Alameda County Grand Jury
2016-2017
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F17-28:
Alameda County’s lack of a consistent policy for retention of electronic communications leaves employees with no guidance as to which email correspondence to keep, to delete, or how long to retain.
F17-29:
There is no evidence of adequate training or support to assist Alameda County staff and elected officials in maintaining electronic communications consistent with state law.
F17-30:
Individual staff members currently have control over which electronic communications are saved and which are deleted. This creates the potential for accidental, negligent, or even intentional destruction of public documents which should be available for public review.
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F17-31:
In spite of two previous Grand Jury recommendations to establish vendor-evaluation policies and the county’s acknowledgment of those issues, no formal policies have been implemented.
F17-32:
Without a comprehensive vendor-evaluation program, county departments are not sufficiently warned when existing vendors perform poorly or even defraud the county.
F17-33:
The county’s failure to adopt a debarment policy has exposed county departments to organizations and businesses that have defrauded the county in the past.
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F17-1:
The Oakland City Council misapplies the real estate negotiation exception to the open- meeting requirements of the Brown Act and the Oakland Sunshine Ordinance, thereby shielding the deliberative processes – including discussions and debates regarding project vision, project scope, feasibility issues, community benefits, and the ultimate selection of a developer – from public scrutiny.
F17-2:
The city’s closed session agendas for discussions of the 1911 Telegraph and 12th Street Remainder projects did not comply with disclosure requirements in the Brown Act and the Oakland Sunshine Ordinance.
F17-3:
The Oakland City Council violates the city’s Sunshine Ordinance by failing to discuss publicly the advisability of selecting particular developers for projects on city-owned property before making final decisions (section 2.20.120(B)) and failing to disclose the parts of closed session discussions that were not confidential (section 2.20.130).
F17-4:
Unauthorized closed sessions prevent the public from witnessing council deliberations, preclude public input into planning, and restrict public participation in the selection of appropriate developers for city-owned property.
F17-5:
The city of Oakland unfairly applied the requirements of its RFP for 1911 Telegraph by allowing the successful proposer to wait until after it was chosen to provide required financial information.
F17-6:
A developer was allowed to change the scope of its proposal for 1911 Telegraph at the last minute. This put the other proposers at a disadvantage, and resulted in the city choosing that developer without the benefits of staff analysis of the new proposal. 2016-2017 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report____________________________________ 29
F17-7:
Oakland City Councilmembers privately discuss projects with developers whose proposals are pending, and the communications are not disclosed publicly before one developer is selected. This compromises public scrutiny of the selection process because citizens have no ability to assess the strength or weakness of private arguments made by developers in support of their proposals.
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F17-12:
The County of Alameda has not provided sufficient oversight of Youth UpRising to ensure that services are being provided and the public’s funds are being properly used.
F17-13:
The County of Alameda’s standard contract administration process and procedures were not used to manage the relationship between the county and Youth UpRising.
F17-14:
The Board of Supervisors approved the “bailout” of Youth UpRising without adequate review. 2016-2017 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report____________________________________ 62
F17-15:
Alameda County’s REACH program offers similar services to those provided by Youth UpRising at a similar operational cost. The county is able to provide comprehensive oversight and fiscal management to the REACH program, but has been unable to provide the same oversight to Youth UpRising.
F17-16:
Fragmented oversight of Youth UpRising contributed to the county’s failure to identify the root causes of Youth UpRising’s financial problems.
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F17-22:
By making decisions without ready access to necessary information, the Probation Department has been putting the public at risk. The lack of a comprehensive case management system prevents probation officers from effectively managing and tracking their workloads, properly evaluating their clients’ needs, and accurately identifying potential issues.
F17-23:
The Probation Department has been unable to report accurate recidivism rates due to inadequate collection, storage and analysis of data.
F17-24:
Probation decisions about which service and/or service provider is best for an individual client have not been sufficiently data driven. Service providers have been chosen based on anecdotal evidence of reputation and previous experience.
F17-25:
Current Probation Department management structure doesn’t allow for focused attention on data collection and evidence-based analysis.
F17-26:
In the past, staff has been reluctant to embrace/accept new technology and processes. Staff buy-in is critical to the success of any proposed changes.
F17-27:
Recognizing that the department needs an integrated information system that includes case management, risk assessment, reporting, and an access portal for staff, management has begun addressing these issues, beginning with the purchase and installation of new software systems. 2016-2017 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report____________________________________ 82
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
1 findings
F17-34:
The outdated rules under which the county is currently working are hindering the recruitment and hiring process as well as other human resources operations.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F17-8:
The dual role played by the county employee in connection with county donations, appropriations, and disbursements to OAW, as both a county employee and as co-founder, chief executive officer and a director of OAW constituted a failure of good governance practices by the County of Alameda.
F17-9:
The dual role played by the county employee in connection with county donations, appropriations, and disbursements to OAW, as both a county employee and as co-founder, chief executive officer and a director of OAW constituted a conflict of interest, in violation of Alameda County Charter Section 66 and Alameda County Administrative Code Section 2.02.170.
F17-10:
The process by which the Board of Supervisors makes donations to nonprofit organizations from county funds allocated to the Board of Supervisors through the FMRP constitutes a failure of good governance practices by the County of Alameda, in that (a) large amounts of county funds can be, and are, donated to nonprofit organizations without a competitive process and without written contracts; and (b) there is little if any independent oversight of the use of such funds received by nonprofit organizations. 2016-2017 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report____________________________________ 44
F17-11:
The process by which the Board of Supervisors makes donations to nonprofit organizations from county funds allocated to the Board of Supervisors through the FMRP does not comply with the Alameda County Manual of Accounting Policies and Procedures, which states that FMRP expenditures have the same requirements as other expenditures of county dollars. The non-compliance consists of the Board of Supervisors failure to follow the county’s procurement policy and procedures for such donations that exceed $3,000.