Alameda County Grand Jury
2016-2017
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
17-21:
Alameda County must adopt a uniform vendor-evaluation program across all county departments.
17-22:
Alameda County must ensure that the vendor-evaluation program is also applicable to the community-based organization contracts providing health and human services.
17-23:
Alameda County must adopt a county-wide debarment policy.
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
17-28:
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.
17-29:
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.
17-30:
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
17-31:
In spite of two previous Grand Jury
17-32:
Without a comprehensive vendor-evaluation program, county departments are not sufficiently warned when existing vendors perform poorly or even defraud the county.
17-33:
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.
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
11-26:
The Alameda County General Services Agency must evaluate every contractor’s job performance in the Small, Local and Emerging Business Program at the conclusion of the contract. This evaluation must be maintained on file and considered in the award process for new or renewed contracts. In its 2011-2012 Annual Report, the Grand Jury examined the procurement process as it related to most county large-dollar contracts ($10 million to $123 million). The Grand Jury found there was no requirement for written evidence-based evaluations of the vendors; there was no central database for sharing information; and that a systemic problem exists within the county involving a lack of contract oversight and evaluation. To date, the county has still not implemented a county-wide vendor evaluation system. 2011-2012 Grand Jury Final Report: General Services Agency must add a vendor evaluation field to the Alameda County contract database so that formal evaluations can be available to other county departments. GSA, under new leadership, has taken steps to establish a best practices model for vendor evaluation. In 2016, it chose the county’s Building Maintenance Department (BMD) to participate in a pilot vendor-evaluation program because this department deals with a large number of outside providers. Two providers are being used as examples, one large and one small. Under this new vendor evaluation and debarment program, contract managers are required to evaluate contractors on a quarterly basis using specific performance criteria that include quality, timeliness, price, business relations, customer service and deliverables. Upon completion, contractors will be provided with a copy for their review. Staff is being trained to ensure that agreed upon standards are being applied. It is imperative that this information be available to all county departments so that when the same vendor bids for future contracts with multiple agencies, its past performance record is available to all. Departments should ensure that contractors are aware of the evaluation process and the categories used to evaluate performance. The Grand Jury recognizes that there are many contracts within the county that involve direct services to individuals that make evaluation more complicated. The pilot project needs to validate the applicability of these evaluation criteria as they apply to all goods and services, including those provided to individuals. For example, service delivery for mental health counseling is not the same as the delivery of office supplies. Any contract would need to be evaluated to ensure services were effective, timely and delivered by appropriate licensed staff. Debarment and Litigation Policy These evaluations have limited value unless under-performing and fraudulent vendors can be held accountable. A debarment policy identifies vendors that have defrauded or mismanaged their contract(s). A litigation policy bars vendors that are suing a public agency from bidding and/or doing business with that agency. The Grand Jury believes that GSA’s pilot evaluation Debarment is the state of being excluded from program should be expanded enjoying certain possessions, rights, privileges, or to all county departments, but practices and the act of prevention by legal means. without a debarment policy, For example, companies can be debarred from the data collected on contracts due to allegations of fraud, performance will not protect mismanagement, and similar improprieties. – Wikipedia the county against fraud. Businesses have a constitutional right to be considered for government contracts. Before this “liberty interest” can be suspended or a fraudulent vendor can be prohibited from doing business with a public agency, the business must be given notice of the allegations and be provided a fair hearing to rebut the charges. These allegations/charges must be described in a debarment policy adopted by the county. These policies are best practices in federal and state contracts and nearly universal at the local level. The County of Alameda has no debarment policy. The Grand Jury heard testimony that to prevent another fraudulent double billing incident from happening, GSA changed its bidding requirements. Because there is no debarment policy to flag problematic businesses automatically, GSA banned large retailers from some RFPs. This action had the potential of stifling competition, causing the county possibly to overpay for some goods. The Grand Jury has learned that GSA will soon be presenting
17-18:
The Grand Jury recommends that a uniform county-wide email retention policy must be implemented for all departments, agencies and elected officials.
17-19:
The Grand Jury recommends that all email correspondence must be retained and available for retrieval for at least a two-year period, consistent with state law. This directive must be included in the county-wide policy.
17-20:
The Grand Jury recommends that each county department must develop individual training for staff and elected officials regarding email retention and the Public Records Act.
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
17-1:
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.
17-2:
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.
17-3:
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).
17-4:
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.
17-5:
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.
17-6:
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.
17-7:
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.
Additional Recommendations
6
Not linked to specific findings.
17-1:
The city of Oakland must comply with the Brown Act and city of Oakland Sunshine Ordinance provisions relating to the real estate exception. The city must limit closed session discussions concerning proposed real estate development projects to price and terms of payment, and ensure that deliberations on matters such as project vision, project scope, feasibility issues, community benefits, and selection of a developer are conducted openly, allowing the public to be informed about and comment intelligently upon proposals for use of city-owned property.
