2005-2006 Final Report

Recommendations 1

• R10-20
  percent. Two districts participated in 4-5 percent. One district did not participate at all. o With respect to the regional and state programs and services offered, only Hayward, Newark, San Leandro, and one ACOE employee participated. 15 districts did not participate at all. • Districts in the tri-valley area and high performing districts perceive the ACOE provides very little benefit to their districts and students. • Monthly meetings of superintendents are beneficial but only when controlled by the superintendents themselves, not the ACOE. The one ACOE administrator who assists in scheduling is helpful. • Monthly meetings of chief business officials and other assistant superintendents are beneficial. Input regarding business services was requested this year. Sometimes, input regarding professional programming is requested. • While some superintendents believe that the superintendent of the ACOE is approachable and welcomes informal input regarding program suggestions, some do not and requests are not acted upon. • ACOE focuses on providing programming to districts that are physically close to its office. • ACOE is mainly concerned with providing programming to districts that have diverse student populations and/or lower socio-economic means. • Emails regarding legislative updates and educational updates are helpful. • Support with grant writing, technology, labor negotiations, and fiscal matters are helpful when offered. • Community Day Programs provide a much needed service for expelled students. However, capacity is insufficient to meet the county’s needs. • Most districts look to other county offices of education for templates and research on issues facing school districts. • ACOE provides a benefit when it fulfills its statutory obligations, such as fiscal oversight. CONCLUSION A budget reflects priorities. The county office receives both restricted and unrestricted funds. For 2005-06, of the $35,609,938 in anticipated revenues, $12,850,872, or 36% was unrestricted. The priorities should benefit all of Alameda County’s students, yet no one, other than the ACOE’s Cabinet, participates in that discussion in any significant manner. The county office explains the process to the AC Board but the board does not substantively influence the budget; nor do the school districts, even though the county office exists to serve the public and the students of Alameda County. In any environment where education dollars are scarce and Alameda County schools are lacking books, supplies, libraries, sports and enrichment programs, much less technology resources, education dollars flowing into the county office appear to fund a large bureaucracy that has created only pockets of real value. This year’s allocation was as follows: Divisions Budget Superintendent/Board of Education $738,034 Student Program & Services $10,784,761 Professional & Educational Services $13,966,404 Human Resources $2,783,957 Business Services $7,721,905 Communications & Publications $719,563 Total Expenditures $36,714,624 Without more public review, more input from school districts, and more real participation from the elected representatives on the Alameda County Board of Education, there is no assurance that those dollars are being well spent. The county office has not evaluated itself nor has it sought outside critical and/or strategic evaluations. The lack of sufficient and/or tenured staffing to deal with fiscal oversight is but one area of public concern. The process of obtaining 33 additional input does not need to be done annually but periodically so that the “maintenance budget” approach currently used by the ACOE does not obscure the real and changing needs of the county. A strategic planning process has minimal financial costs but does require leadership and cooperation. As a result, a more public process and realignment of resources will insure that education dollars are not being wasted. ALAMEDA COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION The Grand Jury acknowledges that the Board has made progress in conducting more professional meetings. Board agendas have improved in that they provide a better explanation of the items that the Board will discuss publicly. Nevertheless, the Grand Jury remains concerned about the following four areas: First, some board members still lack the ability to place issues on the agenda. The recent addition of a log to document agenda requests from board members and the public, and the responses to those requests, will assist in addressing this issue. It is critical that a historical version of the log be maintained to allow for public review of the transparency of the Board’s operations. Second, a formal process should also be implemented to allow for additions to the minutes to occur. Again, a process will allow all members equal influence over the substance of public records and eliminate the appearance of favoritism. Further, the minutes should accurately reflect the amount of time the Board spends in closed session. Currently the minutes are not accurate. Third, the timing of the public portion of the Board’s meetings should be standardized and/or better publicized to allow the public certainty about when it can attend the meetings. A review of a year-long period showed that the meetings began at various times: 34 • two at approximately 5:00; • two at approximately 5:30; • eleven at approximately 6:30; and • one at approximately 7:00 These fluctuations violate