The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 06032003 - C140 CONTRA TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORSCOSTA COUNTY FROM: John Sweeten, County Administrator DATE: May 20, 2003 SUBJECT: Grand Jury Report No. 0308 — Safekeeping Prisoners' Monies SPECIFICREQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION4S?: RECEIVE the Grand Jury Report No. 0308 entitled "Safekeeping Prisoners' Monies" and REFER it to the County Administrator's Office for response. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: VXYES SIGNATURE: yv .. -- �.3 ...,.,•, _ _ RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE—APPROVE___,_OTHER SIGNATURES): ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A UNANIMOUS(ABSENT lux> ) TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ON MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF **DistriCt TH SWt VI:CjWr** SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Contact:Julie Enea,Sr.Deputy CAO ATTESTED ime 3, 2003 JOHN SWEETEN,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR cc: CAO B DUTY ��"r'�t`1C� �JU1" 7�5 Court Street Y Contra P.O.Box 911 Costa Martinez, CA 94553-0091 County .. CONTRA C -1,� 1EIVED May 20, 2003 4F. m.Ay 2 0 S f� n" Warren E. Rupf Sheriff-Coroner 651 Fine Street, 7th Floor Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Sheriff Rupf: Attached is a copy of Grand Jury Report No. 4308, Safekeeping prisoners' Monies prepared by the 200.2-2043 Contra Costa Grand Jury. In accordance with California penal Code Section 933.05, this report is being provided to you at least two working clays 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: I. 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. Warren E. Rupf Sheriff Coroner May 20, 2003 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 July 21, 2003. Sincerely, at 1A RAMIRO A. AR.OSEMENA, Foreman 2002-2.003 Contra Costa County Civil Grand Jury cc: John Sweeten, County Administrator A REPORT BY THE 2002-03 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GRAND JURY 725 Court street Martinez, California 94553 Report No. 0308 SAFEKEEPING PRISONERS' MONIES APPROVED BY THE GRAND JURY: Date: ? FtAMIRO A. G JURY FOREMAN ACCEPTED FOR.FILING: Date: _-_- PE R L. SPINE A GE OF THE ERIOR COURT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT NO. 0308 Safekeeping prisoners' Monies TO: Office of the Sheriff BACKGROUND When an arrestee is booked into the Sheriff s Martinez Detention Facility, any cash the prisoner has on hand is placed in an Inmate Cash Account. Money designated for bail is credited to the Cash Bail Account. On December 12, 2000,the Auditor-Controller examined the.Inmate Cash and Cash Bail Accounts maintained by the Sheriffs Department. This review covered all three of the detention facilities,Martinez,Marsh Creek and West County and covered the 24-month period of February 1, 1998 through January 31, 2000. The report resulting from the examination disclosed failures in the day-to-day record keeping process as well as failures to periodically conduct account reconciliation,which according to accepted accounting principles,must be done to maintain the integrity of cash accounts. Also,the report contained several recommendations for corrective actions to be taken by the S'heriff's Department,all except one has been resolved to date. The software for handling these accounts was not Year 2000 compliant so new software, Premier Institutional Management System(IMS),was placed in service on December 3, 1999. The inmate fund balances were then entered into the new system. The IMS system has never been fully functional,i.e.,day-to-day record keeping and systemic account reconciliations, as intended to date. As a result,the Sheriffs Department is unable to rely upon data reports produced by the IMS system. FINDINGS 1. Per the December 12,2000 audit,the Inmate Cash and Bail Accounts have not been systemically reconciled since August 1999. The status of this dilemma remains unresolved per first hand statements from Office of the Sheriff/Coroner's personnel. 2. Serious software problems, associated with the conversion to IMS, exposed a severe weakness in data reliability. 3. The IMS computer system does not have the capacity to reconcile Inmate Cash and Cash Bail accounts. 1 4. The Sheriffs Department is attempting to resolve the problem by either finding software compatible with IMS,while consulting with IMS personnel,or writing its own computer program,by enlisting the assistance of an internal staff member, so that these accounts 5. In the interim, the Sheriffs accounting staff is manually entering check information and manually reconciling the accounts. CONCLUSIONS 1. It has taken far too long for the Sheriffs Department to find a solution to the problems resulting from the implementation of IMS since first diagnosed in August 1999. 2. Account reconciliation is done manually. 3. The official transaction accounting program cannot reconcile the accounts accurately. RECCJNEWENDATIONS The 2002-20103 Contra Costa County Grand Jury recommends that the Sheriff's Department: 1. Find an applicable software solution to the IMS problem immediately. 2. Make the applicable software solution to the IMS problem a line item in their budget thereby ensuring a source of financing is available. 3. Enlist the aid of the County Department of Information Technology or an outside consultant to locate and implement an immediate applicable software solution. 4. Continue to manually reconcile the accounts and keep them current on an ongoing basis. 2