Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06251996 - C88 C "N TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 1OC-01 Contra c FROM: J �` Costa INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE . ,, a ..�*�° DATE: June 25 County 1996 �' SUBJECT: PROPOSED RESPONSES TO THE REPORTS OF THE 1995-1996 GRAND JURY: NOS. 9601, 9602 and 9604 . SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS: 1 . Adopt this report of our Committee as the Board of Supervisors ' response to the Reports of the 1995-1996 Grand Jury: No. 9601, "Audit Cooperation/Teamwork in Auditing" No. 9602, "Inmate Welfare Fund" No. 9604, "Tier I Retirement Benefits for Employees of Contra Costa County Employees Retirement Association" 2 . Remove this item as a referral to our Committee. BACKGROUND: The 1995-1996 Grand Jury filed the above reports, which were reviewed by the Board of Supervisors on May 7, 1996 and June 4, 1996 and subsequently referred to the Internal Operations Committee. On June 17, 1996 our Committee met to discuss the recommendations and review proposed responses . At the conclusion of those discussions, we prepared this report utilizing a format suggested by a former Grand Jury, which clearly specifies : A. Whether the recommendation is accepted or adopted; B. If the recommendation is accepted, a statement as to who will be responsible for implementation and a definite target date; C. A delineation of the constraints if a recommendation is accepted but cannot be implemented within the calendar year; and D. The reason for not adopting a recommendation. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE SIGNATURE(S): r-AYT F RTgHrn)T) /_ ZOGARS ACTION OF BOARD ON a s" [-C?CIO APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. County Administrator ATTESTED /276 Contact: Superior Court Presiding Judge PHIL ATCHELOR.CLERK/OF THE BOARD OF CC: Grand Jury Foreperson SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR County Counsel Auditor-Controller Sheriff-Coroner BY DEPUTY Retirement Administrator gg "AUDIT COOPERATION/TEAMWORK IN AUDITING" REPORT NO. 9601 The 1995-96 Contra Costa County Grand Jury makes the following recommendations : RECOMMENDATION NO. 1 : The County Administrator and the Grand Jury Foreman consult on the following matters with respect to audits carried out jointly for the Grand Jury and the Board of Supervisors : a. The Grand Jury's participation in audit activities . b. Grand Jury review of the contract proposed for a joint audit. C. The provision of Grand Jury training as part of a joint audit contract. d. Grand Jury participation in joint audit progress meetings between Count(y) staff and the independent auditing firm. e. Concurrent submission of the joint audit report and management letter to the Grand Jury and to the Board of Supervisors . RESPONSE: A. This recommendation is accepted. B. The Grand Jury was not included in audit activities at the request of a previous Grand Jury. As a new Grand Jury is selected each year, the County Administrator will be ready to consult with the Grand Jury Foreman on matters with respect to audits . RECOMMENDATION NO. 2 : The Office of the County Administrator develop a structured Management Audit Program, whereby individual departments undergo periodic, in-depth evaluation by an independent ad hoc team of knowledgeable County employees : a. The Management Audit would identify the Department's performance against goals, operational effectiveness, efficiency and conformance with County policies and regulations . b. A goal would be established to accomplish management audits, such as : two (2) departments per year with each department receiving a Management Audit at least every five (5) years . C. These recommendations are not intended to interfere with special management audits of specific departments . RESPONSE: A. This recommendation is not adopted. B. The Board concurs with the Grand jury in the merits of Management Audits . Such audits have been and will continue to be an important part of the management of the County. However, it would be unrealistic to advise the Grand Jury that we could establish a program as recommended due to increased -workloads and staff reductions in both the Auditor' s and County Administrator' s Offices, including a 46% reduction in professional budget staff in the CAO office in the last eight years . RECOMMENDATION NO. 3 : The Auditor-Controller direct staff to furnish a copy of all financial and internal audit reports and responses to the Grand Jury. RESPONSE: