Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05061997 - C111 C. 111 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on May 6, 1997 by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Rogers, Ulikema, Gerber, Canciamilla, DeSaulnier NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBJECT: GRAND JURY REPORT IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the 1996-97 Contra Costa Grand Jury Report No. 9703, "Compliance and Review Committee Report, " is ACCEPTED and REFFERRED to the Internal Operations Committee and the County Administrator. cc: CAO Grand Jury 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 Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: _May 6, 1997 PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator BY l.�iQ��A ti SC�l p,�.Deputy RECEIVED LA 23607 xC08 NIRA OST uff"sons A REPORT BY THE 1996-97 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GRAND JURY 1020 Ward Street Martinez, California 945_53 (510) 646-2345 Report No. 9703 1996-97 GRAND JURY COMPLIANCE AND REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT APPROVED BY THE GRAND JURY: DATE: MI NA GRAD JURY FORE�IIAN ACCEPTED FOR FILING: DATE: -JOHN . VAN DF., POE[., JUDG OF THE SUPERIOR COURT SECTION 933 (C) OF THE CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE Mo 3-:-— 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 J udge of the superior court on the findings and recom- mendations 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 91.4.1 shall comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an in- formation copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters un- der 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 recommenda- tions. 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 impaneled 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-Rereren ces Admissible evidence. Penal Code X93)9.6. "Grand Jury" defrned. Penal Code X888. Grand jury report to be based only on own investigation. Penal Code X939.9. 1996-97 COMPLIANCE AND REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT The Contra Costa Civil Grand Jury is impaneled annually to investigate city and county governments, special districts and certain nonprofit corporations to ensure that their functions are lawfully, economically and efficiently performed. Reports of the results of these investigations and recommendations derived from them are published annually to ensure that the best interests of the public are being served. In accordance with Section 933(c) of the California Penal Code, the governing body of a public agency or its designated administrator must respond to these recommendations to the presiding judge within 90 days. Elected officials must respond to recommendations within 60 days. These responses are a matter of public record and are available upon request from the clerk of the Superior Court. The Compliance and Review Committee of the 1996-97 Grand Jury has evaluated the reports and recommendations of the 1995-96 Grand Jury as well as reviewing those reports and recommendations made during the preceding five (5) years. An analysis is provided below: Analysis of Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations Acce t Acce tl Non P ce Year Total Acpt As,1Vlodcfied „Parilial Response Reject, .i 1991-92 75 43 9 2 1 20 1992-93 60 32 14 8 6 1993-94 61 17 18 14 12 1994-95 61 18 17 1 13 12 1995-96 37 20 7 2 8 The following is a detailed summary of the responses to the reports issued by the 1995-96 Grand Jury. An explanation of the response terminology is indicated below: Code Word Explanation Accept Recommendation was/will be implemented. Accept/As Modified Recommendation was agreed to in principle but will be imple- mented with modification. (Note: This response generally con- stitutes a rejection.) Accept/Partial Part of the recommendation is accepted and was or will be implemented. The remaining portion was rejected. No Response Targeted agency did not respond and may be in violation of the California Penal Code §933(c). Follow-up action will be taken. Non Response A response was received but did not adequately address the recommendation. Reject The recommendation of the Grand Jury will not be implemented. Report Number'' 9601 Agency: Board of Supervisors Title: Audit CooperationfTeamwork in Auditing Introduction: The 1995/96 Grand Jury has a mandated interest in the use and allocation of public funds throughout the County. In addition, the Grand Jury is committed to evaluation of the operational effectiveness and efficiency of government entities within the County. The Grand Jury recognizes the varied levels of yearly internal and independent audits initiated by the County and deems it appropriate to insure appropriate Grand Jury review of County audits. Recommendation #1: Accepted 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 County 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 with be ready to consult with the Grand Jury Foreman on matters with respect to audits. Recommendation 92: Rejected 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: 4 a. The Management Audit would identify the Department's performance against goals, operational effectiveness, eliiciency 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#3: Accepted 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 Grand Jury, on a quarterly basis, to share this information with them. Recommendation #4: Accepted 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 in inadequate or no response 0 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. Report Number 902_. ... ... . AgeuGy, County,ShnfICoroner Tttl� .-Inmate.