17-2:
The city of Oakland must follow its Sunshine Ordinance by conducting open meetings in which councilmembers discuss publicly the advisability of any proposed disposition of city-owned property before making final decisions.
17-3:
The city of Oakland must update its training for public officials on open meeting laws to prevent the city from misapplying the real estate negotiation exception.
17-4:
The city of Oakland must enforce requirements of its RFPs even-handedly to create a level playing field for all proposers, and to allow city staff a full record with which to vet competing proposals.
17-5:
The city of Oakland must treat developers who respond to an RFP equitably by informing all RFP respondents whether changes to proposals after the submission date are permitted.
17-6:
The city of Oakland must adopt rules to address private communications between councilmembers and proposing developers before a developer is selected.
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
17-12:
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.
17-13:
The County of Alameda’s standard contract administration process and procedures were not used to manage the relationship between the county and Youth UpRising.
17-14:
The Board of Supervisors approved the “bailout” of Youth UpRising without adequate review.
17-15:
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.
17-16:
Fragmented oversight of Youth UpRising contributed to the county’s failure to identify the root causes of Youth UpRising’s financial problems.
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
17-9:
Alameda County must perform a detailed review of the current financial status of Youth UpRising and ensure adequate financial controls and management are put in place.
17-10:
Alameda County Health Care Services Agency must assign a contract administrator to manage Youth UpRising’s contract going forward, and the HCSA must coordinate its oversight with other county agencies that contract with Youth UpRising.
17-11:
Alameda County must evaluate the benefits of continuing to support Youth UpRising as an independent community-based organization when a county-run model might provide improved oversight and control.
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
17-22:
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.
17-23:
The Probation Department has been unable to report accurate recidivism rates due to inadequate collection, storage and analysis of data.
17-24:
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.
17-25:
Current Probation Department management structure doesn’t allow for focused attention on data collection and evidence-based analysis.
17-26:
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.
17-27:
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.
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
17-14:
To ensure public safety, the Alameda County Probation Department must quickly implement and evaluate the new evidence-based integrated case management and risk- assessment systems.
17-15:
The Alameda County Probation Department must staff appropriately for successful implementation and support of the new case management and risk-assessment systems.
17-16:
Once the new integrated technology is in place, the Alameda County Probation Department must publicly report recidivism data in a timely manner.
17-17:
The Alameda County Probation Department must develop an evidence-based vendor evaluation system to ensure that service decisions impacting clients are based on data, not anecdotes.
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
17-17:
The supervisor exceeded the authority described in Government Code section 25005 and County Charter section 10. Both sections preclude individual board members from acting without concurrence from a majority of board members.
17-18:
The supervisor’s actions usurped the role of the chief probation officer by impeding procurement of community-based organization services through the competitive RFP process specified by the County of Alameda Uniform Procurement Manual, Chapter 6 - Department Procurement Policies and Procedures.
17-19:
By insisting on retention of a vendor that was unwilling to provide all the services the Alameda County Probation Department deemed essential, the supervisor impeded the level of religious services provided to juveniles in county custody.
17-20:
The County Charter requirement that the Alameda County Board of Supervisors hire all department heads creates ambiguity in how department heads are supervised and managed, in that they are responsible both to the county administrator and the members of the Board of Supervisors.
17-21:
No administrative appeal process exists for department heads to address political interference in the procurement process.
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
17-12:
The Alameda County Board of Supervisors must adopt an anti-interference policy to ensure elected officials and their staffs do not interfere with county staff in fulfilling administrative responsibilities.
17-13:
The Alameda County Board of Supervisors must take steps to have the county charter amended to make clear that, while the Board of Supervisors creates county policy, the County Administrator has sole responsibility for hiring and supervising non-elected department heads.
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
1 findings
17-34:
The outdated rules under which the county is currently working are hindering the recruitment and hiring process as well as other human resources operations.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
17-24:
The County of Alameda must amend its Civil Service Rules, to update them to be more consistent with the current needs of the county, the skills of its workforce and the increased use of technology. In addition, the county must amend Sections 33-45 of the County’s Charter (entitled “Civil Service”) to the extent necessary to further that objective.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
17-8:
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.
17-9:
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.
17-10:
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.
17-11:
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.
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
17-7:
The Board of Supervisors must establish a policy prohibiting any member of the Board of Supervisors from hiring or directing a staff member to form a nonprofit organization or to take a management position in a nonprofit organization.
17-8:
In the interest of good governance practices and in recognition of limited county resources, the Board of Supervisors must adopt and follow a policy that MAPP rules and the “County’s Procurement Policy and Procedures Overview – Guidelines for Acquisition of Goods and Services Including Professional Services” are strictly followed, and that no nonprofit organization may receive more than an aggregate of $25,000 per fiscal year in donations from the FMRP accounts of members of the Board of Supervisors.