Orange County 2015-2016 - California Grand Jury Reports

From the annual report

The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.

📑 Year-End Report

The full consolidated volume; individual reports are listed below.

Individual reports (4)

May 22, 2017 — Unfinished Business: Responses to 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury Reports Unfinished Business: Responses to

29 pages 3 findings 1 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 3 findings

F1: Some County responses to Grand Jury Reports are submitted after the date due by law or not at all. Greater County follow-up is necessary to ensure responses are submitted.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The CEO should meet with each sitting OCGJ by March 31st of each year to provide a status report of open responses to previous grand jury reports. The status report should include a brief Executive Summary covering financial challenges and opportunities facing the county that could impact the timing of response implementation. REQUIRED RESPONSES The California Penal Code §933 requires the governing body of any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court). Additionally, in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such elected County official shall comment on the findings and recommendations pertaining to the matters under that elected official’s control within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code Section §933.05 (a), (b), (c), details, as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a) As to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding; (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. (b) As to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding 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, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury report; (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. (c) If a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary /or personnel matters over which it has some decision making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with Penal Code section §933.05 are required from: Responses Required: Responses are required from the following governing bodies within 90 days of the date of publication of this report: Orange County Board of Supervisors (Findings 1-3; Recommendation 1). Responses Requested: Responses are requested from the following non-elected agency or department heads: Orange County Chief Executive Officer (Findings 1-3; Recommendation 1). REFERENCES 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury. (2016). To Be Continued...Follow-Up for Open Formal Grand Jury Report Responses. Retrieved from Orange County Grand Jury: http://www.ocgrandjury.org/pdfs/2015_2016_GJreport/2016-05- 03_Responses_Website_Report.pdf Administrative Office of the Courts. (2005). Model Guide for California Grand Juries. APPENDICES Appendix A: 2015-2016 Grand Jury Reports Responses

F2: Many responses to Grand Jury reports are not submitted in the format required by law and/or are incomplete. Greater follow-up by the County is needed to ensure required responses to findings and recommendations are submitted on time and in the appropriate format.

F3: Many responses to Grand Jury reports declare that the recommendation “will be implemented in the future” or that the recommendation “requires further analysis” with future dates for implementation. Implementation of recommendations aimed at fixing complex problems or calling for expensive solutions can often run up against the realities of the budgeting or procurement processes. Improved mechanisms are required to ensure these responses come to fruition. Penal Code §933 and §933.05 require governing bodies and elected officials to which a report is directed to respond to findings and recommendations. Responses are requested, from departments of local agencies and their non-elected department heads. RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code Sections §933 and §933.05, the 2016-2017 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected by the recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its investigation entitled “Unfinished Business: Responses to 2015-2016 Grand Jury Reports” in Orange County, the 2016-2017 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following recommendation:

📋June 28, 2016 — Office of Independent Review: What’s Next? recommendation #2 in the Ippec report suggested adding an outside,

72 pages 11 findings 8 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 11 findings

F1: By changing the employment relationship for the revised OIR’s Executive Director and professional staff from independent contractor to County employee, the Board of Supervisors appears to have made the 2015 version of the Office of Independent Review less independent of the Board and more vulnerable to the Board exerting politically- motivated influence on the five covered agencies and/or their leadership through the OIR.

Related Recommendations (2)

R1: The Board of Supervisors should: (1) request the Special Counsel to provide a comparative analysis between using employees or independent contractors to staff the OIR, with particular emphasis on the potential vulnerability of the OIR to politically-motivated influence, and to provide recommendations, should the County use employed staff, for limiting the vulnerability of the OIR to such influence and (2) based on such analysis, consider either amending the 2015 OIR ordinance to ensure the Executive Director and all professional staff are independent contractors or, implement recommendations of the Special Counsel with respect to limiting the vulnerability of the OIR to political influence, all to be completed by December 31, 2016. (F1)

R3: The Board of Supervisors should direct the new OIR Executive Director to consider other models for independent oversight of law enforcement, in addition to the three presented to them by Special Counsel, and make recommendations to the Board as to any elements from such models that could augment the model chosen by the Board and that would be useful and necessary to implement an efficient and effective OIR, all to be completed within six months of the Executive Director being hired. Among other concerns, the OIR Executive Director should consider whether and how the OIR, as currently designed, can meet the Board’s desire for the OIR to engage in independent investigations and recommend specific elements that could be integrated into the model chosen by the Board, including explicit authority, budget, and staffing provisions, to support the Board’s desire for independent OIR investigations. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7)

F2: Some members of the Board of Supervisors were dissatisfied with the OIR’s performance from 2008-2015. Some of the dissatisfaction appeared to be the result of a mismatch between Supervisors’ expectations and the OIR mandate as described in the 2008 OIR ordinance and the OIR Executive Director’s contract.

Related Recommendations (1)

F3: Although the 2015 OIR ordinance calls for the OIR to “conduct substantive systemic audits and reviews,” there is no explicit provision of authority or resources for the OIR to conduct them independently, a recurring supervisorial expectation. Without the authority or resources to conduct its own independent audit investigations, the 2015 version of the OIR would have to act only as reviewer of audits and reviews performed by Performance Audit, and/or Internal Audit, and/or the agencies themselves.

