Kern County Grand Jury • 2024-2025

Administration, Audit and County Services Committee Richard Benson Kathy Jackson EnriqueVicuna

53 pages

View Original PDF

⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.

⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.

Findings and Recommendations 10 findings

In entering into the IDP contract of 1996, the County achieved the goal of reducing the cost of providing representation in conflict of interest cases.

No recommendations for this finding

The IDP continues to be a cost effective method in providing indigent defense services.

No recommendations for this finding

The County has not fully explored other methods of providing indigent defense services such as establishing an alternative defense division/department or issuing an RFP to solicit other cost effective alternatives in order to possibly save even more.

Related Recommendations (4)

The County issue a Request For Proposal to determine if there are other more cost effective alternatives to the current Indigent Defense Program contract by Fiscal Year end 2022. (Finding 3) NOTES: • The Kern County Board of Supervisors should post a copy of this report where it will be available for public review • Persons wishing to receive an email notification of newly released reports may sign up at: kerncounty.com/grandjury • Present and past Kern County Grand Jury Final Reports and Responses can be accessed on the Kern County Grand Jury website: kerncounty.com/grandjury REQUIRED RESPONSES WITHIN 60 DAYS TO:  PRESIDING JUDGE KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT 1415 TRUXTUN AVENUE, SUITE 212 BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301  TRUXTUN AVENUE, SUITE 600 BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301 Reports issued by the Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code section 929 requires that reports of the Grand Jury not contain the name of any person or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to the Grand Jury. 2019-2020 Kern County Grand Jury Report 33

If the BOT Advisory Board is decommissioned, the Board of Supervisors should direct the County Administrative Officer to develop a process whereby members of the public may volunteer to serve on an ad hoc committee charged with reviewing tourism grant applications. (Finding 3)

R08-09

09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 Expenditures General Fund Contribution Chart created by Grand Jury 2019-2020 Kern County Grand Jury Report 51 G. The PDO currently has 101 authorized positions. Staffing is as follows:  Misdemeanor and Felony Trial Attorneys 1 Public Defender o 1 Assistant Public Defender o 1 Chief Deputy Public Defender (unfilled) o 61 Deputy Public Defenders o  Investigations 11 Investigators o 1 Public Defender Investigative Aide o  25 Support Staff H. The PDO has offices in Bakersfield, Delano, Lamont, Mojave, Shafter and Ridgecrest. Additionally, the Juvenile Court Division is located in Bakersfield. I. Every attorney, including those in the highest levels of management, directly serves clients. No attorney has strictly administrative duties. J. Each new attorney starts handling cases on day one of employment; it takes approximately 3.5 years to train an attorney to handle murder cases. K. There is a high level of turnover among Deputy Public Defenders. The average length of employment is three to four years. Most new attorneys come from outside of Kern County and ultimately return to their home communities. L. In addition to legal representation, the PDO provides clients with appropriate clothing and advice on grooming etiquette for trial court. Below is a photo of the PDO clothing room. Photo provided by Grand Jury 2019-2020 Kern County Grand Jury Report 52 FINDINGS: F1. The culture of the PDO is client centered. F2. The PDO has absorbed the additional workload brought about by legislative changes without compromising their core services. F3. The service provided to the public may be enhanced if more Deputy Public Defenders were recruited locally and have a vested interest in the community. F4. The Public Defender’s Office would benefit if attorney retention was improved and attorneys remained for at least ten years. F5. When compared to other public entities, the organizational structure of the PDO is not top-heavy. The PDO has limited upper level administrative positions. Every attorney is actively engaged in trials, pleadings and appeals. F6. When adjusted for inflation, there have been no revisions to the PDO budget to account for an increased work load. COMMENTS: The Grand Jury would like to thank Kern County Public Defender and County officials who participated in interviews and provided vital information for this report. RECOMMENDATIONS: R1. The Public Defender’s Office should enhance outreach programs to encourage local students pursuing careers in law to choose a career with the Kern County Public Defender’s Office. (Finding 3) R2. The Public Defender’s Office should designate and compensate Deputy Public Defenders to be responsible for recruiting, mentoring, and retaining attorneys. (Finding 4) R3. The Public Defender’s Office should propose that the Board of Supervisors establish and fund an incentive program to retain Deputy Public Defenders (i.e. bonuses, student loan rebates in exchange for ten years of service). (Finding 4) 2019-2020 Kern County Grand Jury Report 53 NOTES: • The Board of Supervisors and the Public Defender’s Office should post a copy of this report where it will be available for public review • Persons wishing to receive an email notification of newly released reports may sign up at: kerncounty.com/grandjury • Present and past Kern County Grand Jury Final Reports and Responses can be accessed on the Kern County Grand Jury website: kerncounty.com/grandjury REQUIRED RESPONSES WITHIN 90 DAYS TO:  PRESIDING JUDGE KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT 1415 TRUXTUN AVENUE, SUITE 212 BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301  TRUXTUN AVENUE, SUITE 600 BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301 Reports issued by the Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code section 929 requires that reports of the Grand Jury not contain the name of any person or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to the Grand Jury. 2019-2020 Kern County Grand Jury Report 54

