Los Angeles County Grand Jury • 2013-2014

LOS Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Stephanie A. Alexander

Published: June 25, 2014 459 pages Consolidated Report
View Original PDF

Findings 8 findings

F1 Page 124
Only two (2) City Departments or Bureaus fully complied with the requirements to designate a LRM by January 31, 2007, and designate a new LRM within 30 days of the current manager leaving. As shown in Exhibit 3, as of February, 2014, only Airports and Recreation and Parks, are in full compliance with this requirement of Exec9. The Department of Transportation has not designated a LRM at all. Five departments or bureaus designated litigation risk managers, but submitted the name of the designated LRM to the Mayor’s Office after the deadline of January 31, 2007. The Bureau of Engineering 101 EXECUTIVE DIRECTIVE No. CITY OF LOS ANGELES LAWSUITS had some lapses over 30 days in reporting the senior staff member designated as LRM. Exhibit 3 Designation of Litigation Risk Manager Requirement Under Mayor’s Executive Directive No. 9 102 2013-2014 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT tropriA gnireenignE eriF robraH eciloP skraP & noitaerceR noitatinaS steertS noitatropsnarT rewoP dna retaW 1. Designated senior- level staff to serve Yes Yes Yes Yes NR Yes Yes Yes No NA as LRM. 2. Submit designated LRM to the Mayor’s Yes No No No NR Yes No No No NA Office by January 31, 2007. 3. Designate a new LRM within 30 days of the current Yes No Yes Yes NR Yes Yes Yes No NA manager leaving the department. Notes: NR = No Response to our request for information was received from the department in this area. NA = Not Applicable for the Department of Water and Power, which chose not to implement Exec9. Source: Review of responses and documentation provided by each city department or bureau, as of February, 2014. Protocol with the City Attorney’s Office It was required by Exec9 that each department, through its LRM, develop a protocol with the City Attorney’s Office. This included timely notice and ongoing evaluation of all claims or litigation served on the city that relate to department employees and/or programs. Exec9 defines specific requirements that must be included in this protocol. EXECUTIVE DIRECTIVE No. CITY OF LOS ANGELES LAWSUITS
F2 Page 126
Only one of the city departments or bureaus fully complied with the requirements to develop a protocol with the City Attorney’s Office for timely notice and ongoing evaluation of all claims or litigation. As shown in Exhibit 4, as of February, 2014, only the Police Department is in full compliance with this requirement of Exec9. Three departments, Airports, Recreation and Parks, and Transportation, did not develop the protocol with the City Attorney. Other departments or bureaus developed protocols, but not to the specific requirements outlined in Exec9. In discussions with department and bureau LRMs, the CGJ was informed that some requirements of Exec9 are not realistic, and are therefore not incorporated into protocols. These requirements are mainly focused on time periods that are not realistic compared with actual claim and case management experience. EXECUTIVE DIRECTIVE No. CITY OF LOS ANGELES LAWSUITS Exhibit 4 Development of Protocol with the City Attorney Department Protocol Requirement Under Mayor’s Executive Directive No. 9 104 2013-2014 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT tropriA gnireenignE eriF robraH eciloP skraP & noitaerceR noitatinaS steertS noitatropsnarT rewoP dna retaW 1. Receives timely notice and a copy of any claim, No Yes Partial Partial Yes No Yes Yes No NA generally within 10 days 2. Cooperates with defense counsel in reviewing No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No NA allegations and investigation 3. Discusses and determines with counsel whether early mediation or other settlement No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No NA discussions would be appropriate, generally within 90 days 4. Discusses and determines with counsel whether a statutory No Partial Yes Yes Yes No Partial Partial No NA offer of settlement should be recommended 5. Engages in ongoing discussions with assigned defense No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No NA counsel about mediation or other settlement negotiations 6. Reviews all deposition transcripts and all significant opposition No No Yes Yes Yes No No No No NA produced discovery documents 7. Discusses with counsel whether an appeal No Partial Yes Yes Yes No Partial Partial No NA should be filed 8. Presents and discusses with assigned defense counsel any proposed change in policy or No Partial