Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06192001 - C.131 -iii► C. 131 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on June 19, 2001, by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Gioia, Gerber, Glover and Uilkema NOES: None ABSENT: Supervisor DeSaulnier ABSTAIN: None ACCEPTED the Grand Jury report, No. 0106, "County Use of Contractors and Consultants" 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 19.2001 John Sweeten,Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator By: � LIWA��:: Deputy Clerk f r end juryCourt reet Contra C/31 725 0.Box911 Costa Martinez, CA 94553-0091 County E . June 7, 2001 °. `f' ` RECEIVED �'4 COUNS JUN 0 7 2001 Board of Supervisors CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 651 Pine Street, 1st Floor CONTRA COSTA Co. Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Board of Supervisors: Attached is a copy of Grand Jury Report No. 0106, "County Use of Contractors and Consultants" prepared by the 2000-2001 Contra Costa Grand Jury. In accordance with California Penal Code Section 933.05, this report is being provided to you at least two working days before it is released publicly. Section 933.5(a) of the California Government Code requires that (the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions) in respect to each finding: (1) "The respondent agrees with the finding." (2) "The respondent disagrees with the finding." (3) "The respondent partially disagrees with the finding." In the cases of both (2) and (3) above, the respondent shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed, and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. In addition, Section 933.05(b) requires that the respondent reply to each recommendation by stating one of the following actions: 1. The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary describing the implemented action. 2. The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. 3. The recommendation requires further analysis. This response should explain the scope and parameters of the analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of the publication of the Grand Jury Report. Board of Directors June 7, 2001 Page 2 4. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation thereof. Please be reminded that Section 933.05 specifies that no officer, agency, department or governing body of a public agency shall disclose any contents of the report prior to its public release. Please insure that your response to the above noted Grand Jury report includes the mandated items. We will expect your response, using the form described by the quoted Government Code, no later than September 5, 2001. To aid you in responding to this report, we have attached a copy of "Guidelines for Responding to a Grand Jury Report." Failure to conform to these requirements could result in your having to resubmit your response. You are also advised that your response becomes a public record-upon receipt by the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Sincerely, CAROL THEWS, Foreman 2000-2001 Contra Costa County Civil Grand Jury CW: Enclosures A REPORT BY THE 2000-01 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GRAND JURY 725 Court Street Martinez, California 94553 Report No. 0106 i. COUNTY USE OF CONTRACTORS AND CONSULTANTS APPROVED BY THE GRAND JURY: Date: , AOD CAROL THEWS GRAND JURY FOREMAN ACCEPTED FOR FILING: Dater MICHAEL R. COLEMAN JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT SECTION 933.(C)& 933.05 STANDARD CALIFORNIA CODE. Section 933. Comments and Reports on Grand Jury (4)The recommendation will not be implemented iRecommendations because it is not warranted or is not reasonable,with an ' explanation therefor. (c)No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public (c)However,if a finding or recommendation of agency subject to its reviewing authority,the governing the grand jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding a county agency or department headed by an elected judge of the superior court on the findings and officer,both the agency or department head and the board recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of of supervisors shall respond if requested by the grand jury, the governing body,and every elected county officer or. but the re,ponse of the board of supervisors shall address agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment within 60 days to some decision making authority. The response of the the presiding judge of the superior court,with an elected agency or department head shall address all aspects information copy sent to the board of supervisors,on the of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under agency or department. the control of that county officer or agency head and any "b> agency or agencies which that officer or agency had ;d)A grand jury may request a subject person or supervises or controls. In any city and county,the mayor entity to come before the grand jury for the purpose of shall also comment on the findings and recommendations. reading ani discussing the findings of the grand jury report All of these comments and reports shall forthwith be that relates to that person or entity in order to verify the submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who accuracy of the findings prior to their release. impaneled the grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the (c)During an investigation,the grand jury shall public agency and the office of the county clerk,or the meet with�:he subject of that investigation regarding the mayor when applicable,and shall remain on file in those investigation,unless the court,either on its own I offices. One copy shall be placed ori file with the determinat on or upon request of the foreperson of the applicable grand jury final report by,and in the control of grand jury,determines that such a meeting would be the currently impaneled grand jury,where it shall be detrimental.. maintained for a minimum of five years.Leg.H.1961 ch. 1284,1963 ch.674. 1974 chs.393,1396, 1977 ch,;. 