the Board’s own bylaws requiring that regular meetings be held at 7:30 p.m. on the second and fourth Tuesdays of each month (BB 9230(a)2.B). Further, more effort should be made to update and advise the public as to changes in meeting times; for example, through the internet or the creation of a public information line, and therefore comply with the letter and spirit of the Brown Act. Fourth, the Board sets the salary of the Superintendent and, according to her contract, the Board votes annually on an increase that it has granted every year. Surprisingly, there is no formal evaluation process of the superintendent. In order to ensure the public that performance standards are established and met, the Board should implement a process of annually reviewing the superintendent; and it should involve broad based input including that of the superintendents of all school districts in the county. RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendation 06-6: The Alameda County Office of Education undertake a comprehensive, public, and strategic analysis of all programs provided and realign the budget appropriately to prioritize those programs providing the most effective benefit to Alameda County. Recommendation 06-7: The Alameda County Office of Education implement a comprehensive plan to recruit and retain employees with fiscal oversight responsibilities, including conducting a classification study and comparative analysis to determine whether said employees should be compensated in a more competitive manner in the Bay Area. Recommendation 06-8: The Alameda County Board of Education implement and maintain a process for agenda requests to be logged and tracked. Recommendation 06-9: The Alameda County Board of Education post all current and past agendas (in addition to the minutes) on the website for easy public access. Recommendation 06-10: The Alameda County Board of Education implement a process for Board members to add their own comments, in a timely manner, to the minutes relative to a significant debate which occurs during the meetings and ensure that the minutes accurately reflect the amount of time spent in closed session and recess. Recommendation 06-11: The Alameda County Board of Education establish and publicize one set of standard public meeting times for Board meetings and better publicize any changes to meeting times. Recommendation 06-12: The Alameda County Board of Education implement an annual criteria performance review process of the superintendent as part of the mechanism for approving his or her salary and any optional raises. RESPONSES REQUIRED Alameda County Superintendent of Schools Recommendations 06-6 and 06-7 Alameda County Board of Education Recommendations 06-8 through 06-12 37 LAW & JUSTICE COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION The Law & Justice Committee of the Alameda County Grand Jury investigates matters relating to law enforcement issues including citizen complaints, jail inspections, and review of law enforcement procedures. Of the complaints received by the 2005-2006 Grand Jury, two were referred to the Law & Justice Committee for investigation. One complained that Oakland Police Department union officials received preferential treatment in the assignment of overtime, and the other alleged inadequacies in the City of Berkeley’s Parking Enforcement Bureau. The Grand Jury investigated both of these complaints. Additionally, the Grand Jury inspected the Berkeley City Jail, the Fremont City Jail, and the Glen Dyer Detention Facility located in Oakland. OAKLAND POLICE DEPARTMENT OVERTIME INTRODUCTION The Grand Jury received a complaint from the Oakland city auditor alleging that the Oakland Police Department’s (OPD) overtime system was corrupt and that certain officers, principally members of the board of directors of the Oakland Police Officer’s Association (OPOA), were improperly benefiting from this corrupt system. In investigating this complaint, the Grand Jury requested and obtained various documents from OPD including voluminous reports documenting overtime paid to the top 100 overtime earners for the last three years. The Grand Jury also obtained and examined documents describing OPD’s policies and procedures regarding overtime, the Public Financial Management, Inc. (PFM) 2005 evaluation, and other documents that do not directly pertain to overtime but have an impact on the system, such as the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the OPOA and OPD. The Grand Jury heard testimony from witnesses including the Chief of Police, OPD’s senior human resources manager, and various command officers charged with maintaining and administering a number of aspects of OPD’s overtime programs, including the president and other board members of the OPOA. The Grand Jury did not investigate the issue of how OPD deploys its officers, but believes that issue does warrant closer examination by the Grand Jury. With the rapidly increasing rate of violent crime in Oakland, that investigation should examine the need for a review of the current beat system, look into the benefits of accreditation and determine whether additional officers are needed to provide adequate police services. INVESTIGATION OPD has historically used large amounts of overtime. Its management practices have periodically become controversial, often due to massive expense overruns beyond the already substantial budgeted overtime. The Grand Jury did not examine questions regarding the amount of overtime used by OPD