Related Recommendations (1)

F4: The OIR could easily cost upwards of $3 million/year due to expansion to five agencies plus jail monitors.

Related Recommendations (5)

R2: The Board of Supervisors should direct the new OIR Executive Director to provide the Board, within three months of the Executive Director being hired, with a plan, budget, and measureable performance outcomes for launching and operating the new OIR. The measurable performance outcomes should be traceable to the responsibilities defined in the 2015 OIR ordinance. (F4, F5, F6, F7, F9, F10, F11)

R4: The Board of Supervisors should implement the 2015 ordinance in phases, one agency at a time, with incremental process improvements after each phase. (F4, F5, F6)

R5: As a pilot project, the Board of Supervisors should direct the new OIR Executive Director to staff, within one year of the hiring of the Executive Director, at least one well-defined, short-term, closed-end review or audit with a skilled independent contractor acting as a short-term consultant or “special counsel.” The Board should direct the OIR Executive Director to provide a written report to the Board, three months after the review or audit is completed, comparing the cost and effectiveness of using a short-term special counsel with deep subject matter expertise, versus the cost and effectiveness of using and maintaining permanent staff. (F4, F5, F6)

R6: The Board of Supervisors should direct the OIR Executive Director to work with each of the five agencies to negotiate specific, and possibly narrow, initial scopes for OIR involvement with each agency, all to be completed within three months of the Executive Director being hired. (F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11)

F5: It will be a challenge to find and retain a permanent staff with the qualifications and sufficient subject matter expertise to identify best practices and to review the broad range of services provided by the five agencies identified in the 2015 ordinance.

Related Recommendations (5)

R4: The Board of Supervisors should implement the 2015 ordinance in phases, one agency at a time, with incremental process improvements after each phase. (F4, F5, F6)

F6: The increase in OIR purview from the 2008 ordinance to the 2015 amended ordinance, from just the OCSD to the OCSD plus four other agencies, is so large in the breadth of services offered by the five agencies, the number of County employees covered, and the number of OIR staff to be hired, that a phased implementation will be required.

Related Recommendations (5)

R4: The Board of Supervisors should implement the 2015 ordinance in phases, one agency at a time, with incremental process improvements after each phase. (F4, F5, F6)

F7: The strenuous opposition of the OCDA to its inclusion in the OIR’s purview could pose a serious threat to the ability of the OIR to provide an effective review of the OCDA as required by the 2015 ordinance.

Related Recommendations (3)

F8: The willingness of the OCSD to work cooperatively with the OIR was crucial to allowing the original 2008 OIR to be effective as an independent reviewer of OSCD’s internal investigations.

Related Recommendations (2)

R7: For three years starting with the hiring of the new OIR Executive Director, the OCSD should provide the revised OIR with open access to the Sheriff’s internal processes for defining, and insuring adherence to, its policies and procedures on the legal use of jailhouse informants, so that the OIR could help recommend reforms consistent with evolving best practices. This requires a continuation of the existing attorney-client relationship between the OIR and the OCSD. (F8, F9, F11)

F9: With the OIR’s newly-expanded role to review the policies and practices of the OCSD and recommend reforms consistent with evolving best practices, the OCSD has an opportunity to take advantage of the new OIR to assist the OCSD in recovering from the current jailhouse informant controversy. This would require the continued voluntary cooperation of the OCSD with the new OIR.

Related Recommendations (3)

F10: With the OIR’s newly-expanded role to review the policies and practices of the OCDA and recommend reforms consistent with evolving best practices, the OCDA has an opportunity to take advantage of the new OIR to assist the OCDA in recovering from the current jailhouse informant controversy, and in particular, implementing IPPEC recommendation #2. This would require the voluntary cooperation of the OCDA with the new OIR.

Related Recommendations (2)

F11: The assurance of confidentiality, through attorney-client privilege between the five relevant County agencies and the OIR, is essential to the effective implementation of the 2015 OIR ordinance. Still, even attorney-client privilege may be insufficient for allowing access to some confidential documents, like juvenile records and personnel files that are very tightly controlled by the courts.

Related Recommendations (3)

Additional Recommendations 1

Not linked to specific findings.

R8: The OCDA should add an OIR staff attorney as an “outside” or independent member of the OCDA’s Confidential Informant Review Committee, in keeping with IPPEC

📋June 28, 2016 — Procurement –Big Budget, Low Priority requirement by Procurement 3 weeks weeks Vets: 10 hours a

62 pages 18 findings 14 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 18 findings

F1: For several years the Orange County Procurement Office and the County’s procurement functions have not been prioritized to bring about necessary changes to achieve an efficient and cost effective operation despite numerous recommendations from Grand Juries and auditors.