107, (Q A grand jury shall provide to the affected 187, 1980 ch.543, 1981 ch.203,1982 ch. 1408, 1985 ch. agency a copy of the portion of the grand jury report 221,1987 ch.690,1988 ch. 1297, 1997 ch.443,1988 ch. relating to that person or entity two working days prior to 230. its public release arid after the approval of the presiding judge. No officer,agency,department,or governing body Section 933.05(Partial)Response to Grand Jury of a public agency shall disclose any contents of the report I Recommendations-Content Requirements... prior to the public release of the final report. I (a)For purposes of subdivision(b)of Section 933,as to each grand jury finding,the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: I i (1)The respondent agrees with the finding. I (2)The respondent disagrees wholly or partially j with.the finding,in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. I (b)For purposes of subdivision(b)of Section 933,as to each grand jury recommendation,the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: i (1)The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2)The recommendation has not yet been implemented,but will be implemented in the future,with a timeframe for implementation. (3)The recommendations requires further analysis,with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study,and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when t applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. { j I CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT NO. 0106 County Use of Contractors and Consultants BACKGROUND County Departments employ significant numbers of Contractor/Consultants to fill positions involving supervision of County employees and/or the performance of managerial functions. Some of these Contractor/Consultants are of long tenure. FINDINGS 1. In the year 2001, approximately 30 Contractors and Consultants are performing supervisory and managerial roles in County government. The fiscal year 2000- 2001 cost to the County for these Contractor/Consultants is estimated to be nearly $4 Million. 2. The County has placed some Contractor/Consultants in positions of key responsibility for, what could be described as, excessively long periods. It was found that one has been employed for twenty-seven years, two for fourteen years, three for five years, and eight for two to three years. 3. The County has no policy statements, directives, regulations or other written material providing guidance concerning the use of Contractor/Consultants in positions involving supervision of County employees; the furnishing of services which would customarily be provided by County employees; or the supervision of other contractor's work on behalf of the County. 4. Department heads may, and do, contract with Contractor/Consultants for varying periods of time subject only to County payment approval levels typical in County contracts. 5. The County's selection process requirement for Contractor/Consultants covers programs such as the Small Business Enterprise Program and Outreach Program but does not call for competitive selection. -6. The County has no guidelines covering qualitative (subjective and judgmental) review of Contractor/Consultant performance. Quantitative (numerical) measurements are normally included in contracts. 7. The County maintains no summary records which would indicate the number of outside Contractor/Consultants who are performing work of a supervisory nature or work customarily provided by County employees; annual contract costs; employing department; position held; total cumulative length of time under contract with the County; and the supervising County employee. CONCLUSIONS 1. The lack of County directives, regulations, policies, and guidelines concerning the use of Contractor/Consultants condones a lack of uniformity in application and control. As Department Heads have total discretion in hiring Contractor/Consultants (pursuant to monetary approvals) to perform these tasks, the motivation is that of expediency rather than internal long-term management stability. 2. In at least thirty cases, the use of Contractor/Consultants to perform County supervisory or managerial functions in lieu of County employees is not of short duration or occasional use. This number of long duration Contractor/Consultants is of concern to the Grand Jury. Twenty-five Contractor/Consultants have been employed in excess of one year, one for twenty-seven years, two for fourteen years, three for five years, etc. Of the thirty Contractor/Consultants, the average cumulative contract length with the County is seven years. 3. Cost studies to justify hiring Contractors/Consultants vs. utilizing and/or hiring County employees would reveal the true cost of this alternative. Contractor/Consultants charge competitive rates prevalent at the time and most "load" their rates charging for: full benefits (secured in most cases at higher premium than the County can obtain at a Group rate); social security taxes (both employer and employee portions); federal and state taxes required of the self- employed; and in many cases, pension accrual. Therefore, only by a detailed comparative cost study can it be determined whether a Contractor/Consultant or a County employee would be cost effective. 4. The measurement of long-term Contractor/Consultant performance by quantitative benchmarks specified in a contract does not adequately measure qualitative skills such as supervisory capabilities or management judgment. 5. The lack of County oversight on the hiring, and cost of duration of services provided by Contractor/Consultants hired by Departments, is not appropriate. This lack of oversight also places the County at risk of Contractor/Consultant nonfeasance. 6. The use of long duration Contractor/Consultants to provide specialized services in lieu of hiring employees to perform these tasks can extend the time before these skills must be obtained through the regular employment of qualified people at competitive salary rates. Long-term use of Contractor/Consultants may prevent upward movement of qualified employees. It may also discourage employees from seeking advanced education to qualify for higher rated positions requiring specialized skills. 2 RECOMMENDATIONS The 2000-2001 Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors: 1. Direct the County Administrator to promulgate policies and guidelines for the selection and hiring of Contractor/Consultants to perform work of a supervisory nature or to provide services that customarily would be provided by County employees. The determination of whether services would customarily be provided by a County employee should be based on who would perform the task if a Contractor/Consultant were unavailable. 