Alameda County Grand Jury

2017-2018

9 reports

From the annual report
The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.
📑 Year-End Report
View the full annual report (PDF)
The full consolidated volume; individual reports are listed below.
Individual reports (9)
Findings & Recommendations 5 findings
F18-22: Loans from the city of Oakland for affordable housing rental projects are typically provided for a term of up to fifty-five years and, in exchange, rents are restricted for that same period, making the rents affordable to lower-income households. No repayment is expected until the end of the loan period or upon transfer of the property, giving the public the perception that these transactions are grants of public money rather than traditional loans.
F18-23: Oakland's Housing and Community Development Department has failed to inspect and audit all of its affordable housing stock annually, putting lower-income households renting at projects like E.C. Reems at risk of living in substandard conditions.
F18-24: The Housing and Community Development Department's failure either to provide building inspection training for staff or partner with Oakland's Building Services Department to inspect its affordable- housing stock inhibits the agency's ability to respond to tenant complaints and protect the residents properly. The Housing and Community Development Department's use of
F18-25: outdated technology to catalogue and manage data regarding the city of Oakland's affordable-housing stock prevents consistent oversight of those projects, putting public funds at risk.
F18-26: Failure to maintain consistent policies related to the selection process for affordable housing developers, especially in the area of financial strength of applicants, invites project management failures like the one that took place at the E.C. Reems Apartments.
Findings & Recommendations 3 findings
F18-35: The Alameda County Water District is not sufficiently transparent with its customers about the costs of current employee compensation and retiree benefits, and how these impact rate increases. Droughts can significantly reduce the revenue of the Alameda
F18-36: County Water District, while the fixed costs of providing quality water remain high.
F18-37: The Alameda County Water District has provided overly generous salaries and benefits to its employees over the years, even in times of economic downturns. 2017-2018 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report
Findings & Recommendations 3 findings
F18-27: The relationship between Alameda Health System and OakCare Medical Group has been characterized, in the past, as contentious and lacking in transparency. In large measure, this is a function of the outsized role that OakCare plays in the medical leadership and medical staff at Alameda Health System. While the contract and management processes have improved under the current contract, the ability to build a sustainable health system to serve the county is hampered by lack of alignment between the medical leadership and staff and the strategic directions of Alameda Health System. Policies and procedures related to the use of public resources by
F18-28: management and leadership OakCare have been inadequately developed and followed. This includes use of public space, public equipment, and direct public budgetary expenditures for activity that supports the private medical group.
F18-29: Policies and procedures related to the acquisition and management of contracts and grants received from federal and state agencies and private foundations by affiliated physicians who are members of OakCare Medical Group have been inadequately developed and followed.
Findings & Recommendations 9 findings
F18-13: The ticket policies of Alameda County and the Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum Authority allow elected and appointed officials and their staff members to attend multiple high-value events for the purpose of "inspecting," "reviewing, or "evaluating" the facilities when no reports are ever generated after the events about the conditions observed.
F18-14: Free tickets often are used as a perk of office or employment rather than a public asset to be managed and utilized for a public purpose as required by law.
F18-15: Some 802 forms are carelessly prepared, and omit or erroneously report important information such as dates of events, number of tickets distributed, the name of the event, the identity of the actual recipient, or the public purpose for which the tickets were used, undermining the goal of transparency required by FPPC regulation 18944.1. The 802 forms often do not account for all of the tickets to Arena and
F18-16: Coliseum events in the Alameda County and the Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum Authority's luxury suites, indicating either that valuable resources have been wasted, or the tickets were used but not accounted for. No one is responsible for ensuring that all tickets to all events have been correctly and accurately reported.
F18-17: The ticket policies of Alameda County and the Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum Authority list reasons for attending events that are vague and lack credibility.
F18-18: The ticket policies of Alameda County and the Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum Authority do not contain limitations on the number of tickets that can be used by officials and employees, allowing tickets to be used by the same individuals over and over again.
F18-19: Alameda County and the Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum Authority have no defined procedures and practices for offering tickets to worthy community organizations and individuals, or county employees other than those working directly for the officials who distribute them. Distribution practices vary from office to office. 2017-2018 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report
F18-20: Although Alameda County and the Oakland-Alameda Coliseum Authority claim an important public purpose for the tickets is to give them to worthy community-based organizations for use as fundraisers, the 802 forms show that high-value tickets with the biggest fundraising potential are seldom distributed to non-profits or schools, especially the most valuable playoff tickets.
F18-21: Alameda County has insufficiently analyzed whether its distribution of free tickets to elected officials and county employees meets the IRS criteria for exclusion from taxable income, putting the county at risk of sanctions for improper withholding.
Additional Recommendations 3