nor did it examine the effectiveness of using officers working overtime shifts to fill vacant patrol beats. Instead, the Grand Jury restricted its investigation to the corruption allegations put forward by the Oakland city auditor. The Grand Jury’s work in examining corruption in OPD’s overtime system was severely restricted by an alarming lack of records documenting how overtime was assigned and used. OPD’s antiquated management information systems could not generate overtime records for the period from July 2002 through June 2005. In many instances the Grand Jury learned that original documents used by officers to sign up for voluntary overtime shifts had either been destroyed or never collected. OPD document retention policies only require that the department retain the documents an officer submitted showing the overtime shift worked. Those documents should have been signed by both an immediate supervisor and a command officer and should have indicated the shift, hours and assignment the officer actually worked to earn the overtime. Until last year, many officers were able to submit an incomplete form and still receive credit for the overtime. As a result, the Grand Jury did obtain and analyze some records documenting voluntary overtime assignment, but they were too incomplete to provide much assistance. The Grand Jury understands that recent changes have imposed additional, necessary controls that should ensure these forms are adequately recorded. OPD officers earn overtime by working beyond a standard 40-hour work week. Some overtime is required, for example, when officers are subpoenaed to testify in court outside of their normal work hours regarding arrests they made or investigations in which they participated. Some follow-up investigators, mostly 40 those investigating robberies and homicides, are also required to work overtime hours to complete their duties. Through its investigation, the Grand Jury learned that the lack of communication between overtime coordinators could result in excessive overtime worked beyond policy. Department policies and procedures limit the amount of overtime an officer can work during a specific period of time. There are also policies and procedures that limit the amount of total time officers can work within specific periods. However, no coordination exists to ensure on a timely basis that officers are not working in violation of OPD’s own policies. Working in excess of the established policy places the officers and the community at risk. Traditionally, many overtime assignments have been assigned to volunteers on a first-come, first-served basis. Three categories of volunteer overtime assignments make up the vast majority of voluntary overtime worked: special events, patrol, and sideshows - the often violent street drag-race and speed exhibition displays. While the auditor’s complaint was directed at the special events overtime system, the Grand Jury also examined the patrol and sideshow overtime. Each category is discussed in turn. Special Events Overtime OPD uses officers working overtime to provide police services at special events such as parades, marches and demonstrations; professional football, baseball and basketball games; and concerts, festivals and celebrations that draw large crowds. Under most circumstances, the event organizer reimburses Oakland for the cost of these overtime officers. Insufficient administrative controls exist to prevent special events overtime from being manipulated to benefit certain officers over others. Until very recently, an OPD sergeant, also a member of the OPOA board of directors, managed special events with little administrative oversight. Anyone holding a 41 special event in Oakland is required to obtain a permit from OPD. This process mandated that the event organizer meet with the special events sergeant to discuss the logistics of the planned event. From this meeting the sergeant was responsible for designing a plan to provide police services for the event. This could be as simple as assigning a few motorcycle officers and patrol cars to provide traffic control along the route of a small protest march, or as complex as designing a more comprehensive staffing plan for a large outdoor festival at Lake Merritt where thousands of participants are expected. To meet the staffing needs for these events, the same sergeant was responsible for recruiting and assigning the officers to work the various events. Documents and interviews revealed that the same group of officers often worked particular events. The Grand Jury heard testimony that event organizers frequently requested that the same officers be assigned to their events or that they were recruited because they had demonstrated a commitment and proficiency in working those events. Special events are often not fully staffed. Even what might be considered popular special event assignments like Raiders, A’s and Warriors games frequently were not fully staffed due to a shortage of officers who volunteered for overtime. While the Grand Jury did not uncover evidence of corruption, malfeasance or favoritism in special events overtime, a more comprehensive and objective assignment process would better prevent any manipulation by certain individual officers. OPD has instituted some changes. For example, in addition to posting a sign-up sheet on an office door in the police department, special events overtime availability is now posted in the department’s daily bulletin that all officers receive. Officers