Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06251996 - C90 +. C.90 a C.90 b THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on June 25, 1996 by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Rogers, Smith, DeSaulnier, Torlakson, Bishop NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- SUBJECT: GRAND JURY REPORTS IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the 1995-96 Contra Costa Grand Jury Report No. 9605, "Child Care Center Public Works Department, " is REFERRED to the County Administrator and the Family and Human Services Committee and No. 9608, "Human Resources Department-Project Positions, " is REFERRED to the County Administrator and the Internal Operations Committee. cc: CAO Grand Jury Internal Operations Committee Family and Human Services I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: June 25, 1996 PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator By ,Deputy A REPORT BY THE 1995-96 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GRAND JURY 1020 Ward Street Martinez, California 94553 (510) 646-2345 RECEIVED Report No. 9605 JUN 12 1996 C i CLERK BOARD OF SUPERd';S CONTRA COSTA CC— CHILD C—CHILD CARE CENTER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT APPROVED BY THE GRAND JURY: DATE: RANIIR JURY FOREMAN ACCEPTED FOR FILING: DATE: JO F. V DE POEL E OF THE SUPERIOR COURT CHILD CARE CENTER-PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SUMMARY The establishment of a County-sponsored Child Care Center at the Public Works Department complex on Glacier Drive has pioneered a new dimension in County employee/employer relations. This facility is unique within Contra Costa County government and is likely to be considered a prototype to be adopted by other departments as the benefits become apparent in the future. The Contra Costa Public Works Early Childhood Center has the potential of developing a financial burden on the taxpayer. Care must be taken to assure that the cost of operations are covered by the users. FINDINGS 1. The Director of the Public Works Department, in responding to employee desires and needs, took the leadership role in pursuing the establishment of the first County- sponsored, non-profit Child Care Center for employees. 2. The County Board of Supervisors, by Board Order dated December 13, 1994, approved a $90,000 loan to the Public Works Department to assist in the establishment of a pre- school child care center for employees. The$90,000 loan was later changed to a$90,000 grant. 1 3. By Board Order dated June 27, 1995, the Board of Supervisors authorized the Public Works Director to execute a ten(10)year license agreement with the Contra Costa Public Works Early Childhood Center, a California non-profit corporation, for the development and operation of a child care facility. 4. Principal provisions of the License Agreement include: a. use of County-owned property located on Glacier Drive, including a 36-foot by 60-foot building with parking facilities and play area. b. establishment and provision of a program in accordance with a specific"Budget of estimated Program Expenditures" attached to the Agreement. C. a term of approximately 10 years, commencing March 1, 1995 and ending December 31, 2005. d. establishment of the Center for administration and operation of an infant/preschool program for eligible children, in accordance with Title 22, Division 12 of the California Code of Regulations. e. a license fee of$800 per month to Contra Costa County, beginning January 1, 1996. 2 5. The Center is open to infant, toddler, and preschool children of all County employees with first preference accorded to children of Public Works Department employees. Children of non-County employees are not eligible for enrollment. 6. The Center opened for business in the Fall of 1995. As of April 1, 1996, enrollment has reached 100% capacity for infants/toddlers and close to 100% capacity for preschool children. 7. The Public Works Department pays all telephone, power, water and grounds maintenance expenses from its department budget. 8. The Center is not assessed a charge to account for County expenses in administering the Agreement. CONCLUSIONS 1. The County Board of Supervisors has shown considerable foresight in recognizing an increasing social obligation of large employers to provide child care centers. The Public Works Department has provided timely leadership in accommodating this need for reliable and professional child care services for its employees. As a new concept within the Contra Costa County Government, the Center will likely serve as a prototype for similar developments by other County departments. 3 2. The 1995-96 Grand Jury is concerned that the establishment of child care centers in other County facilities will be proposed without the opportunity for the Board of Supervisors to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of the Public Works Department experience of particular concern is the use of public funds to finance the use of public-owned real property and utilities for extra-governmental purposes. 3. All associated operational costs of the Child Care Center must be borne by users. Telephone, power, water and grounds maintenance costs must be included in the fee structure. RECOMMENDATIONS The 1995-1996 Contra Costa County Grand Jury recommends that: 1. The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors: a. establish a committee to oversee the Child Care Center's.operational and financial status. This committee is to provide 1996 and 1997 semi-annual reports with a final report at year-end 1997. These reports will serve as a basis for developing County policy on child care centers for its employees. b. appoint an ad hoc citizen group to research the policies and practices of other 4 r government organizations- local, state and federal - on sponsored child care centers. The purpose of this group would be to gain insight on financial and operational practices and associated pitfalls. Data obtained by the group would be used by the assigned committee for reports to the Board of Supervisors. C. Issue a policy statement precluding development of any additional County- sponsored employee child care centers until a County policy is established. 2. The Public Works Department determine a reasonable monthly cost for use of telephone, power, water, grounds maintenance, building rental and County administrative overhead. These costs are to be recovered from the Child Care Center. 