Related Recommendations (6)

R2: The CEO, in cooperation with Human Resources, should define a process to base the next County Purchasing Agent appointment on a nationwide recruitment, job related testing, and thorough vetting by January 1, 2017. (F1, F12, F18)

R3: The CEO, in cooperation with Human Resources, should reclassify and transfer all employees in procurement functions to the County Procurement Office, and all future procurement staff be recruited and hired directly into the County Procurement Office and into a job classification within the Purchasing/Procurement Job Classification Series, managed and supervised by the CPO, by March 1, 2017. (F1, F3, F13, F16)

R4: Beginning November 30, 2016, the County Procurement Office should train all employees who have procurement duties immediately upon hire or assignment, and before they are permitted to work independently on procurement tasks. (F1, F2)

R9: The CEO, in cooperation with Human Resources, should hire a procurement consultant by December 1, 2016 to review prior Grand Jury, audit and study recommendations, assess the current County procurement system, and design a plan and strategy to transition procurement from a de-centralized organizational structure to a centralized or hybrid structure by July 2017. (F1, F3, F4, F9, F10, F14)

R12: The CEO, in cooperation with Human Resources, should conduct a salary survey and make recommendations for compensation modifications to make Orange County competitive in the Purchasing/Procurement Job Classification Series by February 1, 2017. (F1, F13)