R95-96

05-06 19-20 *2020 dollars adjusted for population Chart prepared by Grand Jury I. The County IDP budget unit has three expense categories: a) Operations, which includes the Administrator and two support staff; b) Attorney Compensation and; c) Expenses outside-the-contract. The latest independent accountant’s review is for FY 2016-2017 and reflects: a. Operations $ 453,004 b. Attorney Compensation $5,002,480* c. County expenses outside-the-contract: $1,709,592, for expert witnesses, investigators, travel and other miscellaneous costs * Attorney Compensation includes the cost of juvenile and prison case representation which are reimbursed to the County by the state. J. The operations budget for FY 2019-2020 has been increased to $523,553. (See Appendix A) Attorney Compensation and Expenses outside-the-contract will not be available until the end of the Fiscal Year. K. Noting that the agreement had not been updated for 20 years, on December 13, 2016, the CAO recommended that the BOS issue an RFP for a new contract for the IDP. The KCBA responded by requesting the BOS not issue the RFP and allow them to bid a new contract. L. Rather than issuing a new contract, the original contract was amended, effective July 1, 2017, with an expiration date of June 30, 2020. Per the terms of the contract, having not formally terminated or extended the agreement, the County has allowed the agreement to convert to an automatic year to year renewal with a nine month notice of termination requirement. M. The CAO and KCBA are currently renegotiating specific aspects of the current contract. 2019-2020 Kern County Grand Jury Report 31 N. Since the inception of the IDP, an independent accountant’s audit has never been performed but a financial review has been conducted by an outside, independent accounting firm on a regular basis. The latest outside accountant’s review was completed for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2017, and no anomalies were noted. O. There has been no analysis to determine if the number of conflict of interest cases is warranted given the size of the County and the prosecution standards of Kern County law enforcement. FINDINGS: F1. In entering into the IDP contract of 1996, the County achieved the goal of reducing the cost of providing representation in conflict of interest cases. F2. The IDP continues to be a cost effective method in providing indigent defense services. F3. The County has not fully explored other methods of providing indigent defense services such as establishing an alternative defense division/department or issuing an RFP to solicit other cost effective alternatives in order to possibly save even more. F4. The periodic financial review of the IDP is valuable. However, an independent financial audit, with an unqualified opinion, would provide a more complete validation of the spending of taxpayer funds. F5. A comparison of the number and type of conflict of interest cases referred to the IDP by the Public Defender, with comparable counties, could validate the level of spending allocated to the program. COMMENTS: The Grand Jury would like to thank all who participated in interviews and who provided vital information for this report. In the course of researching the Indigent Defense Program, the Grand Jury had the opportunity to attend a session of the Kern County Superior Court, “Prison Court” in Delano. The Grand Jury observed an IDP attorney representing a California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation inmate arraignment, via video appearance from the prison. 2019-2020 Kern County Grand Jury Report 32 RECOMMENDATIONS: R1. The County contract for a complete, independent, outside audit of the Indigent Defense Program every five to seven years. (Finding 4) R2. The County Administrative Office conduct a thorough comparison of the number and type of conflict of interest cases, referred to the Indigent Defense Program by the Public Defender with comparable counties by Fiscal Year end 2021. (Finding 5) R3. The County issue a Request For Proposal to determine if there are other more cost effective alternatives to the current Indigent Defense Program contract by Fiscal Year end 2022. (Finding 3) NOTES: • The Kern County Board of Supervisors should post a copy of this report where it will be available for public review • Persons wishing to receive an email notification of newly released reports may sign up at: kerncounty.com/grandjury • Present and past Kern County Grand Jury Final Reports and Responses can be accessed on the Kern County Grand Jury website: kerncounty.com/grandjury REQUIRED RESPONSES WITHIN 60 DAYS TO:  PRESIDING JUDGE KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT 1415 TRUXTUN AVENUE, SUITE 212 BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301  TRUXTUN AVENUE, SUITE 600 BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301 Reports issued by the Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code section 929 requires that reports of the Grand Jury not contain the name of any person or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to the Grand Jury. 2019-2020 Kern County Grand Jury Report 33