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: used repeatedly by the same elected or appointed officials and their staff members. Although approximately 30% of tickets are given to worthy non-profit organizations for use in fundraising, almost none of the most valuable playoffs and finals tickets go to community groups. Many tickets go unreported on Form 802s mandated by the state Fair Political Practices Commission, including tickets for some of the most expensive and desirable events, such as Warriors playoffs, Raiders games and big name concerts. Tickets that are reported are supposedly being used for approved public purposes, such as inspecting the facilities. Although not a requirement, no reports are ever generated by officials following their visits, suggesting that the so-called "public purposes" are merely a vehicle for attending exciting games and concerts without having to declare the ticket values as gifts or income. No uniform and publicized process for community-based organizations to apply for and receive tickets exists; instead, the allocation is handled on an ad hoc basis by the staff of the officials responsible for distributing them. No uniform and publicized process for all of the 6,000+ employees of the county to apply for and receive tickets exists; instead, the vast majority of employees who receive tickets are the staff members of the officials responsible for their distribution. 2017-2018 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report Neither the county nor the Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum Authority has a policy to
R2: limit or restrict excessive use of tickets by particular individuals, permitting overuse by some, such as appointed authority commissioners, who used the most valuable tickets hundreds of times. The only reports filed and posted regarding ticket usage by officials and employees were designed for another purpose - making free tickets non-reportable as gifts and income - and are of limited value in providing meaningful data to enable tracking of ticket usage, and enforcement of ticket distribution policies that need strengthening. Ticket reports are inconsistent across the offices responsible for preparing them; the individuals who fill out the forms sometimes omit important data such as dates and numbers of tickets; and at least some of the reports include highly inaccurate information about who is really using the tickets. The Grand Jury recognizes that some of these problems will disappear naturally over the next few years as our professional sports teams leave the Coliseum complex. Nevertheless, we believe a major overhaul of the procedures and practices for distributing tickets is warranted so long as the facility remains in public ownership.
R3: community-based organizations for that purpose. Otherwise conform their policies, where applicable, to the recommendations of the Oakland Public Ethics Commission in its April 2017 report. 2017-2018 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report Recommendation 18-16: Alameda County and the Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum Authority must provide employees who prepare Fair Political Practices Commission 802 forms training on the proper way to fill out the forms, and on the need for accuracy, and must institute systems to ensure that all distributed tickets are reported on filed 802 forms. Recommendation 18-17: Alameda County must determine whether the free tickets distributed to salaried officials and employees should be treated as taxable income, requiring appropriate tax withholdings.
Findings & Recommendations 5 findings
F18-1: underfunds its annual required contribution by at least $40 million. The city of Oakland currently has no meaningful plan to address its
F18-2: $860 million unfunded OPEB liability, jeopardizing the city's long- term financial viability. Rapidly increasing retiree health costs are squeezing city budgets
F18-3: and reducing funding for essential city services. The city of Oakland has no revenue stream (anticipated revenue
F18-4: growth, new taxes or new bonds) sufficient to make payments that will amortize its unfunded OPEB liability over the next 20 or 30 years. Solving Oakland's OPEB problem will require substantial political
F18-5: will and the cooperation of Oakland's bargaining units to make complex and unpopular structural changes to Oakland's retiree benefits program.
Findings & Recommendations 4 findings
F18-30: Oakland Public Works and the East Bay Regional Park District in notifying the public about Lake Temescal closures and the reasons for those closures gives the perception that public agencies are keeping important information from the community. Failure to supervise third party contractors repairing Oakland's
F18-31: sewer lines and failure to require them to submit detailed reports of their repairs impede compliance with state reporting requirements and make it difficult to troubleshoot when future problems occurs on the same sewer lines.
F18-32: Oakland Public Works' current sewer related training and technical certifications focus on only a few key employees, resulting in its sewer crews lacking broad technical knowledge. This lack of depth limits operational flexibility and succession planning. The Grand Jury learned that in two cases during 2017, onsite
F18-33: estimates that sewage overflows exceeded 50,000 gallons were later reduced below 50,000 gallons by a supervisor back at the office, giving the perception that the volume was reduced to avoid additional testing and reporting required by the state.
Findings & Recommendations 7 findings
F18-6: budgeting policies along with board efforts to interfere in the administrative responsibilities of the superintendent invite financial instability and contribute to Oakland Unified School District's financial problems. Oakland Unified School District's inability to control overstaffing
F18-7: and poor position control decisions have contributed to the district's financial instability.
F18-8: Lack of transparency related to Oakland Unified School District's financial positions has led to mistrust between the district, the community, and labor organizations.
F18-9: High turnover of key administrators has created an atmosphere of mistrust, destroying the continuity of the district's educational mission, and crippling the district's effectiveness in addressing its most pressing fiscal issues. 2017-2018 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report Financial instability and high staff turnover contribute to poor
F18-10: student performance.
F18-11: Operating 86 schools is unsustainable and will lead the district to insolvency. Collaboration between traditional public schools and charter schools
F18-12: operating in the district benefit all students in Oakland Unified School District.
Findings & Recommendations 1 findings
F18-34: The Oakland City Council bypassed its Workforce Development Board in 2016 by giving public funds directly to favored job programs without accountability standards built into the grants, without sufficient consideration of Workforce Development's strategic goals, and without appropriate evaluation as to whether the programs' efforts were successful.

Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.

* This report's PDF did not contain easily extractable text and required Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for analysis. There may be minor errors in the extracted findings and recommendations due to OCR limitations with scanned documents.