�'ell'ar: Introduction• Numerous questions have been asked by County Taxpayers regarding the Sheriff's Department Inmate Welfare Fund expenditures. These taxpayers presume that public funds are being used to maintain detention facility programs. The 1995-96 Contra Costa Grand Jury conducted an investigation of the Sheriff's Department Inmate Welfare Fund. This investigation provided a detailed analysis of the Fund's establishment and purpose of: • Inmate Welfare Fund Administration • Inmate Welfare Refund Revenue • Inmate Welfare Fund Programs The Inmate Welfare Fund is not County tax dollars. Recommendation #1: Rejected 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 #2: Accepted 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 #3: Accepted 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. Report Number,;9603 Agency ' Board oSupers, . . Title .Oversight of~Problemat�c.Departments. ' Background: Since 1994, the Contra Costa County Administrator has personally overseen the supervi- sion of the Community Services Department's administration. This action was taken by the County Administrator when it became apparent that the Community Services Depart- ment had allowed program stability to be placed in jeopardy through mismanagement. Recommendation #1: Accepted The County Administrator's Office develop a written policy for its process of overseeing problematic county departments. Said policy to require: a. Precise identification of problerns and issues b. Clear definition of goals and objectives C. List of expected outcomes d. Evaluation of the degree of supervision required for resolution of the issues e. Notification to the Board of Supervisors each time said policy is implemented f Identifiable time frame for correction of issues, not to exceed six (6) months g. Extension of the time frame, not to exceed an additional six (6) months, upon approval of the Board of Supervisors h. Regular progress reports, provided by the County Administrator's Office to the Board of Supervisors and the department head I. At the end of the oversight period, the County Administrator's Office will provide the Board oi- Supervisors viable options for permanent resolution of identified issues. Response: A. This recommendation is accepted. B. The Board of Supervisors agrees with the Grand Jury recommendation for a formal written policy to oversee problematic County departments. Therefore, the Board adopts the following format policy statement: Oversight Policy of Problematic Coun!y Departments Under the County Ordinance, the Board of Supervisors has delegated responsibility to the County Administrator to review fiscal, organizational and personnel functions of non- elected department heads that are appointed by the Board of Supervisors. From time to time, as a result of performance and deficiency issues, it may be necessary for the County Administrator to expand normal managerial support, including management audits, in order to correct deficiencies or resolve difficult and complex matters relating to a department's operations. When this occurs, the Board of Supervisors shall be notified and provided a list of particular problems, concerns and issues, including expected outcomes with a time frame for correcting the problems and deficiencies, not to exceed six months. If any deficiencies remain uncorrected and unresolved after six months, the County Administrator may request an extension of up to six months from the Board of Supervisors. A final report will be provided at the end of the oversight period. Re Nur bel9604. �lgenc� >Board of Supernsors Title: Tier iRetirendentBeneffs,forEmoye sof 'W r Cosh bountyEritployee , Rtiremnt System Summary: y On December 13, 1993, the Board of the Contra Costa County Employees Retirement Association (CCCERA) voted to provide Tier I benefit coverage for all its employees hired after 1980. The Board's position was that the CCCERA was a Special District, not subject to the rules for retirement benefits applicable to other County employees. The CCCERA Board determined that its employees hired after 1980 were entitled to the option of selecting the more generous retirement benefits of Tier I. The CCCERA staff are County employees and, therefore, if hired after 1980, are not eligible for Tier I benefits. Recommendation 91 Accepted 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 #2: Rejected 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 43: Accepted/As Modified Deny any further 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 the become available. Report Number.`9605;': ---- "Agency�. Board:of Supervisors '' - Title: ChU.&Care Center =Public"Works Department Introduction• The establishment of a County-sponsored Child Care Center at the Public Works Depart- ment 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 Grand Jury recognizes the precedent for child care facilities in government buildings; however, limited time and resources prevented thorough evaluation of the policies and financial arrangements which resulted in their establishment. Recommendation #).a: Rejected The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 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. Response: A. This recommendation is not adopted. B. The Contra Costa Public Works Early Childhood Center is a California non-profit corporation responsible for the operation of the child care facility. The Board of Directors stands ready to provide reports on its operations and finances to the Board of Supervisors or any of its committees when called upon to do so. Recommendation#Lb: Accepted/As Modified The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors appoint an ad hoc citizen group to research the policies and practices of other 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. Response: A. This recommendation is accepted as modified. B. In the event that a County department indicates the desire to establish another child care center, the Board at that time will consider the process for researching other governmental organizations on sponsored child care centers in order to gain insight on financial and operational practices and potential pitfalls. Recommendation #Lc: Accepted/As Modified The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors issue a policy statement precluding development of any additional County-sponsored employee child care centers until a County policy is established. Response: A. This recommendation is accepted as modified. B. There have been no requests to develop additional child care centers. County Ordinance Code X82-22.202 states in part: "...It is the policy of Contra Costa County to assist and encourage the development of adequate affordable child care. It is recognized that the provision of child care requires a partnership between public and private participants and the role of this county is to establish land use policies and ordinances to promote the establishment of child care facilities and the initiation of child care services in this community... "Further, it is a policy of this county to encourage, whenever possible, joint use facilities such as, but not limited to, public schools, churches, parks or other community facilities. (Ord. 88-1 §3)," The Family and Human Services Committee is directed to establish a mission statement, policies and procedures for the operation of the existing day care center as well as developing a mission statement, policies and procedures, including any proposed County subsidies, for any future County child care facilities. Recommendation#2: AeeeptTartia[ 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. Response: A. This recommendation is accepted in part. B. Monthly costs have been determined. There is no additional cost for phone service. There are two telephones in the child care center, and both were purchased by the center. They plug into Public Works lines, but there is no additional charge to the Public Works Department for phone service, whether or not these phones are plugged in. Water.usage usage is also minimal, about $1 a month. There is a patch of grass approximately 150 square feet in area, and two children's toilets, and one adult toilet. The latter toilet is not used by staff, in fact, it is used for storing exercise mats. Landscape maintenance is also minimal. There is no landscaping to maintain, other than the aforementioned 150 square feet of grass. The remainder of the Public Works facility is extensively landscaped, including additional lawn areas, and General Services estimated it takes less than 15 minutes per week to mow the child care center lawn, for a total cost of about $50 per month. To estimate the cost of electricity, the $3,000 a month electrical bill was pro-rated by the area of the child care center in proportion to the total square footage of the Public Works facility. This calculation results in a cost of approximately $165 a month of electric service to the child care center. The non-profit corporation, which operates the child care center, pays the County $800 a month for the use of this building, and in addition had to spend approximately $30,000 to bring water and rest room facilities to the building, and make other building modifications necessary to meet state child care regulations. As to the costs to be recovered from the Center, by paying for the utility services, the County is subsidizing the child care center by approximately $200 per month. Since the child care center can only be occupied by children of County employees, it is considered a benefit to both the employee and the County, and is consistent with the County Child Care Ordinance. The County Administrator is directed to submit to the Board of Supervisors a request for authorization to provide a subsidy for the Center pursuant to Government Code §26227. ReporE Number„9606 Agercy City of Pittsburg g p Title The Pittsbar Po 1ce.De artment;R& ted Background: On June 14, 1993, the Contra Costa County Grand Jtiy issued Report 49309. The report's findings were critical of the Pittsburg Police Department. Due to years of inadequate management, there was internal strife and disarray within the Department and existing Rules and Procedures were not clear or consistently enforced. Almost to the day the report was issued, the City of Pittsburg hired the current chief to provide new leadership and management for a Department that was experiencing a "meltdown”of its image and integrity in the community. The current administration has been in place for two (2) years. The 1995-96 Grand Jury undertook the task of revisiting the Pittsburg Police Department to find out what changes have occurred. Introduction: In June of 1993 a new Chief of Police was hired. Upon his arrival, he was provided with the 1992-93 Grand Jury Report finding that the Department suffered from mismanage- ment and harassment in the work place. The new chief's priorities were to reorganize the department and eliminate misconduct in the work place. A mission and department values statement needed to be articulated. This was a first for the department and put in place the mandate and philosophy necessary for the improve- ment curve to begin. Under the current administration, changes have taken place within the department that have contributed towards improvement in service to the City and working conditions in the department. Recommendations: Accepted 1. Continue the emphasis that the department has now placed on community policing. 2. Continue the training programs initiated by the department in fostering good employee relations among all members of the department. 