The periodic financial review of the IDP is valuable. However, an independent financial audit, with an unqualified opinion, would provide a more complete validation of the spending of taxpayer funds.

Related Recommendations (3)

The County contract for a complete, independent, outside audit of the Indigent Defense Program every five to seven years. (Finding 4)

R08-09

R95-96

A comparison of the number and type of conflict of interest cases referred to the IDP by the Public Defender, with comparable counties, could validate the level of spending allocated to the program. COMMENTS: The Grand Jury would like to thank all who participated in interviews and who provided vital information for this report. In the course of researching the Indigent Defense Program, the Grand Jury had the opportunity to attend a session of the Kern County Superior Court, “Prison Court” in Delano. The Grand Jury observed an IDP attorney representing a California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation inmate arraignment, via video appearance from the prison. 2019-2020 Kern County Grand Jury Report 32

Related Recommendations (3)

The County Administrative Office conduct a thorough comparison of the number and type of conflict of interest cases, referred to the Indigent Defense Program by the Public Defender with comparable counties by Fiscal Year end 2021. (Finding 5)

If the BOT Advisory Board is not decommissioned, the Board of Supervisors should provide training for Advisory Board members on Brown Act requirements and government codes. (Finding 5)

R95-96

The citizen concern that the BOS changes made to the BOT in 2015 would negatively impact tourism is unfounded. There is no direct correlation between the changes and tourism activity in the County.

No recommendations for this finding

The Office of County Wide Communications continues to promote tourism and filmmaking with an increased emphasis on electronic media rather than relying on methods used in the past such as the visitor center, flyers and other paper publications.

Related Recommendations (1)

The Board of Supervisors should submit a proposal to the voters of Kern County to increase the Transient Occupancy Tax Rate. (Finding 7)

If the Transient Occupancy Tax rate is increased, Kern County would have additional resources that could be applied to promoting tourism and filmmaking.

Related Recommendations (1)