R14: The County Procurement Office should, by January 15, 2017, lead each County agency through a process to develop function-specific Procurement Procedure Manuals, and all Manuals be reviewed and updated annually. (F1, F2, F8, F17) REQUIRED RESPONSES The California Penal Code §933 requires any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the agency. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court). Additionally, in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such elected official shall comment on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under that elected official’s control within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code Section §933.05 (a), (b), (c), details, as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a) As to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. (b) As to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding 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, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. (c) If a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary /or personnel matters over which it has some decision making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with Penal Code section §933.05 are required from: Responses Required: 90 Day Required Responses: F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 F14 F15 F16 F17 F18 Orange County Board of Supervisors X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 90 Day Required Responses: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 R11 R12 R13 R14 Orange County Board of Supervisors X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Responses Requested: Requested Responses: F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 F14 F15 F16 F17 F18 CPO X X X X X X X X X X X X Requested Responses: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 R11 R12 R13 R14 CPO X X X X X X X X X Requested Responses: F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 F14 F15 F16 F17 F18 CPA X X X X Requested Responses: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 R11 R12 R13 R14 CPA X X X X Requested Responses: F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 F14 F15 F16 F17 F18 HR X X X X Requested Responses: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 R11 R12 R13 R14 HR X X X X Requested Responses: F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 F14 F15 F16 F17 F18 County Executive Office X Requested Responses: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 R11 R12 R13 R14 County Executive Office X X X X X X Requested Responses: F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 F14 F15 F16 F17 F18 CFO X X Requested Responses: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 R11 R12 R13 R14 CFO X X X X X X Requested Responses: F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 F14 F15 F16 F17 F18 x CEO/Information Technology Requested Responses: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 R11 R12 R13 R14 CEO/Information Technology X WORKS CITED Anklesaria, Jimmy. “Centralized vs. Decentralized Procurement: The Ongoing Balancing Act”, Supply & Demand Chain Executive. August 1, 2014, Web. http://www.sdcexec.com/article/11604760/centralized-vs-decentralized-procurement-the- ongoing-balancing-act, May 2016. Anklesaria, Jimmy. “Centralize or Decentralize Procurement? No Longer a Clear-Cut Choice”, My Purchasing Center. August 30, 2014. Web. May 2016. http://www.mypurchasingcenter.com/purchasing/industry-articles/centralize-or- decentralize-procurement-no-longer-clear-cut-choice. Bianca, Audra et.al. “What Do Silos Mean in Business Culture.” Web. May 2016. http://yourbusiness.a.com/silos-mean-business-culture-3448.html. “Best Practices for Performance-Based Contracting”, Office of Management and Budget. Web. https://whitehouse.gov/omb/procurement_guide/phsc. April 2016. Brinkman, J.E., CPPO. “Resolution 1002 – Centralized Purchasing,” National Institute of Governmental Purchasing. Web. nigp.org/eweb. October 27, 2015. California Counties by Population, California Demographics by Cubit. Web. California demographics.com/counties - by – population. November 14, 2015. Candidate Applications, Human Services Agency, County of Orange. Web. March 18, 2016. Consolidated Board Policies on Agreements/Contracts Approved by the Board, no author or agency listed. unidentifiable website. May 14, 2015. County Executive Office, Agenda Staff Report #10-000734. May 18, 2010. Print. County of Orange, CEO Procurement Office, Navigating the Request for Proposal (RFP) Process, January 2012. County of Orange Department of Human Resources, Purchasing Manager – Administrative Manager III, Recruitment flyer, issued December 31, 2005. County Procurement Office, 2014 Calendar of Training Topics. County Procurement Office, 2016 Goals. Summary of NIGP Report Recommendations, County Executive Office. May 18, 2010. Print. CPO KPI 4th quarter report 2016. Web.ocgov.com. May 2016. Deputy Purchasing Agent (DPA) List 11/19/2015-12/17/2015, County Procurement Office Web. ocgov.com, March 31, 2016. deCourcy, P., Warn, D., Hogg, R., and Shaw, J., “Ten Strategies for Best-in-Class Public Sector Procurement,” Bravo Solution. Chicago, Il. June 2012. Duft, Ken D., “Agribusiness Management”, Washington State University & US Department of Agriculture. Web. http://www.agribusiness-mgmt.wsu.edu/ExtensionNewsletters/mgmt/ MgmtObjective.pdf. May 2016. E-Myth Business Coach, “The Danger of Silos in Your Business.” November 24, 2010. Web. e- myth.com. May 6, 2016. Engel, Bob, C.P.M, “10 best practices you should be doing now”. Web. http://www.supplychainquarterly.com/topics/Procurement/scq201101bestpractices/. Quarter 1, 2011. November 4, 2015. Internal Audit Department – Orange County, Internal Control & Compliance Audit OCPublic Works, Bid & Proposal Processes, Audit No. 1225-A, February 19, 2014. Internal Audit Department – Orange County, Internal Control & Compliance Audit – OC Public Works Change Order and Contract Amendment Processes Audit No. 1225-B, February 19, 2014. Internal Audit Department – Orange County, Internal Control & Compliance Audit – OC Public Works Sole Source Contracts, Audit 1225-C, February 19, 2014. Internal Audit Department – Orange County, Final Close-Out, OC Public Works Bid &Proposal Processes, Audit No. 1225-F1, June 24, 2015. Master Services Agreement for IT Services by and Between County of Orange and Science Applications International Corporation, 2013. Web. April 2016 http//bos.ocgov.com/itms/docs/SAIC Master Services Agreement.pdf. ocgov.com, Human Resources, Job Titles. Web. Ocgov.com. March 2016. OC Procurement, Key Performance Indicators Final quarter 2016. Orange County, CA. Office of the Performance Audit Director, Performance Audit of Countywide Purchasing - Final November 11, 2009. Draft Report (#131404). June 17, 2014. County of Orange, CA Web.ocgov.com. O’Neill II, J.B., McCarthy, D., Brady, W.D., and Pitzer, J.T., “Procurement Policy Study.” County of Orange, CA. October 8, 2009. Orange County – Class Specification Bulletin, various job titles. Web. April 2016. Ocgov.com/agency.governmentjobs.com/oc. Orange County, California – Organizational Chart. Web. ocgov.com/gov/ceo/resources/orgchart. Orange County Grand Jury – 1997-1998, Study of Orange County Procurement System, Santa Ana, Ca. Web. Ocgov.org. Orange County Grand Jury – 2002-2003, Questionable Contract Management. Print Orange County Grand Jury – 2013-2014, Improving the County of Orange Government’s Multi- Billion Dollar Contracting Operations. Print. Orange County Public Works, Design & Construction Procurement Policy Manual (DCP) 2015. Approved January 27, 2015. Overby, Stephanie, “What Matters Most in Outsourcing: Outcomes vs. Tasks.” Web. May 2016. http://www.cio.com.au/article/326009/what_matters_most_outsourcing_outcome_vs_tas ks/ CIO.com. November 16, 2009. Performance Based Contracting, Principles and Practices of Public Procurement, Partnership for Public Procurement, NIGP/CIPS, 2012. Web. http://216.22.26.112/wp- content/uploads/2013/04/PerformanceBased.pdf. June 1, 2016. Procurement Quarterly Reports 2015, County Procurement Office. SAIC Contract Amendment #1. Web. May 6, 2016. http://cams.ocgov.com/Web_Publisher/Agenda07_30_2013_files/images/O01313- 000824A.PDF, July 30, 2013. Sessoms, Gail, What are Organizational Silos? Web. May 2016. http://yourbusiness.azcentral.com/organizational-silos-8237.html. Unattributed. Centralized Purchasing – Good or Bad? Web. May 19, 2016. www.purchasing-procurement-center.com/centralized-purchasing. Warn, Dan. Best Practices for Government Procurement, November 15, 2005, Government Information Division, Office of the State Auditor, State of Minnesota. Web. http//strategicsourcing.com/2014/11/05best-practices-for-government-procurement. What’s the Difference Between Policies and Procedures? Web. April 25, 2016. www. bizmanualz.com/write- better-policies. WORKS CONSULTED American Bar Association, Model Procurement Code for State and Local Governments. February 1979. Print. Consolidated Board Policies on Agreements/Contracts Approved by the Board, IT Managed Services – Transition & Transformation, OCIT. Wed. bos.ocgov/itms/faq.asp. Print. County Executive Office, County Procurement Office, Memorandum, Retroactive Contract Approval Request Form Instructions, January 13, 2016. Print. County Procurement Office, DEPUTY PURCHASING AGENT (DPA LIST), 11/19/2015 – 12/17/2015. Print. Gerda, Nick. “Medical contract approved amid protest,” Orange County Register. September 9, 2014. Web. Gilroy, Leonard. “Competitive contracting helps taxpayers,” Orange County Register. January 23, 2015. Web. Muir, Jennifer. “OC feels dangers of IT contracting”, Orange County Register, April 10, 2015. Web. OCIT, IT Shared Services Pilot Overview. October 26, 2015. Web. Orange County Procurement Support Center (OCPSC), Closed Tickets by month and Year-to- Date., document, May 31, 2016. “Board of Supervisors Set for Big Vote on Huge Computer Contract”, Orange County Register. June 27 2008. Web. May 2016. “County Exploring New Computer System,” Orange County Register. September 22, 2011. Web. May 2016. Richardson, Rob, County Executive Office/County Procurement Office, OC Procurement Support Center. Letter, January 14, 2016. Richardson, Rob, Procurement Office Goals – 2015, Santa Ana, California. Print. Richardson, Rob, Procurement Office Goals – 2016, Santa Ana, California. Print. Sample Size Calculator – Confidence and Interval Level, Creative Research Systems. Web. http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm, May 2016. San Juan Capistrano Patch, County Bigwigs Rant about multimillion Dollar Cost Overruns. June 3, 2011. Web. May 2016. Sforza, Terry. “OC watchdog: Report validates doubts on county contracting,” Orange County Register. June 16, 2014.