2. Direct the'County Administrator to establish an on-going tracking procedure to identify the number of Contractor/ Consultants performing work of a supervisory nature or furnishing services which customarily County employees would be providing. This tracking information should show: a) Annual contract cost; b) Employing department; C) Total cumulative length of time under contract by the County; d) The Contractor's supervisor. Said report should be the subject of annual review by the Board of Supervisors. 3. The Board of Supervisors should direct the County Administrator to develop a process and assure that a cost analysis is made comparing the cost of hiring a Contractor/Consultant for a long duration vs. utilizing or hiring a County employee. This study should include County employee pension and benefit costs. There should be an appropriate management review of this study prior to the issuance of an initial or renewal contract for a Contractor/Consultant. 4. Establish a policy specifying that all Contractor/Consultants providing supervisory or management services do so under a contract with a term not to exceed two years. 5. Establish a policy that Contractor/Consultant performance should be evaluated annually and require that results be submitted with the application for approval of contract renewal. Performance should be measured by detailed work specifications and/or quantitative benchmarks as specified in a contract. In addition, any Contractor/Consultant performing supervisory or managerial duties involving the exercise of management judgment should be measured on their qualitative performance using standards applied to a County employee holding the same or similar position. 3 GUIDELINES FOR RESPONDING TO A GRAND JURY REPORT Penal Code section 933.05 governs how to respond to a Grand Jury Report. Any response not in compliance with section 933.05 will be returned by the Grand Jury for revision. To help you avoid having to revise your response to comply with section 933.05, the Grand Jury provides the following guidelines. Grand Jury reports include Findings and the Recommendations. Penal Code section 933.05 requires you to respond to each Finding and each Recommendation. 1. You are required to respond to each FINDING in one of the following three ways: 1) Agree with the finding. No further explanation is required. 2) Wholly disagree with the finding. The reasons for your dispute must be explained. 3) Partially disagree with the finding. The portion disputed must be specified. The reasons for your dispute must be explained. Note the following examples of acceptable responses: Example 1: Finding: The [agency] employs 208 workers and has offices in three areas of Contra Costa County. Response: Agree. Example 2: Finding: The [agency] owns the building and the surrounding land. Response: Wholly disagree. The [agency] leases the building and the surrounding land. [Another entity] owns the building and surrounding land. Example 3: Finding: All employees are required to attend training seminars every year to keep current on changing laws. Response. Partially disagree. All employees but supervisors are . required to attend training seminars every year. Supervisors are required to attend training seminars once every two years. 2. You are required to respond to each RECOMMENDATION in one of the following four ways: 1) The recommendation has been implemented. A summary of the implemented action must be stated. 2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. A time frame for implementation must be stated. 3) The recommendation requires further analysis. An explanation, the scope, and the parameters of the future analysis or study must be set forth. The time frame for preparation of the matter for discussion (including by applicable governing bodies) must be stated. The time frame may not exceed six months from the date of the publication of the Grand Jury report. 4. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted and/or not reasonable. The reasons for not implementing the recommendation must be explained. Note the following examples of acceptable responses: Example 1: Recommendation: Yearly training should be made mandatory for all employees. Response: The recommendation has been implemented. Last month, this [agency] adopted and distributed new written policy requiring yearly training for all employees. Example 2: Recommendation: The [agency] should hire additional bilingual employees. Response: The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented. The [agency] is currently interviewing employment applicants who are bilingual. We expect to extend employment offers to two such f applicants by the end of the current month. Assuming the employment offers will be accepted, this will bring the total of bilingual employees to seven. Example 3: Recommendation: The [agency] should implement security measures for the protection of staff and clients during nighttime hours. Response: The recommendation requires further analysis. The [agency] has begun a study of the feasibility of providing nighttime security. The study is analyzing our security needs, the use of security guards versus security systems, the costs involved, and the potential sources of funding. We will complete the study by the end of this month and it will be discussed and acted upon by the end of next month. Example 4: Recommendation: The [agency] should acquire the property north of the current parking lot to provide additional parking for staff and clients. Response: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or reasonable. The property north of the current parking lot is not for sale. The property is owned by [another agency] that plans to begin construction of an office building on the site in the next two months. However, we are currently negotiating our purchase of the property east of the current parking lot to provide additional parking for staff and clients. A REPORT BY THE 2000-01 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GRAND JURY 725 Court Street Martinez,California 94553 Report No. 0106 COUNTY USE OF CONTRACTORS AND CONSULTANTS APPROVED BY THIS GRAND JURY: Date: CAROL THEWS GRAND JURY FOREMAN ACCEPTED FOR FILING: Date: 7 � MICHAEL R. COLEMAN JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT NO. 0106 County Use of Contractors and Consultants BACKGROUND County Departments employ significant numbers of Contractor/Consultants to fill positions involving supervision of County employees and/or the performance of managerial functions. Some of these Contractor/Consultants are of long tenure. FINDINGS 1. In the year 2001, approximately 30 Contractors and Consultants are performing supervisory and managerial roles in County government. The fiscal year 2000- 2001 cost to the County for these Contractor/Consultants is estimated to be nearly $4 Million. 