HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06272000 - C128 C.128
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on June 27, 2000, by the following vote:
A'L'ES: SUPERVISORS GIOIA, UILKEMA, DeSAULNIER, CANCIAMILLA and GERBER
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
Re: Grand Jury Report No. 0013
On this date, the Board of Supervisors considered the consent item, Grand Jury
Report No. 0013, "Compliance and Review Committee Report".
Supervisor Uilkema moved to accept the consent items on the agenda, and
Supervisor Gioia seconded the motion.
IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that Item C.128 is ACCEPTED, and
REFERRED to the County Administrator.
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 21,2000
Phil Batchelor,Clerk of the Board
of upervisors and Countv Administrator
B fit
Deputy k
c.c. CAO
A REPORT BY
THE 1999-00 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GRAND JURY
725 Court Street
Martinez, California 94553
RECEIVED
JUN 19 2000
Report No. 0013
CL FSK BOARD OF SUPIRV19 RS
CONTRA COSTA CO.
COMPLIANCE AND REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT
APPROVED BY THE GRAND JURY:
Date:
CAROL THEWS
GRAND JURY FOREMAN
ACCEPTED FOR FILING.
Date: q4 Xwo •
WALTER D. R.OGERS
JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT NO. 0013
COMPLIANCE AND REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT
The Contra Costa County Civil Grand Jury is impaneled annually to investigate city and county
governments, special districts and certain non-profit corporations to ensure functions are
performed in a lawful, economical and efficient manner. Findings and Recommendations
resulting from these investigations are contained in reports. Responses to these reports must be
made within certain time constraints pursuant to Section 933(c) of the California Penal Code.
This Compliance&Review Report is divided into two parts. Part I provides a summary of the
Findings, Recommendations and Target responses to the prior 1998/1999 Grand Jury Reports;
Part II provides follow-up of Target responses from a select number of earlier Grand Jury
reports. A copy of the complete Grand Jury Report is available in all libraries. A copy of
responses may be obtained from local clerks of public agencies, the Office of the County Clerk
or mayors(Penal Code 933(c)). A copy of individual reports and the Target responses may also
be obtained in writing to:
Contra Costa County Civil Grand Jury
Post Office Box 911
Martinez, California 94553-4091
Report9902: Failure to Enforce General Services Department Policy 2-3
9903: Contempt for Accountability: City of Richmond 4
9904: Present Status of Group Homes Programs, Child Welfare Division 5
9905: The Contra Costa Water District 6
9906: The County Homeless Services 7-8
9907: The Antioch Board of Education: Fiscal Oversight 9-10
9908: Community Management of Gang Activities 11-12
PART H
9805: Condition of Detention Facility 13
9808: Law Enforcement in Contra Costa County 13
9809: Americans With Disabilities Act 14
Summary and Response to Contra Costa County Grand Jury Report No. 9902
Summary and Response to Contra Costa County Grand Jury Report No. 9902
Failure to Enforce e er trvice spa. rtm nt Policy
BACKGROUND
Since 1990, the County General Services Department has had a definitive directive regarding
disposal of property. In addition, Administrative Bulletin S 17, dated January 11, 1991, covers
disposal of property. During this time, some telecommunications employees have not adhered to
the directions contained in the respective Directive and Bulletin.
FINDINGS
Four findings were submitted to the General Services Department, summarized as follows:
A Directive dated October 10, 1990 states, in part, that when the County no longer needs
equipment, materials, or other items that such property must be declared surplus and sold
by auction, advertised for bids, or sold to a scrap collector. Such items are not to be
taken by County employees. This directive was revised July 6, 1998 and a modifying
sentence added, "Under no circumstances is County property available to be taken by
employees without prior approval by Administration."
In direct conflict with the Directives and Bulletin, some telecommunications technicians
declared County telecommunications property as scrap and authorized disposal in County
and private trash containers. Once this property was placed in containers, it was
available for anyone to take, use or sell with no remuneration going to the County.