Yes Yes Yes No Partial Partial No NA practice and any proposed employee discipline or retraining Notes: NA = Not Applicable for the Department of Water and Power, which chose not to implement Exec9. Source: Review of responses and documentation provided by each city department or bureau, as of February, 2014. EXECUTIVE DIRECTIVE No. CITY OF LOS ANGELES LAWSUITS Internal Protocol for Litigation Risk Management Each city department was also required by Exec9 to develop an internal protocol for claims or litigation served on the city that relate to department employees and/or programs. The intent of this internal protocol was to ensure that departments and bureaus implemented a successful LRM system, and to ensure completion of the five key practices identified earlier in this report.
F3 Page 128
Only one department developed an internal protocol for LRM that met all the requirements of Executive Directive No. 9. As shown in Exhibit 5, as of February, 2014, only the Fire Department is in full compliance with this requirement of Exec9. Airports, Recreation and Parks, and Transportation did not develop any internal protocol at all. Each of the other departments or bureaus developed protocols, but the specific requirements outlined in Exec9 are not completely included. The CGJ was informed by department and bureau LRMs that some requirements of Exec9 are not realistic, and are not incorporated into protocols. These requirements are mainly focused on time periods that are not realistic compared with actual claim and case management experience. EXECUTIVE DIRECTIVE No. CITY OF LOS ANGELES LAWSUITS Exhibit 5 Development of Internal Protocol Department Protocol Requirements Under Mayor’s Executive Directive No. 9 106 2013-2014 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT tropriA gnireenignE eriF robraH eciloP skraP & noitaerceR noitatinaS steertS noitatropsnarT rewoP dna retaW 1. That an early and thorough investigation is No Partial Yes Yes NR No Partial Partial No NA completed 2. Evaluates carefully and thoroughly whether the allegations suggest the advisability of a change in No No Yes No NR No No No No NA policy or practice, or the need for new or renewed training 3. Timely develops and implements any warranted changes in No No Yes No NR No No No No NA policy, practice, and/or training 4. Warranted changes in policy, practice, and/or training are evaluated for budgetary impact and No No Yes No NR No No No No NA included in the department's budgetary planning 5. Evaluates carefully and thoroughly the advisability of discipline, reassignment, or No No Yes No NR No No No No NA retraining of individual employees whose actions contributed to potential liability 6. Timely pursues any warranted discipline, reassignment, or retraining of individual No No Yes No NR No No No No NA employees whose actions contributed to potential liability 7. Evaluates carefully and thoroughly the advisability of the city seeking a change in No No Yes Yes NR No No No No NA federal, state, or municipal law or regulation EXECUTIVE DIRECTIVE No. CITY OF LOS ANGELES LAWSUITS Exhibit 5 Development of Internal Protocol Department Protocol Requirements Under Mayor’s Executive Directive No. 9 107 2013-2014 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT tropriA gnireenignE eriF robraH eciloP skraP & noitaerceR noitatinaS steertS noitatropsnarT rewoP dna retaW Notes: NR = No Response to our request for information in this area was received from the department. NA = Not Applicable for the Department of Water and Power, which chose not to implement Exec9. Source: Review of responses and documentation provided by each city department or bureau, as of February, 2014. Quarterly Reporting on Litigation Risk Management Each city department was also required to submit a confidential quarterly report to the Mayor’s Office. This report indicated each filed claim or litigation that related to department employees and/or programs. These quarterly reports were required to include very specific information about each claim or litigation case.
F4 Page 130