3. Upgrade computerized communications, linking patrol cars with central dispatch. Response: As to the Grand Jury's recommendations we can assure you that our emphasis on community policing will not only be emphasized but expanded to include active participation by all city departments. Secondly, we feel that the key to successful law enforcement should be a training program second to none in this state. That is our goal. In regard to computerized linking of our patrol cars to dispatch, we concur with this recommendation. Subject to budgetary limitations, the department is currently researching the feasibility of initiating this upgrade. Report Number '9607;; Agency Social is-er �ces Department Child Welfare Divtslon. Title:--. Planning Delays Children°'s Permanent Placement Background: The 1993-94 Grand Jury issued two (2) reports critical of the Contra Costa County Social Services Department - Child Welfare Division regarding their foster care and adoption procedures. Report #9402 dealt with issues of adoption versus long-term foster care. Report 99405 focused on the lack of communication between the Department of Social Service and care givers, including potential adoptive parents. The 1994-95 Grand Jury Report 99509 was critical of the length of time children wait for permanent placement. The 1995-96 Grand Jury conducted a study of the Contra Costa County Department of Social Service - Child Welfare Division's progress on addressing some issues raised in the above-mentioned reports. Recommendation #I-a Accepted Produce an updated training manual that reflects current policies for Social Workers. Response: A. This recommendation is accepted. 13. The Social Services Department is committed to the production of' a Child Welfare Training Manual to be issued following completion of our training prograrn in December, 1996. The Department is also committed to the updating of its Policy and Procedure Manual for Child Welfare Services. An additional Program Analyst was appointed to Child Welfare with the expectation that the Manual would be updated before the end of FY 1996-97. Recommendation #2: Accepted Promptly implement the professionally developed criteria for determining a child's eligibility for permanent placement. Response: A. This recommendation is accepted. B. The Department has, in conjunction with foster and adoptive parents, developed a permanency planning assessment tool. A work group was established to develop a "fost-adopt" assessment tool specific to our County. This will be reviewed by other "stakeholders," such as the Social Worker/Attorney and the Caregiver Committees, to ensure everyone's input and buy-in. In the meantime the Department will continue to use a Permanency Planning Assessment Review, prior to 12-month court reviews, to ensure that Permanency Planning options are fully considered. Recommendation #3: Accepted Persist in the dialogue with the unions, courts and family law attorneys to remove barriers for implementation of permanent placement. Response: A. This recommendation is accepted. B. The Department has developed working committees to engage the unions, courts, and attorneys in the on-going process of discussion and resolving issues that prevent permanency. Additionally, the Department has requested consultation from the American Bar Association (ABA). It is planned that ABA, starting in September, 1996, will be training Court Workers on writing petitions, working on representation issues between the Department and County Counsel, and sharing information regarding the Statewide Court Improvement Project. Recommendation 94: Accepted Maintain the commitment to Child Welfare System/Case Management System (CWS/CMS) training and implementation as currently planned. Response: A. This recommendation is accepted. B. The Department has established its CWS/CMS implementation team and has begun the process of assessing current work flow and identifying changes which must be made prior to automation. All buildings have been wired for CWS/CMS and most of the hardware has been installed. Recommendation #5: Accepted Require system-specific computer training of Social Workers. Response: A. This recommendation is accepted. B. The Department will be involved in Training for Trainers on the CWS/CMS application system this Fall, with Social Workers to be trained in February/March, 1997. The system is expected to be implemented in the Spring of 1997. Social Workers received 16 hours of word processing training and are encouraged to use their computers for documentation, letter writing and reports. Report Number 9608 Agency Boar :Supervisors Titter Htman`Resources'Depart ent- Project Positions Summary: Use and recruitment for Project Position vacancies in Contra Costa County is subject to misuse and carries a strong potential for conflict of interest in selections. The personnel processes require modification to assure unbiased and appropriate use of this employ- ment method. Introduction: Over the past year, news media attention has been given to the employment of the Mayor of Martinez by the Contra Costa County Assessor for a position in the Assessor's Office using Project Position personnel regulations. This report examines the project position processes in detail, using the Assessor's Office position as a case study. Recommendation #1: Adopted Written justification for waiver of examination. Response: A. This recommendation is adopted. B. Administrative Bulletin No. 416, "Project Positions" will be amended to require that any department seeking to fill a project position by waiver of examination and direct appointment first submit a written needs analysis to the Human Resources Director. Recommendation t12: Adopted as Modified Written conflict of interest statement for any selection made without examination, identifying any relationship between the selecting official and the selected candidate. Response: A. This recommendation is adopted as modified. B. Administrative Bulletin No. 416, "Project Position," will be amended to require that any direct appointment to a project position be in accordance with Resolution No. 96/293, "Policy on Avoiding Conflicts of Interest in Appointments by Department Heads to Authorized Positions," and adopted by the Board of Supervisors on June 1 ], 1996. Recommendation #3: Not Adopted Requirement that the Human Resources Director review the conflict of interest statement and seek Board approval of the selection in sensitive or questionable instances. Response: A. This recommendation is not adopted. B. The policy on avoiding conflicts