can apply for special events overtime via e-mail, telephone or in person. These changes will allow a wider range of officers to volunteer for an overtime assignment because of greater accessibility; nevertheless, the lack of adequate controls in voluntary overtime could allow for manipulation. Patrol Overtime While OPD has approximately 200 officers assigned to the patrol division, every day some beats are vacant. As many as 20% of the officers assigned to work patrol on a given day are absent due to attendance at a school, injury, illness, vacation or other reason. As a result, OPD traditionally has staffed the vacant beats by using officers who voluntarily work an overtime shift. In April 2005, OPD began filling open patrol beats with officers working assigned mandatory overtime shifts. This system requires every officer in the department to work an overtime shift approximately once every three weeks. It applies to all officers, whatever their normal assignment. This change essentially eliminated the possibility that patrol overtime could be manipulated to the advantage of individual officers. Sideshow Overtime OPD uses overtime to staff a special squad of officers who work usually Friday and Saturday nights to prevent and disperse the sideshows. In examining sideshow overtime, the Grand Jury found no evidence that individual officers had profited, or that any specially trained officers were systematically excluded from working these sideshow overtime shifts. Other Overtime In addition to the three categories of overtime investigated, the Grand Jury also analyzed the overtime worked by members of the OPOA board of directors. Two members of the board, including the long-time president, worked an exceedingly high number of overtime hours giving the appearance of favoritism. However, the Grand Jury found no evidence of any misconduct or corruption in either the assignment or working of overtime shifts either by members of the OPOA board of directors or other OPD officers. CONCLUSION While the Grand Jury found no evidence of misconduct, the lack of records retained by OPD to document how overtime shifts are assigned is alarming. OPD’s management information systems need immediate upgrading. OPD’s overtime policies and procedures need additional controls to prevent the appearance of favoritism in assigning overtime shifts. In particular, these controls must include retaining documents demonstrating how overtime is assigned to assure the system is not being manipulated. • OPD has made improvements in the special events overtime assignment process. The Grand Jury believes that with proper adherence to these new policies, the appearance of favoritism will be reduced. • With respect to patrol overtime assignments and the mandatory overtime system that OPD implemented, the Grand Jury found no evidence of corruption or favoritism. • The Grand Jury’s analysis of overtime records, departmental policies and witness testimony demonstrated no evidence of corruption or favoritism in sideshow overtime. The Grand Jury urges future grand juries to continue monitoring these changes and improvements. RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendation 06-13: The Oakland Police Department must upgrade its management information systems. Recommendation 06-14: The Oakland Police Department must retain records documenting how voluntary overtime is assigned. Recommendation 06-15: The Oakland Police Department must continue to oversee the newly implemented controls on assigning special events overtime. Recommendation 06-16: The Oakland Police Department must assure compliance with existing policies and procedures regarding the management of overtime. RESPONSES REQUIRED Oakland City Administrator Recommendations 06-13 through 06-16 Mayor, City of Oakland Recommendations 06-13 through 06-16 Oakland City Council Recommendations 06-13 through 06-16 Chief of Police, Oakland Police Department Recommendations 06-13 through 06-16 45 JAIL INSPECTIONS Penal Code section 919(b) states: “The grand jury shall inquire into the condition and management of the public prisons within the county.” The 2005- 2006 Grand Jury inspected the Berkeley City Jail, the Fremont City Jail, and the Glen Dyer Detention Facility located in Oakland. The Grand Jury’s primary focus in conducting scheduled jail inspections was to investigate the booking process of inmates. During its inspections, the Grand Jury reviewed policies and procedures on booking, medical screening, inmate visitation, the handling of juveniles, and reviewed local and state jail health inspection reports. The Grand Jury also investigated the overall treatment of inmates, including the food served, the condition of the jail cells, cleanliness of the facilities, and how jails book adult and juvenile arrestees. Each of the jails inspected were found to be in compliance with local and state laws. The Grand Jury found all three of these facilities to be in excellent condition and noted no violations. Notably, both Berkeley and Fremont jails showed particular compassion with regard to the comfort of their inmates; for example, Berkeley City Jail washes inmate clothing upon admittance and has a practice of collecting used clothing to provide a change if necessary. RESPONSES REQUIRED: None 46 CITY OF BERKELEY PARKING ENFORCEMENT INTRODUCTION The Grand Jury received a complaint regarding inadequacies in the City of Berkeley’s Parking Enforcement Bureau, the procedures used to repair broken parking meters, the issuance