A. This recommendation is accepted. B. The Auditor-Controller' s Internal Audit Division has routinely maintained a file containing copies of audit reports designated for the Grand Jury. The 1995-96 Grand Jury was the first to ask for this file. Of course, the Auditor is willing to deliver copies of reports and the subject departments ' responses to the Grand Jury. However, it is important for the Grand Jury to understand the role of the Internal Audit function when they review the reports . Therefore, the Auditor would like the opportunity to explain this role before the Grand Jury takes any action based on our reports . We think it would be beneficial for the Principal Auditor to briefly meet with the Audit and Budget Committee of the Grant Jury, on a quarterly basis, to share this information with them. RECOMMENDATION NO. 4: The Board of Supervisors develop a system to assure written, timely, responses to audit findings . The system must include a course-of-action to be taken by the next higher authority in the event of inadequate or not response. RESPONSE: A. This recommendation is accepted. B. Administrative Bulletin No. 212, last amended in October, 1975, sets forth the policy on internal audits of County departments and offices in accordance with state statutes . The County Administrator is directed to coordinate with the Auditor to review and revise the Bulletin within 60 days if necessary to comply with this recommendation. Office of COUNTY AUDITOR-CONTROLLER Contra Costa County Martinez, California May 14, 1996 CONTRA COSTA COUN fe RECEIVED i TO: Phil Batchelor, County Administrator MAY 17 1996 r Attn.: Dean Lucas, Deputy County Administrator z OFFICE OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: Kenneth J. Corcoran, Auditor-Controller K SUBJECT: Response to Grand Jury Report #9601 Re: Audit Cooperation/Teamwork In Auditing The following are our comments regarding the items listed in the RECOMMENDATIONS section of Grand Jury Report #9601, dated April 15,1996: RECOMMENDATION #1 This recommendation is addressed specifically to the County Administrator(CAO). The Auditor- Controller is not a party to the contract between the County and its external auditors. We are available to assist the parties upon request and as appropriate. RECOMMNDATION #2 This recommendation is addressed specifically to the CAO. The Auditor-Controller has a staff of professional internal auditors. They are experienced in the systematic and disciplined approach to planning and conducting audits. Due to the nature of county government, with multiple and overlapping lines of authority, we believe a consensus of the elected officials on a management audit program is essential to the success of any such program. We believe the program would need to be perceived as a valuable resource and not as a threat. We think a team approach would best serve this goal. The team would consist of internal auditors, staff from the CAO, and experienced managers. However, based on our current staffing of five internal auditors and our first priority of performing statutorily required financial audits, our availability to be part of a management audit program would be quite limited. RECOMMENDATION#3 Our Internal Audit Division has routinely maintained a file containing copies of our audit reports designated for the Grand Jury. The 1995-96 Grand Jury was the first to ask for this.file. Of course, we are willing to deliver copies of our reports and the subject departments' responses to the Grand Jury. However, we believe it is important for the Grand Jury to understand the role of the Internal Audit function when they review the reports. We would like the opportunity to explain this role before the Grand Jury takes any action based on our reports. We think it would be beneficial for the Principal Auditor to briefly meet with the Audit and Budget Committee of the Grand.Jury, on a quarterly basis, to share this information with them. Phil Batchelor, County Administrator May 14, 1996 Attn.:Dean Lucas, Deputy County Administrator Response to Grand Jury Report#9601 Re: Audit Cooperation/Teamwork In Auditing RECOMMENDATION #4 This recommendation is addressed specifically to the Board of Supervisors. Administrative Bulletin 212 (formerly 112) requires department heads to respond in writing to our audit reports within 30 days. Our reports, the responses, and our comments about the responses are forwarded to the CAO for review. The CAO has taken an active role in reviewing this information and in several