F2: Training requirements for new and experienced Deputy Procurement Agents is inadequate. Further, the inconsistent enforcement of training compliance, and confusing training and certification timelines is a high risk practice because it allows untrained and/or uncertified employees to perform procurement tasks.

Related Recommendations (4)

R5: The County Purchasing Agent should enforce standard DPA training requirements and not allow any DPA to work on procurement tasks if their DPA certification has lapsed beginning December 1, 2016. (F2, F7)

R6: The County Executive Officer should hire a procurement Training Consultant to assess the training needs of procurement staff and submit a plan for training of new and veteran procurement employees by January 15, 2017. (F2, F7)

F3: The current de-centralized Procurement organizational structure is outdated and not consistent with other large California counties or current procurement Best Practices and deprives the County of the ability to leverage its collective buying power to reduce costs.

Related Recommendations (2)

F4: The County does not appear to have an in-house expert on centralization who could design and implement the transition to centralized procurement.

Related Recommendations (1)

F5: The automated procurement tracking system is outdated and thereby difficult to use and appears to contribute to errors and additional costs.

Related Recommendations (1)

R8: That the CEO should authorize OCIT to assist the County Procurement Office in conducting an IT needs assessment, and submit a plan and timeline for improvement, updating or replacement by March 1, 2017. (F5)

F6: ) R.12. The CEO, in cooperation with Human Resources, should conduct a salary survey and make

Related Recommendations (1)

R7: By October 1, 2016, the CEO should direct agencies to revise the practice of recommending the awarding of multi-year contracts, one year at a time, with possible four - 1 year extensions, by directing agency staff to submit contracts of three to five years; and direct contract managers to exercise the 30 day cancellation clause when warranted by poor vendor performance. (F6)

F7: Advanced training and professional certification are not encouraged and are not credited in hiring or promotion of employees with procurement duties.

Related Recommendations (2)

F8: The Request for Proposal (RFP) process has a number of correctable technical operational issues such as inconsistencies in solicitation packets, conflict of interest, uncorrected errors and bidder qualifications

Related Recommendations (1)

F9: In pursuit of centralizing OCIT services, a cross-agency Working Group developed a program for the pilot phase recently launched which, if successful, may be a model for centralization of Procurement.

Related Recommendations (1)

F10: There are Procurement best practices readily available for consideration that could be adopted to improve Orange County Procurement performance.

Related Recommendations (1)

F11: The number of contracts annually reviewed for compliance with the Contract Policy Manual is insufficient for a dependable assessment.

Related Recommendations (1)

R10: The County Purchasing Agent should complete annual contract compliance reviews on at least 15% of each County agencies’ active contracts , and release/publish the violation findings within 60 days of review, beginning October 1, 2016. (F11)

F12: There are no current specific minimum qualifications for County Purchasing Agent or a selection /testing procedure to identify and appoint the most qualified candidate.

Related Recommendations (2)

R1: The CEO in cooperation with Human Resources should establish by December 31, 2016 a specific Job Classification and description for County Purchasing Agent which includes professional, minimum qualifications in education, procurement certification, job-related experience, and progressive management duties. (F12, F18)

F13: Orange County does not offer competitive compensation for the Purchasing/Procurement Job Classification Series (and related positions) and pays up to 30% below the average of three like-sized California counties.

Related Recommendations (2)

F14: There has been no action taken on many of the recommendations made by 1997-1998, 2002-2003 and 2013-2014 OC Grand Juries, the 2009 Procurement Policy Study, and the 2014 Performance Auditor and the Internal Auditor.

Related Recommendations (1)

F15: The Contract Policy Manual – 2012 is outdated.

F16: There are no consistent hiring standards and qualifications for employees working in Procurement assignments, and most procurement staff are hired by agencies other than County Procurement into job titles outside the Purchasing/Procurement Job Classification Series.

Related Recommendations (1)

F17: The County lacks approved procedure manuals for procurement functions.

Related Recommendations (1)

F18: Some executive and upper management selections are made without an active recruitment and a testing process to identify the most qualified candidate, but by transferring an existing manager into the position, some without related education or experience. RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code §933 and §933.05, the 2015-2016 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected by the recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its investigation titled “Procurement – Big Budget, Low Priority”, the 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following 14 recommendations:

Related Recommendations (2)

Additional Recommendations 2

Not linked to specific findings.

R11: The Chief Purchasing Agent should research procurement best practices, especially Performance Based Contracting, and submit a plan to adopt appropriate practices that would contribute to improved performance by Procurement, by January 1, 2017. (F1. F3, F6 )

R13: The County Purchasing Agent should complete a report on recommended revisions to the Contract Policy Manual by October 15, 2016 and complete the revisions by March 1, 2017. (F1, F8, F15,)

📋Required Responses

579 pages 25 findings 25 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 25 findings

F1: The pedestrian screening areas located at the entrances to the Central Justice Center are heavily used and become congested during high traffic times. Pedestrian crowding prevents the Sheriff’s Special Officers from having an adequate view of persons entering the facility.