The technicians have declared they were not aware of the directives or bulletin specifying
the manner of disposal of property. An investigation by the District Attorney stated that
each technician was given almost total autonomy in deciding the disposal of equipment
and therefore was legally unassailable.
RECOMMENDATIONS
There were five recommendations summarized as follows:
All Department of General Services employees will be given a copy of the new directive and
original bulletin describing disposal of County property. The County directive will be amended
to delete reference to"approval by Administration" and include that approval for disposal will be
thv responsibility of an individual at the Supervisorial level or department head.
All Department employees will sign a form acknowledging receipt of the directive and original
bulletin. Each employee will be made aware that violation of the policy will result in
disciplinary action and/or criminal prosecution.
2
RESPONSE
The respondent agreed with all findings and recommendations and took action to implement
them as part of the department orientation packet, All department employees will be verbally
informed of the changes during the next semiannual series of the All Staff Meeting.
On May 18, 1999,the Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to accept the responses prepared
by the General Services Director in regard to Report No. 9942 of the Grand Jury.
c ,
3
Summary for Response to Contra Costa County Grand Jury Report No. 9903
of the Work Ethhc
in Richmond Government
BACKGROUND
Beginning as early as 1994, the Recreation and Cultural Services Department bfthe City of
Richmond has demonstrated gross mismanagement and a clear lack of accountability. These
patterns have resulted in poor performance, a lack of professionalism, dismal morale, loss of
income and a total disdain of productive employment standards.
FINDINGS
The nineteen Findings deal with a variety of inappropriate personnel management practices, lack
of accountability for employee performance, insubordinate actions by some employees, improper
use of and financial accountability for auditorium rentals and several other financial deficiencies.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Report contains fourteen Recommendations dealing with employee accountability,
maintaining a proper chain of command structure; initiating, improving and emphasizing proper
personnel procedures within a full range of Human Resource responsibilities, including,
performance review, promotion, hiring, counseling and discipline; and improving management
and financial controls over the use of the auditorium.
RESPONSE
The City provided a lengthy response, disagreeing with five of the Findings, partially
disagreeing with ten and agreeing with four. Its response provides information on current
practices and how these practices will be changed through new policies and procedures and in an
Administrative Policy Manual (a draft of which was provided with the response).
The City addressed each Recommendation in detail and, with only one exception, stated the
Recommendation was either being or has been implemented,referencing the draft
Administrative Policy Manual as its principal vehicle. The single exception was on
Recommendation ten regarding micro-management of departmental hiring, firing and decision
making. In this exception,the City stated that the recommendation required further analysis
by the City Council's Rules and Procedures Sub-Committee. (Penal Code 933(c) requires that
said analysis be completed and returned to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court within six
months of receipt of the report. By letter dated May 4, 2000,the City of Richmond was
reminded to provide the required response to Recommendation ten within 30 days).
4
Summary and Response to Contra Costa County Grand Jury Report No. 9904
The Present Status of Group Home Programs of the Child Welfare Division
BACKGROUND
A report was written regarding Group Home Programs managed by the Child Welfare Division
(CWD). The goal of these Programs, considered as a whole, is to'provide the,"at risk child" with
a safe and healthy environment. The CWD utilizes state-licensed homes that are staffed 24
hours a day (Health and Safety Code, Title 22, Division 6, Chapters 1 and 2). The State of
California requires one unannounced caseworker visit per year or upon a complaint by a resident
(Section 16501.1, Welfare and Institutions Code).
FINDINGS
There were seven findings. These findings involved requirements of the various codes under
which the Department operates.
For example, the findings referred to three new approaches being developed by the CAD. The
findings suggested that those using the CWD system, unless mandated to do so by the courts, did
not take advantage of parenting programs offered by the Department. The Grand Jury pointed
out that Group Home staffing levels were mandated by the State not by the Child Welfare
Department. And finally, in some cases, Group homes visited by Grand Jurors were not well
maintained.