5 fo SECTION 933(c) OF THE CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE Sec- 933. Findings and reco=ieendations; com- ment of governing bodies, elective officers, or agency heads (c) No lat=than 90 days afar the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the govmming body of the public aQ=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 evcy elective county officer or as=cy 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 perrair n to matters under the control of that county offiex or agency head and any agency or agencies which that offictr or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations. AIl 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 zU 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 fik 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. (A&-ed by Stats 1961, c 1284, §1. .amended by Stars 1963, c 674f § 1; St=1974, c 393, § 6. Statr.1974, c 13964 § 3; Srats 19177, c 107, § 6 Stars.1977, c 187, § 1; Stars 1980, c 543, § 1; Stats 1981, c 203, § 1. Starz 1982, c- 1408. 1408, § S; Sram]985, c 221, § 1; Stars1987, c 690, § 1; Srars 1988, c 1297, § S) Forme § 933, added by Sue-1982., c 1405, b 6, amended by StZM1985,c'_1.§ 2,opeariveJan. 1. 1989,vias rcac:�Ici by SLZM1987, c 690. § 2- Former § 933. added by Suss 1959, c 501. § :_ -2s repealed by Szzi-s.1959. c 1812. § 3. 'I A REPORT BY THE 1995-96 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GRAND JURY 1020 Ward Street Martinez, California 94553 (510) 646-2345 RICEI ED Report No. 9608 JUNI + 2 1996 CLERIC BOARD OF SUPERVISOR: CC 1'-Q A COSTA CO. HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT - PROJECT POSITIONS Approved by the Grand Jury: Date: RAMIIZO JURY FOREMAN Accepted for Filing: _...__...- v Date: \JO F. VAN DE POEL JVDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT PROJECT POSITIONS SUMMARY Use and recruitment for Project Position vacancies in Contra Costa County is subject to misuse and carried a strong potential for conflict of interest in selections. The personnel processes require modification to assure unbiased and appropriate use of this employment method. INTRODUCTION Over the past year, news media attention has been given to this employment of the Mayor of Martinez by the Contra Costa County Assessor for a position in the Assessor Office using Project Position personnel regulations. This report examines the project position processes in detail, using the Assessor Office position as a case study. FINDINGS 1. The Contra Costa County Merit System Ordinance 33-5, Section 33-5.323, states that project positions are excluded from the provisions of this ordinance. 2. Contra Costa County Administrative Bulletin#416.1 sets forth policies and:procedures governing the use of Project Positions. Such positions are: * designated by the County Administrator. * implemented for a specific project. * of limited duration. * financed in whole or in part by federal, state or private agencies. 3. Administrative Bulletin#416.1 states that the"Director of Personnel shall: * maintain a classification plan, and * administer competitive examinations and selection processes for employment similar to those for positions in the merit service." 4. Section 502 of the Personnel Management Regulations authorizes the Director of Personnel (now Human Resources)to suspend competitive examination for Merit System vacancies and authorize direct appointment, with a provision that a monthly report be furnished to the Board of Supervisors on suspension of competition. 5. The Director of Human Resources has interpreted that County regulations on Merit System vacancies to allow suspension of competitive examination for Project Positions vacancies without the need to report such actions to the Board of Supervisors. 1 6. Out of 100 Project Position appointments between July 31, 1995 and November 13, 1995, only three(3) project positions involving new hires were filled without examination. Of the remainder, seventy-one (71) were filled through examination and twenty-six (26) by lateral transfer. 7. An analysis of the paperwork for one(1) of the undocumented project positions filled without examination(Administrative Aids in the Assessor Office) disclosed the following findings: a. processing of the Position Adjustment Request (P300 Form) for appropriate approvals followed prescribed procedures. b. reason given on the P300 Form for the position adjustment was: "To reduce cost of middle management and to expand public service for resolving outstanding residential assessment appeals and to relieve the appellate burden from a more expensive appraisal staff." C. the P300 Form approved by the Administrators Office and the Board of Supervisors did not address an outside source of funding for, or the duration of the proposed position. No rationale was provided as the reason for creating a project position. Funding was indicated through downgrading a vacant supervising appraiser position. d. detailed supporting documentation(not a part of the P300 Position Adjustment Request) indicates that funding for the position was of be obtained from cities and school districts and that a two (2)year period was expected for the position. The position was approved as"Project" based on anticipated non-County funding. e. the original intent of the Project Position, an ombudsman for residents seeking review of their tax assessments, was in conflict from the outset with the interests of the anticipated funding participants(cities and school districts)who were seeking protection of their tax base. f. non-County funding arrangements had not been made prior to all the approvals of the P300 Form. g. funding from cities and school districts has not been forthcoming other than a grant of$5000 from the Martinez Unified School District. h. the State of California, under AB 818, recently provided funds to Contra Costa County for defensive efforts in protecting the County tax base. These funds are, in part, planned to be used in supporting the Administrative Aide Project Position. 2 i. the Director of Human Resources waived the requirement for competitive examination and authorized a direct hiring. Reason for this authorization was not documented. It was later explained in documentation to the Internal Operations Committee of the Board of Supervisors that the level of effort required to formulate and administer an examination for a single position was not considered "justifiable." j. the position was filled on July 24, 1995. The Contra Costa County Assessor was the selecting official. Four persons are said to have been interviewed; the selectee was the Mayor of Martinez. k. the identity of two (2) of the three (3) other persons interviewed is not known. 