Page 187

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The Orange County Sheriff should make best efforts to coordinate with the Court Facilities Manager no later than September 2017 to determine which space designation (County, Court, or Common) applies to points of ingress and egress at the county’s courthouses to help determine fiscal responsibility for security/safety improvements. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5)

F2: The industrial/office grade partitions used in the Central Justice Center’s screening areas to channel the public entering and departing the facility do not provide ballistic protection for Sheriff’s Special Officers in the case of an active shooter emergency.

Page 187

Related Recommendations (1)

F3: There is no system for regulating or channeling the public in order to prevent crowding at the scanning stations. Sheriff’s Special Officers must use verbal commands in order to maintain public order and organization.

Page 187

Related Recommendations (1)

F4: None of the County jail or court facilities visited uses full body scanners to prevent the public from bringing non-metallic weapons, tools or other contraband into the facility.

Page 187

Related Recommendations (2)

R11: The Orange County Sheriff should develop a plan by January 2017 for the funding, purchase and installation of Full Body Scanners for each courthouse entrance. (F4)

F5: The current security/surveillance camera system on the exterior of the Harbor Justice Center is not adequate and until completion of on-going upgrades, does not provide for sufficient monitoring.

Page 187

Related Recommendations (2)

R4: The Orange County Sheriff should continue best efforts to coordinate with the Court Facilities Manager by January 2017 to support the current project to upgrade and expand the video surveillance system at the Harbor Justice Center. (F5)

F6: The roll-up doors located at the Harbor Justice Center do not prevent some observation of inmates arriving and departing the court by the Sheriff’s transportation vehicles.

Page 187

F7: The Command Center at John Wayne Airport uses outdated surveillance equipment.

Page 187

F8: The K-9 office located at John Wayne Airport is in need of repair or replacement.

Page 187

Related Recommendations (1)

R7: The Orange County Sheriff should coordinate with the Airport Director for John Wayne Airport to develop a plan by September 2017 for the funding, and repair or replacement of the K-9 Staff Office at John Wayne Airport. (F8)

F9: The Harbor Patrol Marine Operations Bureau does not have waterproof dashboard or handheld video cameras for use at all three harbors in its patrol area.

Page 187

F10: Adequate long-range surveillance equipment is not available to Dana Point deputies performing harbormaster duties. 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury 9582813_GJ_text_document_Final.indd 185 7/7/16 8:06 AM Sheriff’s Temporary Detention/Holding Areas, Patrol Areas and Special Services

Page 187

Related Recommendations (1)

R9: The Orange County Sheriff should develop a plan by September 2017 to fund and equip the REPORT harbormaster deputies with long-range surveillance equipment. (F10) 5

F11: The outside parking/equipment staging area located at the Aliso Viejo Sheriff’s Station provides inadequate protection along the rear of the enclosed area. No barrier exists to prevent unencumbered access onto Sheriff’s property.

Page 188

Related Recommendations (1)

R10: The Orange County Sheriff should coordinate with the City of Aliso Viejo by January 2017 to develop a plan for the funding and construction of a wall or fence along the entire rear of the Aliso Viejo Sheriff’s Station facility. (F11)

F12: The Office of the District Attorneydemonstrated questionable leadership when a newly hired temporary employee was promoted into a leadership position, resulting in the new hire managing the staff memberswho were still providing orientation training for the new hire.

Page 241

F13: The Public Administrator’sOffice has no established mentorship training or leadership program in place for developingtalented current employees. This has resulted in experienced Public Administratoremployees being passed over for promotional and leadership opportunities. Case Management System (E-CMDS)

Page 241

F14: The E-CMDS case management system is antiquated, unreliable, does not have the ability to quickly and accuratelycull reliable data, anddoes not meet the current business needs of the Public Administrator/Public Guardian deputies. Although there have been several attempts to replace the current E-CMDS, each has failed to produce tangible results.

Page 241

F15: The PublicAdministrator’s Officeis considering pursuing the purchase of a case management system that will be completely separate from whatever case management system the Public Guardian pursues, which has the potential to result in fragmented communication and duplicative processes when cases are handed over from the Public Guardianto the Public Administrator. Training and Certification: 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury age 44 P 9582813_GJ_text_document_Final.indd 239 7/7/16 8:06 AM Changing of the Guardian: Life After the Reorganization of the PA and PG Offices

Page 241

F16: The Public Guardian’s Office does not have a reliable system for tracking Public Guardiandeputy training and membership status to ensure guardians maintain certification as stated in Probate Code.

Page 242

F17: ThePublic Guardian’s Officedoes not hold deputystaff accountable for adhering to Policy 1.01-Public Guardian Certification and Continuing Education. This has resulted in the majority of deputies being out of compliance with certification which could have negativeconsequences and/or impact their ability to best serve their clients.