of tickets, payment of fines, quotas, bureau record keeping, and citizen complaint resolution. The Grand Jury reviewed the California Vehicle Code, the Berkeley Municipal Code, and interviewed several city officials including the city manager, a captain and lieutenant in charge of the Berkeley Police Department traffic division, and representatives from the finance department and the office of transportation/public works. Additionally, the Grand Jury reviewed numerous documents including the procedures used in issuing citations, parking meter maintenance guides, meter maintenance reports, parking enforcement officer daily logs, and rules on how to contest a citation when a meter malfunctions. INVESTIGATION The City of Berkeley implemented metered parking primarily for the purpose of regulating parking and allowing reasonable turnover of parking spaces, thus making parking available for its residents and visitors. Businesses also benefit as this provides a means to regulate space turnover for customers. Three different city departments handle management of parking meters in Berkeley: the police department, responsible for enforcement; the finance department, responsible for tracking fines, citations, handling complaints and payments; and the department of public works, responsible for maintenance and repair. The Berkeley Police Department has authorized 26 Parking Enforcement Officer (PEO) positions and 3 PEO supervisor positions. These are not sworn police officer positions. PEOs are responsible for enforcement of local ordinances and state laws governing parking of vehicles in the City of Berkeley. Although their primary function is parking enforcement, PEOs also arrange for towing of abandoned vehicles, issue citations for expired registration, report faded curb painting and vandalized traffic signs, and assist with traffic control in emergencies. The PEOs receive over one month of supervised training and are provided with additional training every 24 months. Although the Grand Jury found there are no quotas for ticket writing in the City of Berkeley, PEOs work activity is monitored by evaluating the number of citations written in comparison to norms for the same area. The Berkeley Finance Department receives fines from the parking enforcement citations. Parking meter revenue, although a small portion of revenue for the city, is used to support city services. Most parking meter revenue is currently used to directly fund the parking enforcement operations of the Berkeley Police Department. The Berkeley Department of Public Works is responsible for the repair and diagnostic testing of parking meters. PEOs are not responsible for the diagnostic testing or maintenance of meters and are not required to report malfunctions if an out of order sign is displayed on the meter; however, if a PEO finds an obviously damaged meter, or meters with graffiti, a repair request is submitted to the Department of Public Works. Meter testing is performed weekly when monies are collected from the meters. The testing is conducted by a hand-held computerized device. The repair information is summarized on a field activity report that provides the type of meter, identification, location, serial number, outage code, repair code, and amount of cash collected. From this field activity report, a list of chronological meter “outages” (malfunctioning meters) by maintenance route is generated and the meters are then repaired by meter mechanics. If a meter is damaged or out of order, the metered space reverts to a time zone and a citation can be issued after the allotted time passes. The customer using a broken meter does not have unlimited parking. If a citizen places a bag over a broken meter, a PEO will remove the bag and the metered space is still timed and citations continue to be issued, regardless of the condition of the meter. All metered parking is enforced Monday through Saturday from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. unless otherwise posted. Not all meter failures cause an “out of order” flag to be displayed. Meters do not have a time or date recorder to provide exact information of when a malfunction occurs. The length of time a meter is inoperable can only be determined by the last scan that showed when the meter was functioning. Therefore, it is possible for a meter to be malfunctioning without a PEO knowing it. The PEO is not required to check each meter prior to issuing a citation. In such cases, the PEO might issue a citation at a faulty meter. When a PEO or maintenance worker does find a malfunctioning meter, the failure is recorded and a repair is scheduled. The current repair rate is too long. It is possible for a meter to be out of service for up to two weeks before it is repaired or replaced. During this period of time, the public or the PEO has no sure way of knowing if the meter is faulty. Although the city does record the time and date that the meter was first discovered to be inoperable, this information is accessed only if the cited parker challenges the citation. It seems because there are three different departments involved in parking enforcement for the City of Berkeley, a better system of data transfer involving citations between departments should be created. The process for citizen complaints is cumbersome. These complaints are handled by the Department of Finance. Complaints can be filed in person, by phone or by mail. Once a complaint is received, the Finance Department researches the complaint by submitting