of interest adopted by the Board of Supervisors on June 11, 1996 delegates this responsibility to the appointing authority. Recommendation 94: Adopted Requirement that at least three (3) identified persons be interviewed for any project position unless waived in writing by the Director of Human Resources. Response: A. This recommendation is adopted. Recommendation 95: Adopted in Part Written documentation on the results of each interview be kept on file with H.RD for the duration of the project period. Response: A. This recommendation is adopted in part. B. The Director of Human Resources will apply the practice currently in use which requires departments to provide a record of the outcome of the interviews to the Human Resources Department, i.e., who was interviewed, who waived an interview, who was appointed, etc. Recommendation 46: Not Adopted 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. Response: A. This recommendation is not adopted. B, Department heads, as appointing authorities, are accountable for adherence to County policies and processes. Report Number. .9609 ": Agency Board of Supervsois: Title Put:the`Com micrury back`into the Community Services`P.O#itment;Programs: Background: Since 1989, the Community Services Department of Contra Costa County has systemati- cally assumed control of three (3) Head Start programs previously operated by commu- nity based non-profit organizations. Since that time, administration of the federally funded Head Start program in Contra Costa County has been placed at risk. The federal government continues to closely monitor and is demanding the County reform the pro- gram administration. Recommendation #I Not Accepted The Contra Costa Board of Supervisors return control of the Head Start Programs to the community level. Response: A. This recommendation is not accepted. B. The County of Contra Costa, as the federally designated Community Action Agency and Head Start Grantee for this County, has always been responsible for the administration and oversight of the Head Start Program. Control of the program by the Grantee is required by federal regulations. Head Start remains an integral part of the Board of Supervisor's extensive prevention efforts to combat poverty, and will continue to provide critically required services to children and families. Program deficiencies raised by the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) during their May, 1995, and February, 1996 Head Start audits have been successfully addressed and resolved by team effort of the Board of Supervisors, the Policy Council, and Community Services staff. This was acknowledged by ACF at the conclusion of their May, 1996 Head Start audit and in a June 26, 1996 letter to the County. Major changes in the management structure of' the Community Services [department and its f-lead Start Division have been implemented since the Grand Jury review of' the I-lead Start Program. As a result, many of the findings and conclusions noted in the (jrand Jury report have been corrected and/or resolved. Recommendation #2: Accepted as Modified The Contra Costa Board of Supervisors develop standardized criteria for selecting Head Start Program contractors from among community based non-profit organizations. Response: A. This recommendation is accepted as modified. B. Standardized criteria for the selection of future Head Start contractors via an open competitive process is being developed by the Department. Federal regulations prohibit the structuring of a competitive process that prevents any organization from full and equal participation. The development of selection criteria that narrows the participant base to only community based non-profit organizations is not allowable. Recommendation 43: Accepted as Modifced The Management of the Community Services Department be reorganized to be a pro- active support system for Community Based Non-Profit organizations. To be accomplished by: a. Following a formal organizational chart, and structuring lines of communication between Community Services Department staff and community based non-profit organizations. b. Providing technical support for the community based non-profit organizations in the areas of (l) writing grant applications (2) Federal Head Start Program compliance issues (3) accounting and fiscal management (4) contracting (5) communication with parent participants (6) staff development and training Response: A. This recommendation is accepted as modified. 13. The Department is developing a more effective and equitable support system for the community based non-profit organizations with which it currently has contracts. However, the development of a new support system must be based on the premise that more efficient and effective training and technical assistance by the County will result in actual and measurable improvement of the contractor's program operations. Head Start regulations require that proposed Delegate Agency contractors must possess the skill and ability to successfully meet the terms and conditions of the proposed contract before they enter into any agreement. While Head Start grant funds can and will be used to provide technical support to experienced and capable contractors on ongoing program issues, Head Start funds cannot be used to train inexperienced contractors on how to administer and operate Head Start programs. The Department believes that all problems of training of technical assistance are being corrected, and that community based non-profit organizations under contract with the County to provide Head Start services will receive the help and support they need in order to perform their contract responsibilities. Report i�Tumber: 96I0: A encs;; Boa>d of-Supervisors g Tale Polit�calActivat�es iu Contra Costa County Bp ngs Summary: Many public agencies in California have acted under Government Code §3207 to regu- late political activities by civil service employees during working hours