Page 242

F18: The Public Guardian’s Officehas not provided clear guidance or assistance to ensure deputies understand the financial reimbursement process, resulting in deputies not pursuing recertification. REPORT 6 Policy & Procedure

Page 242

F19: The Public Guardian’s Officehas worked diligently to update policies and procedures, however, some of the staff responsible for implementingthese policies do not agree with some of the content, are not aware that they have been completed, and/or do not intend to comply with the policies.

Page 242

F20: ThePublic Guardian’s Officehas not effectively communicated theexpectationthat deputy staff are required to adhere to updated Public Guardianpolicies.

Page 242

F21: Behavioral Health Services has a policy review structure in place. Although it is the intentionto integrate the Public Guardian Office into Behavioral Health Services processes, two years have gone by without this integration occurring. Behavioral Health Services is not knowledgeable about Public Guardianprocesses and can only review Public Guardianspecific policies for style and format compliance.

Page 242

F22: Public Guardianpolicies are not reviewed and revised on a regular basis andthere is no clear system in place for distribution of new or revised policies.

Page 242

F23: The Public Guardianstaff is expected to follow general Behavioral Health Services policies, which address over-arching expectations for all Behavioral Health Services staff. However, some Public Guardianstaff do not feel like they are an integral part of the Behavioral Health Services culture and do not acknowledge that Behavioral Health Services policies are relevant to their job. The Public Guardianmanual, which is the primary reference for deputies, does not include several policies that would be considered as staples for most organizations. Quality Assurance:

Page 242

F24: The Public Guardian’s Office has no internal Quality Assurance unit, and thedepartment is not represented or included in Behavioral Health Services quality assurance activities 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury age 45 P 9582813_GJ_text_document_Final.indd 240 7/7/16 8:06 AM Changing of the Guardian: Life After the Reorganization of the PA and PG Offices two years after the reorganization of the Public GuardianOffice. The Public Guardian’s Officedependsupon external audits to evaluate their performance.

Page 242

F25: The Public Guardian’s Officedoes not initiate anyinternal quality assurance activities to measure job performance, or adherence to Probate Codes and Best Practices to ensure excellent customer service.

Page 243

Additional Recommendations 19

Not linked to specific findings.

R2: FA majority 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury 9582813_GJ_text_document_Final.indd 79 7/7/16 8:06 AM 9582813_GJ_text_document_Final.indd 80 7/7/16 8:06 AM LIGHT RAIL: IS ORANGE COUNTY ON THE RIGHT TRACK? , GRAND JURY 2015-2016 GRAND JURY 2015-2016 9582813_GJ_text_document_Final.indd 81 7/7/16 8:06 AM 9582813_GJ_text_document_Final.indd 82 7/7/16 8:06 AM Light Rail: Is Orange County on the Right Track? Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.....................................................................................................3 REPORT 3 BACKGROUND......................................................................................................................4 Light Rail Defined................................................................................................................4 Light Rail in Southern California.......................................................................................4 Los Angeles County’s Metro Rail System..........................................................................6 South San Diego County and the San Diego Trolley........................................................6 North San Diego County and the Sprinter Light Rail System.........................................7 Prior Grand Jury Reports on Light Rail Development in Orange County....................7 Scope and Focus of This Report.........................................................................................8 METHODOLOGY..................................................................................................................9 INVESTIGATION AND ANALYSIS....................................................................................9 Orange County and Light Rail Development, Analysis and Political Reality................9 Orange County and Light Rail Development, a Change in Leadership and Focus.....12 Return on Investment Expectations.................................................................................13 The OC Streetcar Project Connecting Santa Ana and Garden Grove.........................16 The City of Anaheim and the Anaheim Rapid Connection (ARC) Project..................18 The City of Fullerton’s Efforts to Study Use of Light Rail............................................21 COMMENDATIONS............................................................................................................23

Page 81

R3: came from Sheriff-Cor. CEO/ITR1 WBI Will be presented to IT Exec C in FY14/15 for approval

Page 81

R5: WBI 2015 for mods to be approved by BoS Prior to expiration of current East Basin Ops Agrmt in

Page 81

R6: WBI in FY14/15 Committee underway to determine if it makes sense to centralize County IT Services under the CEO office of

Page 81

R8: WBI Feb2021, a cost analysis will be done for both basins Improving The County of Orange Contract Policy Manual will undergo thorough review in Government’s Multi-Billion Dollar 2015 for mods to be approved by BoS. See above where Contracting Operations 1314BoS R1 FA same response was a WBI Contract Policy Manual will undergo thorough review in 2015 for mods to be approved by BoS. See above where CEO R2 FA same response was a WBI Juvenile Offenders and Recidivism: Agree, grant funds & donations to be solicited. Probation Orange County Solutions 1314BoS R3 WBI Dept to take the lead. Orange County Information Technology Management:Good Job Overall; Disaster Recovery Must Be Addressed 1314BoS R2 WBI Joint reply with CEO/IT. Will be implemented in FY14/15 CEO never replied on behalf of BoS on this. Only reply

Page 81

R12: The District Attorney’s Officeshould coordinate with County Centralized Human Resources to develop and initiatetraining to ensure the District AttorneyHuman Resources Department complies withthe Merit Selection Rules (MSR)for both temporary and permanent positions by December 31, 2016.(F.9, F.11)