RECOMMENDATIONS
There were seven recommendations specifically targeting the number of visits required by
County Social workers: The recommendations included that the County cease housing Probation
Department children with non-probationary children,the medication requirements for each child
should be reviewed with the director of each group home; and require that group homes be kept
in good physical repair.
RESPONSE
The Department accepted all seven findings. The Department adopted five of the seven
recommendations. On the other hand,the Department rejected the recommendation that children
on probation not be placed in homes with children not on probation, suggesting instead that the
needs of the individual child are more important than the legal label placed on him/her by court
action. The Department also did not adopt the recommendation that the Department conduct
parenting classes for all parents reuniting with their children saying that this authority is located
with the Juvenile Court and not with Child Welfare.
5
Summary and Responde to Contra Costa County Grand Jury Report No. 9905
Contra Costa Water District
BACKGROUND
The Contra Costa Water District is a Special District within the County. It is governed by a five
person Board of Directors and a General Manager appointed by the Board.
The District was formed by Central and East County voters to contract for the purchase and
distribution of water provided by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. The District is also
responsible for supplying treated and untreated water to parts of Central and East County.
Untreated water is furnished to the Cities of Antioch, Pittsburg and Martinez,Diablo Water
District, and California Cities Water Company. Treated water is provided to approximately two
hundred thousand residents of Central Contra Costa County.
FINDINGS
Five findings dealt with allegations made of possible Brown Act irregularities, unwarranted pay
increases for Senior Managers and a Board of Directors unable to function as a mature, cohesive
unit.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The 1995-1999 Grand Jury Made two recommendations:
A. The Board review and monitor the Merit Award Program annually.
B. The District schedule closed sessions on the agenda at the latter part of a
meeting to accommodate members of the General Public attending these
meetings.
RESPONSE
The Contra Costa Water District Board has agreed with the findings and has accepted and
implemented the recommendations.
6
III-1/101'r
'- cV
Summary and Response to Contra Costa County Grand Jury Report No. 9906
The County E omeless Service - Do they go Ear Enough?
BACKGROUND
Recent articles in the local press and charges of lack of interest by local activist supporters for
the homeless, caused the 1998-99 Grand Jury to investigate these criticisms. While
acknowledging the immensity of the problem and a general lack of resources, the Grand Jury
found a significant lack of leadership existed within the County Homeless Program as well as a
serious lack of data describing the extent of the problem.
FINDINGS
There were eleven findings submitted to the County Administrator and the Health Services
Director. Briefly summarized these fell into two areas:
There was little specific data regarding the extent of the"homeless problem" in
the County and there appears to be a severe lack of leadership and coordination
amongst the various concerned agencies and the County Homeless Program. In
addition to not having a clear mission as well as a lack of reports documenting
Program progress, the shortage of field personnel tended to exacerbate the
County's ability to significantly address the growing homeless problem.
Public shelters for the homeless needed to be upgraded and new facilities added.
These include, better mobile field stations using newer equipment to provide
greater service mobility within the County. Additional emphasis on soliciting
public grants should be explored by the Program and emphasis placed on
examining the organizational structure of the Program which, at present, has only
one ombudsman responsible for the entire County.
RECOMMENDATIONS
There were eight recommendations ranging from dividing the County into regions for greater
management oversight and efficiency to recommendations targeting specific County homeless
shelters, their resources, and their suitability for possible expansion. Additionally, there was a
specific request to open an East County shelter.
COUNTY RESPONSE
The County agreed or partially agreed with a majority of the Report's findings. Problems such
as a shortage of Program personnel, enough public shelters,the need for new and better
equipment for the mobile fleet, a need for additional emergency shelters and a need for better
documentation of the extent of the homeless problem were acknowledged.
