTESTED:
PHIL ENTCHE R,C ark of the Board
=-j—
and Co Administrator
ByS0
Deputy
cc : County Administrator
Internal Operations Committee
County Counsel
Grand Jury
A REPORT BY
THE 1993-94 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GRAND JURY
1020 Ward Street
Martinez, CA 94553
(510) 646-2345
Report No. 9413
THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA
The Housing Authority Requires Independent Status
and Must be Set Free of County Politics -
�r ��FG�=
Approved by the Grand Jury:
Date: L
udi M. Mullin
nd ury Foreman
Accept for Filing:
Date:
Richard E. Arnason
Judge of the Superior Court
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 evidene. 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 Contra Costa ' County Housing Authority was an autonomous
political subdivision of the State of California until its legal
acquisition by county government on November 17, 1981. The 1982-83
Grand Jury recommended that the commission be re-instated as the
independent Housing Commission. More than a decade later,
unanswered concerns continue to be raised by the public about the
Contra Costa County Housing Authority, including . . .
• The level of its independence,
• The motivation and competence of its Advisory Board,
• The lengthy terms of some Advisory Board members,
• The hiring procedure for its executive director.
SCOPE OF THE INVESTIGATION:
The Contra Costa County Grand Jury responded to the public's
concern by launching an investigation into the operation of the
Housing Authority,- its Advisory Board, and the methods applied by
the Board of Supervisors in conducting Housing Authority business.
FINDINGS:
1. The Board of, Supervisors, acting as the Housing Commission,
approves most Housing Authority business on the basis of
expediency and interdependence; the Housing Authority has no
independent voice.
2 . The Board of Supervisors, acting as the Housing Commission,
channels Housing Authority general funds to county departments
for services rendered.
3. The Board of Supervisors, acting as the Housing Commission,
does not currently meet each calendar quarter with the Housing
Authority Advisory Board as required by law.
4. The by-laws of the Housing Authority Advisory Board do not
address an effective procedure for notifying the public of its
regular and special meetings.
5. Several members of the Housing Authority Advisory Board have
demonstrated a lack of knowledge regarding their official
duties and responsibilities.
6. Members of the Housing Authority Advisory Board are often
reappointed for many terms, while many other citizens wait an
opportunity to serve on this board.
2
r`
7. The Board of Supervisors, acting as the Housing Commission,
authorized county staff, at a cost of approximately $10, 000,
to manage the recruitment for the Housing Authority Executive
Director position.
8. The County Administrator traveled out of state to meet with
twenty-two (22) individuals as part of a background check on
a candidate for the Executive Director position, who was not
hired.
9. The Board of Supervisors, acting as the Housing Commission,
lowered the educational requirement for the Executive Director
position. This action favored the Acting Director.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The Board of Supervisors lacks the time and resources to
provide leadership and to properly oversee the Contra Costa
County Housing Authority.
2. The Board of Supervisors, acting as the Housing Commission,
disregards the policy that requires quarterly meetings between
the Commissioners and the Housing Authority Advisory Board.
The absence of these meetings severely restricts the
efficiency and effectiveness of the Housing Authority, its
Commissioners, and the Housing Authority Advisory Board.
3. Many members of the Housing Authority Advisory Board -- even
after serving many years -- have difficulty understanding
basic Housing Authority programs and finances, are unable to
focus on problems, and seldom make viable recommendations.
4. The lack of a term limitation rule makes it difficult to
appoint new -- and prospectively better -- members to the
Advisory Board, and stifles any opportunity for broad-based
community representation.
5. It was imprudent for the Board of Supervisors, acting as the
Housing Commission, to spend excessive funds and the County
Administrator's time on an executive director recruitment
effort. Clearly the Board of Supervisors was committed to
hiring the Acting Director. An open and more judicious
approach to the appointment would have avoided the perception
of "special treatment" and saved the taxpayers $10,000.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The 1993-94 Contra Costa County Grand Jury recommends that the
Board of Supervisors:
3
1. Immediately implement the 1982-83 Grand Jury report
recommending that independence be restored to the Housing
Authority, reaffirming that the Housing Authority must be set
free of county politics.
2. Immediately reestablish the Housing Authority Commission to
independent status.
• Institute term limitation policies for members of the
Housing! Authority Advisory Board.
• Direct the Housing Authority's Executive Director to
assess the training needs of the members of the Housing
Authorilty Advisory Board, and to plan and fully implement
a suitable training program.
• AddresJ and establish firm personnel practices.
COMMENTS: 1'
It is widely recognized within any government, political, military,
or other institut? onal environment that the span of control of any
one unit or ind�,ividual is limited. Excellent management is
necessary to maintain accountability. One can reason that the span
of control of the �Board of Supervisors and the County Administrator
have similar limitations and require close scrutiny.
The Housing Authority -- like many other charges of the Board of
Supervisors and the County Administrator -- has escaped scrutiny.
The absence of a reasonable level of surveillance for ethical
conduct, for efficient services, and for effective government is a
cause for alarm.
i
I
i�
i-
I
i_
1'.
I
i
I
I 4
i
�i
1 . 117B
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on July 12, 1994 by the following vote:
�i
AYES: Supervisors Smith, Bishop, DeSaulnier, Torlakson and Powers
li
NOES: None '.
ABSENT: None j
ABSTAIN: None
�i
SUBJECT: Grand Jury Report No. 9414 of the 1993-1994 Contra
Costa County Grand Jury on County Leadership Impedes
The Work Of The Grand Jury.
IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the Grand Jury Report No.
9414 of the 1993-1994 Contra Costa County Grand Jury on County
Leadership Impedes The Work Of The Grand Jury 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 Supeon the date shown.
