Amador County Grand Jury
2016-2017
Findings & Recommendations
16 findings
F1:
Prior to the release of the RFP, ATCAA was sole source for programs which the County put out for bid.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
County restructure the bid process involving members of other counties to develop a conflict-free formation of Request for Proposals and Evaluations. (Findings 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16)
R5:
Create a bid justification process and form to justify a decision to use a competitive contract process. (Findings 1, 2, 3, 4, 5)
F2:
County employees willingly worked with Principals to subvert ATCAA, a JPA formed by Amador and Tuolumne Counties.
F3:
Personal relationships with Principals led to favoritism.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Develop quantifiable measurements of performance for contractors, and use other counties employees to audit. (Findings 3, 14, 16)
F4:
The HHS Director did not justify the existence of actual competition, which resulted in an RFP process for contracts being served by a sole-source JPA.
F5:
The HHS Director selected nine contracts for RFP, not based on need, but rather were “cherry picked” at the request of Nexus’ principal staff.
F6:
The HHS Director, being aware of the intent by Nexus principals to undermine and create Nexus while still employed by the JPA, failed to report this to the ATCAA ED or Amador County Supervisors on the ATCAA Board.
F7:
The HHS Director and GSA Director did not take action after being made aware of potential concerns with the proposals that had been submitted.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
Revise Protest Procedure to include discoveries after release of a Request for Proposal, and after bid awards. (Finding 7)
F8:
The HHS Director did not recuse himself from the evaluation process, until AFTER he had made key changes to the RFP process that directly benefitted Nexus.
F9:
There was purposeful alteration of the normal County RFP criteria, specifically to benefit Nexus. • Allowed use of letters of support instead of letters of recommendation • Allowed use of information for personnel that were known to remain working for competitor ATCAA, not Nexus • Changed weighting scores to benefit Nexus by weighing high on staff, but ignoring facility and entity performance history Health and Human Services Contracts 51
F10:
The County Proposals use evaluation weighting in which suitability of proposed facilities are no longer a criteria.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
Require criteria for suitability of proposed facilities in all Health, Behavioral Health, and Social Services Request for Proposals. (Finding 10)
F11:
County staff intentionally did not inform a long serving JPA and sole source provider (ATCAA) of intentions to go out to RFP.
F12:
The timing of the RFP favored Nexus – it had advance notice. However, other potential bidders were given an unusually short and unreasonable response time.
F13:
The HHS Director engaged in purposeful communication with Nexus Principals (while still employed at ATCAA) to keep ATCAA senior manager uninformed.
F14:
The HHS Director has publicly shown bias by praising Nexus to other agencies and counties, recommending Nexus for additional grants.
F15:
County employees with a personal relationship were allowed to engage in the RFP process and evaluation.
F16:
County does not have an adequate method in which to quantify, measure, and establish performance for behavioral health and social services contracts.
Additional Recommendations
9
Not linked to specific findings.
R2:
Re-establish a formal 3-year contract review process. (Findings 2, 4, 5, 12,)
R4:
Revise County and Purchasing Conflict of Interest Policies to include periodic
R6:
Revise Purchasing Policy to, as a minimum, notify all chief executives of agencies
R9:
Create and apply Conflict of Interest curriculum for periodic training for employees at all levels. Increase frequency of training for employees who have authority to influence greater impact. (Findings 3, 8, 14, 15,) Health and Human Services Contracts 52
R10:
Remove all parties with a conflict of interest, or any personal relationship to proposers, from evaluation processes before it begins. Include Abort or Mitigation protocols should discovery of conflicted influence be detected. Include detection process. (Findings 3, 8, 14, 15,)
R11:
Set completion date for the aforementioned Recommendations for December 31, 2017.
R12:
Announce to all known possible competitors of Behavioral Health and Social Services directly, and publicly in early January of 2018, the intention to go to bid on
R13:
Go to RFP for those programs in April of 2018, for fiscal year 2018/2019.
R14:
County to seek assistance from Department of Health Care Services to develop a System Improvement for contract and grant procedures.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
All questions that were presented in advance by the Grand Jury were answered professionally, and in detail, during the preliminary briefing by the Warden and staff, and during the tour of the facilities.
F2:
The In-Fill Facility has relieved inmate overcrowding that occurred in the past at MCSP.
F3:
MCSP has a philosophy of education and/or rehabilitation, which is shown through the many valuable programs that are offered to the inmate population.
F4:
MCSP is listed on the ACA website as an accredited facility.
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
It is recommended that MCSP continue to populate the In-Fill Facility to aid in preventing future overcrowded inmate situations.
R2:
It is recommended that MCSP continue to strive with the programs in place and research future programs for the health, welfare and safety of inmates and staff.
R3:
It is recommended that MCSP and the California Department of Corrections continue to search for and find economical ways to lower the operating budget of the facility.
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
All of the questions that were presented in advance by the Grand Jury were answered professionally, and in detail, during the preliminary briefing by the Warden and staff.
F2:
PGYCC produced a new and effective promotional film that encourages youth offenders across California to take advantage of this unique program.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
We recommend that PGYCC continue to run this unique and beneficial program for youth offenders. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation - PGYCC
Findings & Recommendations
10 findings
F1:
The voters of Amador County have reason to have full confidence in the election process as implemented by our County election officials and, consequently, have reason to have full confidence in the certified outcomes of our County's elections.
F2:
Amador County election officials work diligently to ensure that the County’s voter registration rolls are well maintained.
F3:
The M100 vote tabulating machines are adequately maintained and tested. These machines remain sealed until they are secured inside the Elections Office after polls close on Election Day.
F4:
Vote by mail ballots and provisional ballots are carefully checked to ensure that only registered voters may vote, each registered voter may vote at most once, and each registered voter will have his or her vote counted only on those races appropriate to that voter’s residency.
F5:
The secrecy of every vote is preserved with the exception of the inherent privacy issues arising from the use of vote by mail ballots since such ballots allow for the possibility of other parties seeing the voter’s ballot before it is cast.
F6:
Careful testing of the M100 vote tabulating machines, the isolation of the vote accumulating computer, and a thorough canvassing (or auditing) process ensure that the reported election outcomes are verifiably correct.
F7:
The use and retention of paper ballots provides the option for verifiable recounts, if necessary, and provides the ultimate backup of any machine tabulation.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Continue the use of paper ballots. They provide the ultimate protection from electronic tampering and allow for verifiable recounts. (Finding 7)
F8:
Our County’s canvassing process proved adequate to detect an accumulation error and is an essential part of producing verifiably correct election results.
F9:
Election officials have been reasonable in their budget requests to support County elections. They have made good use of the resources they have to work with.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Continue to meet the budgetary requests of the Election Department as they have historically been reasonable. (Finding 9) 26 Election Process Review
F10:
Election officials work excessively long hours during the vote tabulation process following elections.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Investigate the possibility of providing additional help to the Election Department during the vote tabulation process following elections. (Finding 10)