7
Ci,•�o`�d
However, the County disagreed that there was insufficient direction within the Program. To the
contrary, it suggested that capable supervision already exists within the Health Services
Department and, in addition, the Program receives continuing hands-on involvement and support
from the Public Health Director as well as the County Administrator(CACI).
8
�4
Summary and Response to Contra Costa County Grand Jury Report No. 9907
The Antiofih Board-of Education Earns an "F"
For Fiscal Qversight mind FractiousConduct
BACKGROUND
The June 30, 1996 Antioch Unified School District(AUSD)Audit`report stat6d that operating
deficits in the General Fund existed during the three previous years. Fiscal year ending June 30,
1997 produced an operating deficit of$2,209,182.00,the fourth consecutive year of deficit
spending. The June 30, 1997 AUSD report stated that... "inadequate general fund reserves, and
deficit balance(s)... RAISES SUBSTANTIAL DOUBT ABOUT THE,DISTRICT'S ABILITY
TO CONTfl1'UE AS A GOING CONCERN." The audit noted that the State School Building
Fund records were not auditable.
FINDINGS
There were ten findings that were submitted to the AUSD and they are summarized as follows;
1) The Antioch Unified School District Beard of Education (Board)failed to take
action for at least four years, when financial warnings were provided by outside
auditors, the County Superintendent of Schools and the Grand Jury in Report
9708,
2) The Board approved the formation of the Antioch Schools Education Foundation
(Foundation)without sufficient legal information or counsel(an inappropriate
unrecorded transfer of$100,000.00 of public funds to the Foundation occurred in
1996.)
3) The Board failed to demand budget and expenditure reports for each capital
project.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The ten recommendations included:
1) The Board members take advantage of school district financial training, receive
training in negotiating, compromising, tach and diplomacy, receive and review in
detail any and all audits or other reports on the activities of the school district, the
foundation and the Mello-Roos district and require that recommendations of audit
reports be implemented and monitored.
9
2) Accounting system procedures and controls be established by the recovery plan
team and be adhered to and monitored by the Board; no expenditure exceed the
amount budgeted; the Board review monthly all district expenditures and fund
transfers and the Superintendent provide the Board comprehensive financial
reports and explanations monthly.
3) The Board review and approve capital proposals and provide budget and
expenditure reporting for each approved capital project through completion and
the County Superintendent of Schools continue to monitor the District's financial
reports and explanations monthly.
RESPONSE
The respondent agreed with five of the findings, partially disagreed with two findings and
disagreed with three findings. Eight of the ten recommendations, have been implemented; one
requires further analysis and one was partially implemented. (Penal Code 933(c) requires that
said analysis be completed and returned to the Presiding Judge within six months of receipt of
the report. To date this analysis has not been received. By letter dated May 5, 2000 the target
was reminded to provide the required response to Recommendation two.)
10
Summary and Response to Contra Costa County Grand Jury Report No. 9908
!Community Management of Gang Activities
BACKGROUND
Law enforcement agencies throughout the County are convinced that actual and potential gang
activity is a problem. Gang activity and the response of law enforcement were investigated in
most of the cities in the County as well as areas policed by the Contra Costa Sheriffs Office,
Probation Department and District Attomey's Office.
FINDINGS
The Report lists twelve Findings which describe the characteristics of gang activity, including
age grouping, ethnicity, gender and family ties(Findings one through eight); describe varying
degrees of local efforts to control the activities (Finding nine through eleven); and cites lack of
resources and staffing for limited pro-active, anti-gang response(Finding twelve).
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Report contains seven Recommendations urging a more proactive approach to addressing
gang activities, to include: community involvement at all levels and early intervention at
elementary and middle school age; specialty training of law enforcement personnel; and
budgeting adequate resources for the efforts. One Recommendation suggested emulating the
Cities of Concord and San Pablo in their proactive approaches to anti-gang activities.