2. The County has placed some Contractor/Consultants in positions of key responsibility for, what could be described as, excessively long periods. It was found that one has been employed for twenty-seven years, two for fourteen years, three for five years, and eight for two to three years. 3. The County has no policy statements, directives, regulations or other written material providing guidance concerning the use of Contractor/Consultants in positions involving supervision of County employees; the furnishing of services which would customarily be provided by County employees; or the supervision of other contractor's work on behalf of the County. 4. Department heads may, and do, contract with Contractor/Consultants for varying periods of time subject only to County payment approval levels typical in County contracts. S. The County's selection process requirement for Contractor/Consultants covers programs such as the Small Business Enterprise Program and Outreach Program but does not call for competitive selection. 6. The County has no guidelines covering qualitative (subjective and judgmental) review of Contractor/Consultant performance. Quantitative (numerical) measurements are normally included in contracts. 7. The County maintains no summary records which would indicate the number of outside Contractor/Consultants who are performing work of a supervisory nature or work customarily provided by County employees; annual contract costs; employing department; position held; total cumulative length of time under contract with the County; and the supervising County employee. y r r r CONCLUSIONS 1. The lack of County directives, regulations, policies, and guidelines concerning the use of Contractor/Consultants condones a lack of uniformity in application and control. As Department Heads have total discretion in hiring Contractor/Consultants (pursuant to monetary approvals) to perform these tasks, the motivation is that of expediency rather than internal long-term management stability. 2. In at least thirty cases, the use of Contractor/Consultants to perform County supervisory or managerial functions in lieu of County employees is not of short duration or occasional use. This number of long duration Contractor/Consultants is of concern to the Grand Jury. Twenty-five Contractor/Consultants have been employed in excess of one year, one for twenty-seven years,two for fourteen years, three for five years, etc. Of the thirty Contractor/Consultants, the average cumulative contract length with the County is seven years. 3. Cost studies to justify hiring Contractors/Consultants vs. utilizing and/or hiring County employees would reveal the true cost of this alternative. Contractor/Consultants charge competitive rates prevalent at the time and most "load" their rates charging for- full benefits (secured in most cases at higher _ premium than the County can obtain at a Group rate); social security taxes (both employer and employee portions); federal and state taxes required of the self- employed; and in many cases, pension accrual. Therefore, only by a detailed comparative cost study can it be determined whether a Contractor/Consultant or a County employee would be cost effective. 4. The measurement of long-term Contractor/Consultant performance by quantitative benchmarks specified in a contract does not adequately measure qualitative skills such as supervisory capabilities or management judgment. 5. The lack of County oversight on the hiring, and cost of duration of services provided by Contractor/Consultants hired by Departments, is not appropriate. This lack of oversight also places the County at risk of Contractor/Consultant nonfeasance. 6. The use of long duration Contractor/Consultants to provide specialized services in lieu of hiring employees to perform these tasks can extend the time before these skills must be obtained through the regular employment of qualified people at competitive salary rates. Long-term use of Contractor/C'onsultants may prevent upward movement of qualified employees. It may also discourage employees from seeking advanced education to qualify for higher rated positions requiring specialized skills. 2 RECOMMENDATIONS The 2000-2001 Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors: 1. Direct the County Administrator to promulgate policies and guidelines for the selection and hiring of Contractor/ Consultants to perform work of a supervisory nature or to provide services that customarily would be provided by County employees. The determination of whether services would customarily be provided by a County employee should be based on who would perform the task if a Contractor/Consultant were unavailable. 2. Direct the'County Administrator to establish an on-going tracking procedure to identify the number of Contractor/Consultants performing work of a supervisory nature or furnishing services which customarily County employees would be providing. This tracking information should show: a) Annual contract cost; b) Employing department; C) Total cumulative length of time under contract by the County; d) The Contractor's supervisor. Said report should be the subject of annual review by the Board of Supervisors. 3. The Board of Supervisors should direct the County Administrator to develop a process and assure that a cost analysis is made comparing the cost of hiring a. Contractor/Consultant for a long duration vs. utilizing or hiring a County employee. This study should include County employee pension and benefit costs. There should be an appropriate management review of this study prior to the issuance of an initial or renewal contract for a Contractor/Consultant. 4. Establish a policy specifying that all Contractor/Consultants providing supervisory or management services do so under a contract with a term not to exceed two years. 5. Establish a policy that Contractor/Consultant performance should be evaluated annually and require that results be submitted with the application for approval of contract renewal. Performance should be measured by detailed work specifications and/or quantitative benchmarks as specified in a contract. In addition, any Contractor/Consultant performing supervisory or managerial duties involving the exercise of management judgment should be measured on their qualitative performance using standards applied to a County employee holding the same or similar position. 3