ATTESTED: 1.1
r 12. ki
PHIL BAIcHE40R, Jerk of the Board
I Supe rs and r�ty Administrator
{ J
By .Deouty
cc : County Administrator
Internal Operations Committee
11
County Counsel
Grand Jury
I
is
r
j'
li
i b
i
i
I
A REPORT BY
THE 19;93-94 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GRAND JURY
1020 Ward Street
Martinez, CA 94553
(510) 646-2345
i
I
1 Report No. 9414
j
�I
COUNTY LEADERSHIP IMPEDES THE WORK OF THE GRAND JURY
i
I
I'
"All authority belongs to the people. "
Thomas Jefferson
I
i.
RE
C�E2,9E
9-.--,,"En-.Pr-RV1S
1994
OS
CLERK BOARD CS
Approvedby the Grand Jury:
Date:
dith M. Mullin
Grand Jury Foreman
Accepted for Filing:
Date.
!' "ichardE. son
Judge of the Superior Court
i
i
h
J�
/ w
i,
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
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.
t
INTRODUCTION:
i
Section 888, et. seq. , of the California Penal Code allows the
establishment of a �:Grand Jury in each county. Contra Costa County
impanels nineteen citizen-volunteers annually to act as an independent
body in ensuring that the best interests of all county residents are
being served by their governmental bodies.
I;
FINDINGS:
I.
Grand Jury Facilities
1'
1. The Contra Costa County Grand Jury is allocated space in the old
County Courthouse. The area, approximately 400 sq. ft. , serves
as a meeting/conference room for the nineteen Grand Jurors. It
also acts as aJfiling and a storage room. Statutory regulations
require that Grand Jury reports, including documentary materials
and evidence used in those reports, be sealed and kept for five
years. �!
2. The Grand Jury room has only one entrance/exit door. One other
door, identified as a "fire door" , leads from the District
Attorney's offices and is locked from that side, leaving the Grand
Jury with no emergency exit.
3 . Grand Jurors' deliberations, as well as witness' testimony, are
required to be' confidential.
4 . Over the years; the Grand Jury has requested more suitable meeting
facilities in11close proximity to the Superior Court, and county
government has r not responded with suitable alternatives.
Responses to Grand 'Jury Reports
5. When asked for comments by the press upon publication of Grand
Jury reports, ;instead of addressing information contained in the
reports, some! county leaders attack the credibility of Grand
Jurors. Standard responses are: "They don't know how the system
works. " , or "They are dead wrong. " Grand Jurors obtain their
facts and figures from the County through sworn testimony or
through information provided to the Grand Jury under subpoena.
6. 1992-93 Grand Jury Report No. 9304, on the need for management
audits in Contra Costa County, recommended that the Board of
Supervisors, " establish a Management Audit Program that
insures monies. expended will result in a net saving to the
County. " Tliis Grand Jury report explained in detail the
components of � management audits; their purpose of investigating
whether an operating unit is meeting its objectives in the most
efficient, economical manner; and the basic objective of improving
performance and/or reducing costs. The Board of Supervisors
accepted this recommendation but failed to implement it.
r
i
, 1
+i
7. 1992-93 Grand Jury Report No. 9312 , on the County's Merit System,
published in May 1993 , recommended that the Board of Supervisors
require the County Administrator to, "Identify for the Board all
provisions of the respective Memoranda of Understanding which are
now in conflict with the Merit System's Personnel Management
Regulations. " The Board of Supervisors accepted the
recommendation, establishing a deadline of October 15, 1993, to
receive such a report. The County Administrator failed to meet
this deadline by more than eight months.
Grand Jury Operations
8. It is the Grand Jury's duty to investigate County operations;
nevertheless the County Administrator complained to the Grand Jury
Judge about Grand Jury investigations into County business.
9. The Grand Jury Judge asked the Grand Jury Foreman to confer with
the County Administrator regarding Grand Jury procedures.
10. Complaints reached the District Attorney's office regarding Grand
Jury investigations and techniques, resulting in a conference
between the Grand Jury and the District Attorney' s office.
11. "Papering" -- providing excessive amounts of paper and extraneous
material in response to Grand Jury inquiries -- and other
disinformation techniques are often used by county officials which
obfuscate facts and confuse the truth.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The County has consistently failed to provide adequate, safe, and
secure facilities for the Grand Jury to conduct its business.
2 . County leaders often give lip service in responding to Grand Jury
recommendations, however, when the heat of publicity cools, it's
back to business as usual.
3 . Attempts by County leaders to dilute and discredit the Grand Jury
process, and thus the work of the Grand Jury, are beneath the
dignity of their offices.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The 1993-94 Contra Costa County Grand Jury recommends that the Board of
Supervisors:
1. Immediately instruct county officers to cease and desist attempts
to interfere, obstruct, impede or otherwise influence the Grand
Jury panel.
2. Immediately formulate a county-wide policy to objectively evaluate
and seriously consider all present and future Grand Jury
recommendations.
2
3 . Within six months, provide the Grand Jury with facilities that are
suitable for conducting its business.
COMMENTS:
The acts and omissions of Contra Costa County leaders regarding the
Grand Jury are obvious and inappropriate attempts to influence the
Grand Jury. These attempts obstruct the Grand Jury in its discharge of
duty in their administration, investigation, and deliberation.
Sadly, county officials often dismiss the work of the Grand Jury with
statements such as, ' "These matters are too complex for Grand Jurors to
understand because they are just part-time volunteers. "
Contra Costa County; leaders should not regard the County Grand Jury as
an adversary. Citizens who volunteer to invest a year of their lives
do so because they (sincerely believe in making Contra Costa County a
better place for everyone. Rather than feeling threatened, County
leaders should welcome the contributions of the Grand Jury as
paralleling their own stated mission of serving the community.
is
a
i
3
�I