RESPONSE
Two communities responded to the Report:
The City of Pittsburg, while agreeing with nine of the Findings, partially
disagrees with Finding four which identifies the community locations where the
most gang-related criminal activities occur. The Pittsburg response identifies a
proactive, cooperative effort by East County communities (Gang Related
Intelligence Team-GRIT)to assist in the investigation of major gang-related
crimes or incidents. Further, Pittsburg disagrees with Findings five and nine,
offering clarification of ethnic gang emphasis and refuting a Report statement that
many communities"deny the problem" of gang activities by referring to the
success of the CRIT program.
- The City of Antioch Police Department agreed with the Findings relating to gang
,characteristics(Findings one through four)but suggested that the City of
Brentwood be included to the list of cities experiencing most of the gang
activities. It was silent on the remainder of the findings.
The City of Antioch Police Department agreed with the Findings relating to gang
characteristics (Findings one through four)but suggested that the City of
Brentwood be included to the list of cities experiencing most of the gang
activities. It was silent on the remainder of the findings.
These responses to the Recommendations provide a detailed summary of each city's efforts at
controlling and managing gang activities. Each city indicated that the Recommendations had
largely already been implemented. In addition,the City of Antioch disagreed with a statement in
the report that cities were"hiding under professed denial," referring to a ganglask force of
agencies collectively working on the problem.
COMMENT
A specific target was not identified in the report although the cities of Pittsburg and Antioch
responded.
12
Follow-up to Grand Jury Report No. 9805: Condition of Detention Facilities
The 1999-2000 Grand Jury asked Sheriff Warren E. Rupf two questions.
Question: What specific actions have taken place regarding alternative uses for the West County
Booking Facility located at the West County Retention Center?
His Response: Essentially, the reason the Booking Center has not been made operational is lack
of funding. As of the date of the response (12/1199), this situation`had not changed. As for
alternative uses, a study made by the Sheriff's staff indicated that, because of the limited design
space(for inmate booking purposes), other uses appear neither practical nor cost effective.
Question: What specific actions have taken to standardize booking forms under the auspices of
the Contra Costa County Chiefs of Police Association Committee?
His Response: All County law enforcement agencies are currently using"standardized" forms
agreed upon by the Contra Costa County Chiefs of Police Association. There is, however,
constant discussion with respect to changing or modifying the existing forms. A grant is being
applied for which would support a formal study to develop a plan to establish a County arrest
history server. Again, this depends on the ability to win the grant money.
Follow-up to Grand Jury Report No. 9808: Law Enforcement in Contra Costa County
The 1999-2000 Grand Jury asked Sheriff Warren E. Rupf one question.
Question: Since answering machines seem to be used for incoming non-emergency calls at
many"police facilities," what can your department do for citizens who are expressing frustration
at not receiving satisfactory responses to their calls?
His Response: "My review of the report, and our records support my recollection, [is]that it [the
complaint] was not addressed to our office, nor do we feel that our constituents suffered from the
conclusions reached." However, the Sheriff did have his staff conduct a survey of "how and
when our phones are answered." A detailed response to his request was forwarded to the
attention of the Grand Jury, and the results appear to support his position that the vast majority of
calls to the non-emergency lines were answered directly by individuals.
No emergency numbers were involved either in the question or in the response. As there were
no examples cited in the report, there seems to be no problem.
13
Follow-up to Grand Jury Report No. 9809: Americans with Disabilities Act: Contra Costa
County Not Complying
The 1999-2400 Grand Jury asked the County Administrator, Phil Batchelor, one question.
Question: While the requirements of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), signed into
law in 1990, were incorporated into new County construction undertaken since January 1992,
progress on updating older County buildings has lagged. What progress has the County taken to
ensure that County Buildings now comply with the ADA?
His Response: A list was furnished to the Grand Jury providing a detailed analysis of the
upgrading status of County-owned buildings, indicating for each,the percentage of identified
deficiencies that had been corrected.
14