City Departments or Bureaus have not fully complied with the requirements to submit quarterly Litigation Risk Management reports to the Mayor’s Office. As exhibit 6 shows, as of February 2014, none of the city departments or bureaus are in full compliance with the quarterly reporting requirements of Exec9. Fire, Harbor, Recreation and Parks, and Transportation did not submit any quarterly reports. Reports were submitted by other departments, but none of them included all of the elements required by Exec9. In the CGJ discussions with LRMs, some of these elements are identified as being unrealistic (example, timelines that are not possible to meet), or beyond the purview of the LRMs, due to personnel or other rules and regulations (example, employee discipline issues). EXECUTIVE DIRECTIVE No. CITY OF LOS ANGELES LAWSUITS Exhibit 6 Quarterly Reporting Quarterly Reporting Requirements Under Mayor’s Executive Directive No. 9 108 2013-2014 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT tropriA gnireenignE eriF robraH eciloP skraP & noitaerceR noitatinaS steertS noitatropsnarT rewoP dna retaW 1. The date the claim or litigation was filed, the date it was served, the date the department was No Yes No No Partial No Yes No No NA notified of the claim or litigation, and any scheduled trial date. 2. The specific claims alleged in the claim or Yes Yes No No Partial No Yes Yes No NA litigation. 3. Whether the early investigation and consideration of early settlement process was No No No No Partial No No No No NA completed, including whether any early settlement process was pursued. 4. Whether evaluations of the claim or litigation for warranted changes in policy, practice or training, or individual employee discipline or No No No No Partial No No No No NA training have been completed, including when completed, whether any such steps were pursued and the status of any such steps. 5. Whether evaluations of the claim or litigation for the advisability of seeking a change in federal, No No No No Partial No No No No NA state, or municipal law or regulation, including any
F5 Page 133
In review of the claim and litigation files, as of February, 2014, none of the city departments or bureaus have fully complied with the specific requirements of Executive Directive No. 9. The CGJ asked each of the departments or bureaus if any files that demonstrated compliance with the requirements of Exec9 were maintained. Harbor, Recreation and Parks, and Streets responded that they did not maintain any LRM files. For the departments or bureaus that stated they did maintain LRM files, the CGJ randomly selected a total of 20 claims or cases to review. Exhibit 7 shows that none of the city departments or Bureaus are in full compliance with the requirements of Exec9. Engineering and Transportation are not in compliance with most of the requirements of Exec9. Airports, Fire, and Sanitation are partially in compliance with the requirements of Exec9. EXECUTIVE DIRECTIVE No. CITY OF LOS ANGELES LAWSUITS Exhibit 7 Review of Litigation Risk Management Files Sample of Department / Maintain Files Summary of Review Results Bureau Files Reviewed Airports maintained files for all cases selected. The files were well Airports Yes Yes documented and organized. In practice, Airports is partially in compliance with the protocols. Engineering maintained files for some cases but not all. Files were not maintained for 10 out of 20 cases selected because the information was Engineering Partial Partial not forwarded from the City Attorney’s office. In practice, Engineering is not in compliance with most of the protocols. Fire maintained files for some cases but not all. Files were not available for review for 15 out of 20 cases selected because the information was Fire Partial Partial either not forwarded from the City Attorney’s office or in archive. In practice, Fire is partially in compliance with the protocols. All files are maintained by the City Harbor No No Attorney. No Police No N/A Response Recreation and No No N/A Parks Sanitation maintained in the database files for all cases selected. In Sanitation Yes Yes practice, Sanitation is partially in compliance with the protocols. Streets No No N/A Transportation maintained files for some cases but not all. Files were not maintained for 10 out of 20 cases selected because the information was either not forwarded from the City Transportation Partial Partial Attorney’s office, not LADOT cases, or not determined if they were LADOT cases. In practice, Transportation is not in compliance with most of the protocols. Water and Not Applicable, Chose not to N/A N/A Power implement Exec9. EXECUTIVE DIRECTIVE No. CITY OF LOS ANGELES LAWSUITS Mayor’s Office Follow-Up, Review and Revision of Executive Directive No. As discussed above, Exec9 establishes specific requirements and specific due dates for their completion and submission to the Mayor’s Office. Exec9 created the expectation that there would be follow-up with departments if the required elements were not completed and submitted to the Mayor’s Office.
F6 Page 135