a request for information from the Department of Public Works, asking for verification if the meter in question was 49 inoperable on the date of the most recent testing. The validity of the complaint is determined by the date the meter was last functioning to the date of the most recent testing when the meter failed. The City of Berkeley has approximately 2900 single space meters and 63 pay stations consisting of either multi-space meters or the new pay-and-display stations (ParkEZ Stations). The City of Berkeley is in the process of replacing old single meters with multi-space meters in the Shattuck downtown area. CONCLUSION The City of Berkeley takes too long to repair its broken parking meters; therefore, a) people may be cited improperly when they park at inoperable meters, and b) the city loses money by not collecting the maximum amount of fees from the parking meters. Additionally, these problems are magnified by the lack of ability to share information readily among the three city departments involved. RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendation 06-17: The City of Berkeley must repair its parking meters in a more timely fashion. Recommendation 06-18: The City of Berkeley must improve automatic sharing of data among all departments involved in the parking enforcement process. RESPONSES REQUIRED Berkeley City Manager Recommendations 06-17 and 06-18 Mayor, City of Berkeley Recommendations 06-17 and 06-18 Berkeley City Council Recommendations 06-17 and 06-18 51 GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION The Government Committee investigates complaints pertaining to city, county or local agencies and boards. During the 2005-2006 term, the Government Committee received 15 complaints. Eleven of the complaints did not fall within the Grand Jury’s jurisdiction. The four remaining complaints dealt with the levels of service provided by cities or local agencies. These complaints included: 1) An allegation of inadequacies in the City of Oakland’s contracting policies. The Grand Jury examined the city’s policies and found them to be appropriate; 2) A complaint alleging AC Transit was running empty TransBay buses from Castro Valley to San Mateo at taxpayer expense. The Grand Jury investigated this complaint and found it to be unsubstantiated; and 3) An allegation that City of Oakland employees were abusing credit card privileges. After investigation, the Grand Jury found sufficient controls were in place to prevent credit card abuse. We report on the fourth complaint, emergency communications in Alameda County, in greater detail. EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS Recent public reports regarding communication problems experienced by emergency responders in the wake of Hurricane Katrina have reminded us of problems experienced in Alameda County by local police, fire and paramedics while responding to the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake and the 1991 Oakland Hills Fire. At present, emergency responders from various Alameda County cities, the county Sheriff, and firefighters use radio systems that do not allow responders from different jurisdictions to communicate with each other. This communication gap was recently highlighted by the 9-11 Commission’s report on our national lack of preparedness. The Grand Jury heard from the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office, the Alameda County Fire Department, the Oakland Fire Department, and various other county officials concerning a proposal for a multi-county radio communication system that will allow all jurisdictions in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties to communicate with each other when responding to major disasters or terrorists attacks. This proposal is being put forward by the Alameda County Sheriff, acting in his role as the lead law enforcement mutual aid coordinator for Region II in California. The proposal calls for the formation of a joint powers authority made up of representatives from Alameda and Contra Costa Counties and all cities within those two counties. Other emergency responders who would also participate include university police and fire departments, as well as park and transit district emergency responders. As suggested by the Sheriff, this proposal contemplated the purchase of foundational radio equipment by the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office. Each jurisdiction would contribute funds based on their size. The joint powers authority would be governed by a board of directors made up of representatives from both counties and a rotating number of other jurisdictions. Each jurisdiction would be required to purchase radio equipment compatible with the 53 Sheriff’s foundational equipment and with each other. For some jurisdictions, this means the purchase of an entirely new communications system. For others, current radio systems could be upgraded. In order to succeed, this plan requires the political and financial commitment of each jurisdiction involved. Currently, this promising proposal has been sidetracked. While acknowledging the need for such a communication system, some jurisdictions’ budget woes and other jurisdictions’ lack of interest have conspired to leave this project on the drawing board. The Grand Jury recommends that next year’s Grand Jury closely examine this issue and investigate all Alameda County jurisdictions’ political and financial commitment to this desperately needed system. RESPONSES REQUIRED: None 54