instances has asked department heads for further information or action. Compliance with this requirement has been generally good. To promote adequate and timely follow-up to ensure implementation of our findings, we will consider suggesting a revision to Administrative Bulletin 212. It could direct our Internal Audit Division to survey and report on implementation six months after a response is received. We are also willing to meet with the CAO, Board of Supervisors and/or the Grand Jury to discuss the development of a policy to improve implementation that recognizes the multiple and overlapping lines of authority characteristic to our government. If you have any questions, or if we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call. 2 "INMATE WELFARE FUND" REPORT NO. 9602 The 1995-96 Contra Costa County Grand Jury makes the following recommendations : RECOMMENDATION NO. 1 : The sheriff fill the Director of Inmate Services vacancy. RESPONSE: A. This recommendation is not accepted. B. The Sheriff is studying the need to continue the functions performed by the Director as a separate position. We are assured, however, that the services provided by this position will continue. RECOMMENDATION NO. 2 : The Sheriff fill the vacant position on the Inmate Welfare Fund Committee. RESPONSE: A. This recommendation is accepted. B. The position has been filled. RECOMMENDATION NO. 3 : The Inmate Welfare Fund continue to be supported entirely by inmate generated income; i .e. , inmate phone call commissions, commissary sales, and any other revenue stipulated under the authority of the Penal Code, Section 4025 . RESPONSE: A. This recommendation is accepted. (Gountg of Contra Testa (Offirr of for �14eriff Warren E. Rupf Sheriff April 23, 1996 The Honorable John C. Minney Presiding Judge, Superior Court 1020 Ward Street Martinez, CA 94553 Dear judge Minney: I am providing the following response to the recommendations submitted by the 1995-96 Contra Costa Grand Jury in Report#9602 regarding the Inmate Welfare Fund: 1. Director of Inmate Services Vacancy The need to continue this function as a separate position is being studied. I cannot guarantee at this time that a full-time director's position will be filled, but I can assure you and the Grand Jury that the services performed by this position will continue. 2. Vacant Position on the Inmate Welfare Fund Committee It is my intent to fill this vacancy within 90 days. 3. Inmate Welfare Fund Revenue The Inmate Welfare Fund has, is, and will continue to be supported entirely by those revenue sources specified in California Penal Code Section 4025. This response has been provided as required by California Penal Code Section 933(c). Please advise me if you have ons regarding this matter. Very truly you s, C WARREN E. RUPF, Sheriff WER:cb cc: Phil Batchelor, County Administrator The Honorable John F. VanDePoel, Superior Court Judge Post Office Box 391 • Martinez, California 94553-0039 (510)646-2402 "TIER I RETIREMENT BENEFITS FOR EMPLOYEES OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM" REPORT NO. 9604 The 1995-96 Contra Costa County Grand Jury recommends that the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors : RECOMMENDATION NO. 1 : Actively support the County Auditor-Controller's lawsuit Case No. 95-05528, filed in Contra Costa County Superior Court on December 15, 1995 . (The legal complaint was filed against the CCCERA, the Board' s Administrator and numerous Does seeking declaratory relief . ) RESPONSE: A. This recommendation is accepted. B. On October 18, 1995, the Board of Supervisors authorized the Auditor-Controller to retain private counsel and, if necessary, to pay for such counsel with County funds, to prosecute the subject lawsuit. RECOMMENDATION NO. 2 : Suspend all questionable Tier I retirement requests from the staff of CCCERA pending the results of the declaratory litigation - Case No. 95-05528. RESPONSE: A. This recommendation is not accepted. B. The retirement rights of CCCERA staff will be judicially determined in the pending litigation. RECOMMENDATION NO. 3 : Deny any future attempts of post-1980 County employees from obtaining Tier I benefits, except for reciprocal transfers . RESPONSE: A. This recommendation is accepted as modified. B. So long as existing statutes and County policies remain in place, the County can not provide such Tier I retirement benefits to post-1980 County Retirement Association employees . The Board of Supervisors may consider other options as they become available.