The Mayor’s Office, since issuing Exec9, has not adequately followed-up nor has it enforced implementation and compliance with Executive Directive No. 9 by City Departments. The CGJ found the overall level of compliance with Exec9 by city departments and bureaus reviewed to be abysmal. Transportation and Water and Power did not implement any of the required elements of Exec9. The Department of Water and Power chose not to implement Exec9 because the Mayor merely requested City proprietary departments, which DWP is, to implement the Directive. The general city departments were directed to implement it. Airports, Recreation and Parks, and Transportation have not developed or sent either of the required protocols to the Mayor’s Office. Fire, Harbor, Recreation and Parks, and Transportation have not submitted any quarterly reports to the Mayor’s Office as required by Exec9. The Police Department submitted quarterly reports from 2007 to 2009. They then discontinued quarterly reporting. For the city departments and bureaus that did develop and submit the required protocols and quarterly reports, only a few met all of the requirements outlined in Exec9. City departments and bureaus tend to be very responsive to directives and requests from the Mayor’s Office. However, they are also adept at determining what is truly important to the Mayor’s Office, based on the follow-up and attention given to an issue or directives. Implementation and compliance with Exec9 did not appear to be a priority for the Mayor’s Office. The city departments and bureaus responded accordingly. EXECUTIVE DIRECTIVE No. CITY OF LOS ANGELES LAWSUITS
F7 Page 136
The Mayor’s Office has not yet revised Exec9 to be more effective. As part of this investigation, the CGJ met with staff of the Mayor’s Office to discuss Exec9 and compliance with it. The CGJ was informed that the new mayoral administration was in the process of reviewing and potentially revising all Executive Directives inherited from previous administrations, including Exec9. It was suggested that the Mayor’s Office draw on the LRM talent within the city and substantially revise Exec9 to provide a more meaningful set of requirements. This would also likely improve the level of department and bureau compliance with Exec9. As discussed earlier in this report, the intent of Exec9 (see attached), was to ensure “further progress in preserving City resources by reducing and preventing claims against City operations and employees.” Exec9 also outlined key mechanisms or practices that a successful LRM system should include. Exec9 then outlines a very specific list of requirements to purportedly establish these mechanisms or practices within city management. However, it is uncertain that these very specific requirements are the most effective way to develop a successful LRM system. The list of requirements in Exec9 is very specific. These requirements are also very focused at the individual claim or case level. Finally, Exec9 provides no focus on the outcome or end result of LRM. There is no tracking or reporting on whether claim and litigation payouts are actually being reduced, or the degree to which changes in department or bureau operations are being implemented to avoid future claims or litigation. Performance indicators, focused on these outcomes or results, would be more effective measures. EXECUTIVE DIRECTIVE No. CITY OF LOS ANGELES LAWSUITS
F8 Page 137
Litigation related payouts or expenditures from the City’s General Fund have increased rather than decreased since 2007, when Executive Directive No. 9 was issued. Exhibit 8 shows the trend in general fund expenditures for litigation, by fiscal year. Clearly, Exec9 has not been effective in achieving its stated intent of ensuring “further progress in preserving City resources by reducing and preventing claims against City operations and employees”. Exhibit 8 Litigation General Fund Expenditures by Fiscal Year $100.0 $91.0 $90.0 In Millions $80.0 $70.0 $57.9 $56.9 $60.0 $49.1 $50.0 $45.0 $41.2 $36.6 $36.8 $40.0 $34.3 $33.5 $30.0 $20.0 $10.0 $0.0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Note: The spike in payouts for FY 2010 was the result of several lawsuits with substantial payouts. This included two lawsuits related to landslides, several cases involving civil rights or discrimination, and several related to personal injuries. Source: Analysis of amounts paid in judgments, verdicts, and/or settlements over the past 10 years provided by the Los Angeles City Attorney’s office as of October, 2013. EXECUTIVE DIRECTIVE No. CITY OF LOS ANGELES LAWSUITS

Recommendations 2

Commendations 51

No Responses Found 2

Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.

County of Los Angeles Agency
Tehama County Health Services Agency Agency