1. no documentation is available for the selection or results of interviews with the other three 3 persons. M. The selecting official (the Contra Costa County Assessor) is also the City Clerk for the City of Martinez and has been a member of its Planning Commission. n. the selected person, the Mayor of Martinez, nominated the selecting official for a City Planning Commission position and was legal counsel for the Assessor on matters relating to the Fair Political Practices Commission at the time of the selection. o. On September 12, 1995, the Board of Supervisors reconsidered its earlier approval of the Project Position based on misperceptions of the role and responsibility of the position. It withdrew its reconsideration but directed the County Administrator to investigate possible revisions to the Personnel Change Form and the information provided to the Board. 8. On October 3, 1995, the Board of Supervisors directed the Human resources Director to provide information to the Internal Operations Committee on"criteria used in determining whether filling a vacant `project' positions will require testing or be accomplished by a direct appointment." 9. On January 16, 1996, the Board of Supervisors reviewed a report from the Internal Operations Committee and requested the County Administrator and the Finance Committee to provide recommendations on criteria for creating and recruiting for project positions. Further, the Board directed County Counsel to prepare"...a general policy statement which encourages appointing authorities who are not appointed by the Board of Supervisors and which directs appointing authorities who are appointed by the Board of Supervisors to avoid situations which may be viewed as an appearance of a conflict of interest in filling positions, even though no legal conflict exits." 3 Old 10. On February 6, 1996, the Board of Supervisors reviewed the prior report from the Internal Operations Committee, accepting it".., with the understanding that the issue could be revisited if there are additional thoughts of comments that come forward during the year.. 11. On March 12, 1996, the Board of Supervisors approved changes to the Project Position system. The Human Resources Department was directed to: a. "...modify Personnel Adjustment Request form to include identification of project positions, funding sources, duration of the project and potential benefits to be provided by the position." b. "...provide the Board of Supervisors an updated cost-benefit analysis of each project position at the half-way point of the project duration." C. "...pursue changing the Personnel Management Regulations to require an examination process for filling project positions that were filled by direct appointment and are subsequently brought into the merit system. CONCLUSIONS 1. The policies and procedures governing the establishment, recruitment and selection of project positions are subject to misuse and require strong top-level management oversight. 2. Recent changes made-to the personnel system at the the Board of Supervisors' are insufficient to avoid potential misuse. 3. Filling of the Project Position for Administrative Aide in the Office of the Assessor, while in technical adherence to Contra Costa County personnel regulations, was poorly administered, i.e., all elements of the County's approval process treated this action as merely the substitution of a lower paid Administrative Aide position for a more costly Supervising Appraiser. a. On May 15, 1995,the County Administrator's Office(CAO) reviewed the Assessor's Office proposal to establish a project position without any evidence of outside funding, indication of position duration or description of the"project," then sent the action to the Human Resources Department(HRD) for evaluation and recommendation without counsel. b. The HRD obtained the appropriate information but, in recommending the substitution on May 24, 1995, neglected to disclose key data to the CAO regarding funding, duration and"project" description. C. On May 25, 1995,the CAO approved the recommendations of HRD without comment, forwarding the action to the Board of Supervisors for final approval. 4 d. On June 27, 1995, the Board of Supervisors approved the action without comment. 4. Direct hiring into vacant project position is relatively rare. Only three(3) of one hundred (100) positions filled between July 31, 1995 and November 13, 1995 were by direct hire. The remainder involved either lateral transfer of individuals from other positions or resulted from examination.. 5. The information contained in the Position Adjustment Requests(P300 Form) is insufficient to make a reasoned decision on the appropriateness of establishing a project position. 7. The process by which examinations are waived and direct hiring is authorized for project positions is deficient and requires improvement to preclude potential conflicts of interest. RECOMMENDATIONS The 1995-96 Contra Costa County Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors require a more detailed justification on the establishment, recruitment and selection for vacant Project Positions, to include: 1. written justification for waiver of examination. 2. written conflict of interest statement for any selection made without examination, identifying any relationship between the selecting official and the selected candidate. 3. requirement that the Human Resources Director review the conflict of interest statement and seek Board approval of the selection in sensitive or questionable instances. 4. requirement that at least three(3) identified persons be interviewed for any project position unless waived in writing by the Director of Human Resources. 5. written documentation on the results of each interview be kept on file with HRD for the duration of the project period. 6. written certification to the Board of Supervisors by the Director of Human Resources that all requirements for the establishment, recruitment and selection for Project Position vacancies have been met. COMMENT Instances of direct hiring for vacant project positions has been, and should be, relatively infrequent. A stronger ethical burden of propriety must be placed on the selecting official and the Human Resources Department to prevent misuse of this valuable employment tool. 5 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 §59 1985 ch_. 221 §1, effective July 12, 1985, 1987 ch. 690 §1, 1988 ch. 1297. Cross-References Admissible evidence. Penal Code §9.39.6. "Grand jury" defined. Penal Code 3888. Grand jury report to be based only on own investigation. Penal Code §939.9.