Page 244

R13: The District Attorney’s Officeshould instruct the District AttorneyHuman Resources Department todevelop and implement a formal process for validating that candidates meet all minimum qualifications for anyPublic Administrator position advertised, as well as validating work experience relevant to anyPublic Administratorposition advertised, regardless of whether the position is temporary or permanent with such process to be in place by December 31, 2016.(F.10)

Page 244

R14: The District Attorney’s Officeshould develop a plan to implement a mentorship/leadership program for Public Administratordeputies by December 31, 2016. (F.13)

Page 244

R15: The Public Administratorand Public GuardianOffices,in conjunction with the IT Project Manager,should meet with the County Executive Office (CEO)by December 31, 2016 to recommend to the Board of Supervisors thepurchase of a new case management system 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury age 47 P 9582813_GJ_text_document_Final.indd 242 7/7/16 8:06 AM Changing of the Guardian: Life After the Reorganization of the PA and PG Offices that will meet the business needs and interface with both the Public Administrator and Public Guardian deputy staff. (F.14)

Page 244

R16: ThePublic Administrator and Public Guardian Officesshould re-establish a steering committee, with a designated Project Manager, by December 31, 2016 to acquire a replacement case management system. (F.14, F.15)

Page 245

R17: The Public Administrator and Public Guardian Offices should work together with the IT Project Manager to ensure the new case management system meets the Public Administrator and Public Guardian business needs through a comprehensive report function that can accurately track data and produce meaningful reports by June 30, 2017. (F.14) REPORT

Page 245

R18: The Public Guardian Office should initiate a process to ensure Public Guardian training 6 records coincide with the California Association of Public Administrators Public Guardians Public Conservators Association (CAPAPGPC) records, that deputies are current with their training and certification, and that consequences for not being in compliance are clearly communicated and addressed by December 31, 2016. (F.16, F.17)

Page 245

R19: The Public Guardian Office should develop clear guidelines, with examples, for Public Guardian deputies to utilize when requesting reimbursement for training and membership dues. The Public Guardian Office should provide training on the guidelines and provide a designated manager to assist in the process by December 31, 2016. (F.18)

Page 245

R20: The Public Guardian Office should develop a process to reimburse Public Guardianstaff within 30 working days of submission for reimbursement of out-of-pocket costs for training and membership dues by December 31, 2016. (F.18)

Page 245

R21: The Public Guardian Office should provide immediate training on all new and revised Public Guardianpolicies as well as Behavioral Health Servicespolicies that pertain to Public Guardian staff. Training should include management expectations on adherence to policies, along with a question and answer period for deputies to express any concerns about the accuracy of policies or their ability to carry out the policies. The training should be implemented by December 31, 2016. (F.19, F.20)

Page 245

R22: The Public Guardian Office should ensure Public Guardianpolicies are reviewed and revised on a regular basis, including solicitation of knowledgeable staff input to ensure accuracy. The assigned manager/supervisor should ensure communication of new or revised policies, as well as initiate documented Public Guardian staff training on new and revised policies to ensure understanding and compliance by December 31, 2016. (F.21, F.22)

Page 245

R23: The Public GuardianOffice should ensure that Behavioral Health Services policies that pertain to Public Guardian deputies are easily accessible to them by December 31, 2016. (F.23) 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury age 48 P 9582813_GJ_text_document_Final.indd 243 7/7/16 8:06 AM Changing of the Guardian: Life After the Reorganization of the PA and PG Offices

Page 245

R24: The Public GuardianOffice should integrate a Public Guardianmanager or supervisor into the Behavioral Health Servicesquality assurance structure, with a defined role of initiating quality assurance and risk management activities,includingregularly conducted internal auditsspecific to the Public Guardian role by December 31, 2016. (F.24, F.25)

Page 246

R30-35: days. F.9. Data demonstrates that the Collaborative and Community Courts provide effective treatment services for mentally ill offenders who qualify for the programs. F.10. Collaborative Courts save the County a significant amount of money in decreased incarceration and recidivism rates. REPORT F.11. The current number of jail psychiatrists is not sufficient to meet the needs of the general 8 inmate population diagnosed with mental illness. This shortage has resulted in extended periods of time inmates spend in safety cells, as well as a lack of psychiatric services in all but a very small portion of the Orange County Jails. The Department of Justice findings support the concern that therapeutic treatment may not reach prisoners who may be quite ill, but are not the most obviously in need of mental health care. F.12. Orange County has become a model for successful implementation of Laura’s Law in the State of California. Behavioral Health Services keeps comprehensive statistics on all aspects of Laura’s Law and therefore can effectively analyze the program’s strengths and weaknesses. F.13. Correctional Health Services does not provide therapeutic treatment services to inmates with a chronic mental health diagnosis in most parts of Mod L or in any of the general jail housing. This small concentration of service supports the Department of Justice concern that the jail does not provide for a cohesive system of therapy and treatment. F.14. There is a lack of adequate classroom space to conduct educational classes for inmates who would benefit from participation in inmate services programs. F.15. Correctional Health Services has no written guidelines, no formal course of study, and no specific training for case managers or nursing staff who conduct group therapy sessions on Mod L Crisis Stabilization Unit. 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury 9582813_GJ_text_document_Final.indd 340 7/7/16 8:06 AM

Page 342