and on agency premises. The 1995-96 Contra Costa Grand Jury has not discovered any policy mandated by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors regulating activities of employees for political purposes during working hours. Recommendation #1: Adopted as Modified Adopt a policy in conformance with the California Government Code, §3207 regulating the political activities of all County employees during working hours. The policy is also to address the use of County property, equipment and facilities for political activities. Response: A. This recommendation is adopted as modified. B. Administrative Bulletin No. 405, Subject: "Political Activities," will be amended by the County Administrator to include the following language, subject to meeting and conferring with employee representatives under the Myers-Milias- Brown Act: "Pursuant to Government Code Section 3207, except as may be required by constitutional rights to freedom of speech, no funds, employee or other services, supplies, equipment, or other personal or real property of Contra Costa County or of any other agency governed by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors shall be used for the purpose of supporting the election or defeat of any elected public officer or candidate for public office." Recommendation #2: Not Adopted Require that a copy be signed by every employee and retained in the official personnel file. Response: A. This recommendation is not adopted at this time. However, this recommendation needs to be studied as part of a larger review. B. The Board directs the County Administrator and Human Resources Director to report to the Internal Operations Committee on the current process for informing employees of County policies, whether the present practices are appropriate, any recommended changes and costs related thereto. RepQ�t Number 9611 Agency $oard of Supervisors Title; County Computing Evolutiap„ Summary: This report focuses on the trend to change computer systems from centralized mainframe to geographically distributed processors within user departments of Contra Costa County. The 1995-96 Contra Costa County Grand Jury is concerned that a strategy and appropri- ate controls be in place for achieving the best possible working relationship between the two information processing approaches and for protecting Contra Costa County's computer-related assets (data, software and hardware). Recommendation #1: Accepted Formally establish the Information Technology Steering Committee (ITSC) with the following responsibilities: a. ensure that the ITSC represents the computer interests of all departments. b. adopt procedures for a model client/server operation. C. develop a client/server model for physical and environmental characteristics needed for departmental computer operations. d. develop and maintain, for critical areas, a common disaster recovery plan, including off-site storage of data at Hot Sites (standby systems). e. adopt and maintain a Systems Development Life Cycle (SDLC) procedure which is applicable to all systems: purchased, externally acquired or internally developed. f. adopt a standard for project management of new systems. Response: A. This recommendation is accepted. B. The Information Technology Steering Committee (ITSC) was created in October 1995. The committee is chaired by the County Administrator and its members are form the following departments: County Administrator, Information Technology, Probation, Auditor-Controller, Growth Management and Economic Development Agency, Social Services, Health Services, Municipal Court, Treasurer-Tax Collector, and Human Resources. Since its inception, the committee has validated the creationibroadening in scope of the County Wide Area Network (WAN) Committee. This committee, co-chaired by representatives from Superior Court and the Department of Infonnation Technology, is also represented by every County department that wishes to belong and attend meetings. Therefore, through the ITSC and WAN Committees, every County department's interests are represented in decisions in Information Technology. The Wide Area Network Committee addresses the County-wide technical infrastructure design. That committee is in the process of drafting a model for a client/server-distributed processing operation and environmental characteristics. A final product is expected by December, 1996. It will be sent to the Information Technology Steering Committee for approval and implementation as County policy. The Department of Information Technology has on file, tests and updates each month, a formal disaster recovery plan for the County's central computer center. This process includes very secure off-site data storage, an ongoing "hot-site" processing agreement with the Comdisco Corporation, and a cooperative processing agreement with Alameda County Information Services. In March, 1996, the Board of Supervisors adopted the "Contra Costa County Computer Use and Security Memorandum of Agreement," for all department heads and County employees. One if its provisions is that all departments develop a disaster recovery document, modeled after the central data center model. Information Technology has offered consulting services to departments requiring assistance designing and implementing such a plan. Additionally, in July, 1995, the County signed an agreement with the ARCUS Corporation of Sacramento to provide off- site storage of data in an extremely secure facility. Information Technology has offered this centralized service to all departments and will also implement a centralized system back-up service in September, 1996, that will be available to all departments. Information Technology has been using the "CARA" Systems Development Life Cycle methodology and product since 1986. The project management team and the systems and programming team went to specialized courses in employing the CARA methodology. The CARA system, which is still in use today, includes the system development stages of planning, analysis, design, development, implementation and post implementation recommended by KPMG Peat Marwick. There was discussion during an October, 1995, meeting with KPMG auditors and Grand Jury members that the County's IT Director was considering replacing this process with a more modern process, and this may have been a matter of miscommunication during the discussion. The County feels this process is already in place and being used. Recommendation >#2: Accepted Formally support: a. filling of the currently vacant EDP Auditor position. b. validating of all computer systems by the EDP Auditor against this report's recommendations and current EDP auditing standards. C. housing of departmental computers in the County mainframe facility, whenever feasible. Response: A. This recommendation is accepted. B. In February, 1996, the County engaged the Stanford Research Institute to provide a security assessment of the County's central corporate data center and wide area network connections. One of the preliminary recommendations of SRI'S draft report is the creation of a Countywide Security Administrator function within the Department of Infonnation Technology. This person's responsibilities would include the delineation of functions within the Department with respect to information security, and would provide a "third party" relationship in controlling system security. Additionally, the security assessment recommends the position of EDP Auditor in the County Auditor's office. The Board agrees with these Findings. It would be the function of these two positions to coordinate the County's future direction with respect to the implementation of prudent information technology security procedures and standards. In August, 1995, and March, 1996, the Director of Information Technology issued Countywide memoranda advising of certain inadequacies in various departmental computer sites. Departments were invited to move their equipment into the County's central data center and, to date, two departments have done so. Recommendation #3: Accepted Direct the development of administrative procedures to cover: a. provisions for updated, written administrative procedures for using all system products and applications. b. enforcement of standards (e.g., automatic virus checking) to validate outside access to County computers and by limiting activities to official business only. C. restriction of source code modifications to purchased products. Response: A. This recommendation is accepted. B. Written procedures for the acquisition and use of information technology procedures are provided by the Purchasing Division of the General Services Department, the Department of Information Technologry, the Wide Area Network Committee, and the Information Technology Steering Committee on an ongoing basis. During Fiscal Year 1995-96, policies implemented include "Contra Costa County Computer Use and Security Memorandum of Agreement," "Desktop Computer Purchasing and Maintenance Policy," and "Implementation of County- wide Technology Agreement and Use Policy." These policies are drafted at the department or committee level, forwarded to the Information Technology Steering Committee for review and approval, and then to the County Administrator for approval and distribution through the County's Administrative Bulletins. In June, 1996, the County entered into a contract with the MacAfee Software Corporation for a 2,500 user site license for MacAfee Anti-Virus software. Approved by the Wide Area Network Committee as the best anti-virus product on the market, this software is expected to be distributed to all County desktop machines during the months of August and September. However, there is no mandate provision for county departments to utilize this software at the present time, because of the cost factor of $30460 per machine. The "Contra Costa County Computer Use and Security Memorandum of Agreement" includes specific provision of language about every department's and employee's responsibility to protect the County's data, utilize responsible and prudent security and anti-virus guidelines, and use of County machines for County versus personal business. The County Administrator has directed all departments utilizing commercial computer application software to use such software in accordance with the contractual agreement. It is incumbent upon each department's system manager to insure that this policy is being followed. Report htumber 9¢1Z "' Agency Board'of Supervisors Title-: Bus tlers 'Operations of. the Contra Costa County Emp,oyees Retirement :.Board'. Summary: The County Employees Retirement Act of 1937 provides retirement benefits for perma- nent, full-time employees and participating special districts which are funded by employee/employer contributions and earnings on investment moneys in the retirement fund. The current practice of the Contra Costa County Employees Retirement Board of Directors (Board) to return investment gains, beyond its needs, to contributing employees, employers and retirees is acceptable. Introduction• Has the Board of Directors of Contra Costa County Employees Retirement Association (CCCERA) violated the law and breached their fiduciary duty to retirement system members and their beneficiaries by distributing earnings to reduce employee/employer contributions? Or as suggested by several critics, should the Board have credited the total excess earnings against possible fiscal deficiencies in subsequent years? Conclusions: The 1995-96 Grand Jury finds no violation of the law or its intent in the distribution of subsidies to employer and employee reserve accounts. The Board has a legal right under authority of applicable California Government Code Sections and the Attorney General's Opinion 86-707, to make distribution in line with accepted fiduciary and good business practices. No specific recommendations were made by the Grand Jury.