The Board of Supervisors should direct the County Administrative Office to update the current websites associated with the Board of Trade and take reasonable steps to remove kerncountyboardoftrade.com from the internet. (Findings 8 and 9) NOTES: • The Kern County Board of Supervisors should post a copy of this report where it will be available for public review. • Persons wishing to receive an email notification of newly released reports may sign up at: kerncounty.com/grandjury. • Present and past Kern County Grand Jury Final Reports and Responses can be accessed on the Kern County Grand Jury website: kerncounty.com/grandjury. RESPONSE REQUIRED WITHIN 90 DAYS TO: PRESIDING JUDGE KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT 1415 TRUXTUN AVENUE, SUITE 212 BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301 CC: TRUXTUN AVENUE, SUITE 600 BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301 Reports issued by the Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code section 929 requires that reports of the Grand Jury not contain the name of any person or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to the Grand Jury. 43 44 45 46 47 KERN COUNTY HUMAN RESOURCES Reorganization—Five Years Later SUMMARY: In 1956, the Kern County Civil Service System was created in order to establish an equitable and uniform procedure for dealing with personnel matters and to place county employment upon a merit basis. The system encompassed the Personnel Department as an independent department under the supervision of the Civil Service Commission. In 2015, the Board of Supervisors ordered the establishment of the Human Resources Division of the County Administrative Office (CAO), consolidating the Personnel Department and the Employee Relations and Health Benefits Divisions. The Human Resources Division is involved in the hiring and benefits administration of approximately 8,000 employees for the County of Kern (County). The Civil Service Commission still exists today to maintain the integrity of the civil service system, but it has no control over the management of the Human Resources Division. PURPOSE OF INQUIRY: The Kern County Grand Jury has reviewed the County Personnel Department on several occasions, the last being in 2007. In light of the major reorganization conducted in 2015, the Administration, Audit and County Services Committee (Committee) of the 2019-2020 Kern County Grand Jury (Grand Jury) inquired into the Human Resources Division of the CAO, pursuant to California Penal Code section 925. The purpose of the inquiry is to determine if the reorganization produced the intended results. METHODOLOGY: The Committee conducted interviews with Human Resources officials, department heads, both appointed and elected, and Civil Service Commission members. The Committee also reviewed recorded Board of Supervisor (BOS) meetings, researched BOS agendas, minutes, and various County documents. DISCUSSION OF FACTS: In 1956, the Civil Service System Initiative Ordinance was adopted by the voters establishing the organizational structure for Kern County Personnel functions including the establishment of the Civil Service Commission. The Civil Service Commission was to consist of five members appointed by the BOS and tasked with assuring the hiring of County employees was based on merit and not on political patronage. Furthermore, the 2019-2020 Kern County Grand Jury Report Civil Service Commission was created to establish civil service rules that would govern Kern County personnel functions. The 1956 Ordinance stipulated that no amendment repealing this Ordinance or nullifying the basic principles of the civil service system shall be effective unless approved by the voters: KERN COUNTY INITIATIVE ORDINANCE SECTION XII Amendment and Repeal “No amendment repealing this ordinance or nullifying the basic principles of the civil service system contemplated by this ordinance in Sections 31100 to 31113 of the California Government Code shall be effective unless such a proposition of its repeal or amendment shall first have been submitted to a vote of the qualified electors of the County at a general or special election and shall have received the affirmative vote of a majority of the electors voting on the proposition.” In 1996, the BOS presented Measure L to the voters which proposed several changes to the civil service system including changes to the reporting structure whereby the Personnel Director would report to the Administrative Officer rather than to the Civil Service Commission. Measure L was not approved by the voters. In 2012, the BOS presented Measures D, E, and F which proposed respectively, amending the Civil Service “Rule of Three,” changing probationary periods in certain job groups, and extending the employee appeal process from five business days to ten. The measures were approved by the voters. However, in June 2015, the BOS voted to consolidate the Personnel Department and the CAO’s Employee Relations Division and Health Benefits Division by forming the Human Resources Division of the CAO. This was done without submitting a ballot initiative to the voters and was met with little protest or objection. This major revision to a process, that had been in place for nearly 60 years, was brought about in less than 30 days. Although the concept of making a revision may have been discussed by the BOS for many years, there was no previous BOS referral or formal action taken. The timeline of adoption was as follows: • May 19, 2015, the proposal to realign the Personnel Department, the Employee Relations Division, and the Health Benefits Division into a newly formed Human Resources Division of the CAO, was presented by the Administrative Officer and approved, in concept, by the BOS • June 9, 2015, the CAO introduced and the BOS approved ordinance to realign the Personnel Department, the Employees Relations, and Health Benefits Divisions into one Human Resources Division of the CAO • June 16, 2015, ordinance enacted 2019-2020 Kern County Grand Jury Report The Human Resources structure, established in 2015, conforms to the majority of the counties in California. In fact, prior to 2015, Kern was one of only three counties who utilized the Civil Service Commission as the controlling body for all personnel functions. Today, the Human Resources Division has 33 filled staffing positions and a budget of $4,774,579. The Civil Service Commission portion of the budget is $183,000. The Grand Jury noted the following: A. Mission Statement: “The Human Resources Division is committed to building a healthy, positive, and productive workforce in order to effectively and efficiently assist and provide services to the residents and businesses of the County of Kern.” B. The Personnel Department structure, prior to 2015, was perceived by most County Departments, the BOS, and others to be cumbersome, antiquated and in need of reform. C. The stated goals of the 2015 reorganization were to improve: • Public access in job search efforts • Professional development and career opportunities of the County workforce through training • Employee access to benefit information • Department’s ability to add classifications, set compensation, and recruit and test for position openings D. In 2015, certain members of the Civil Service Commission had concerns about the reorganization that included: • The CAO could usurp the role of the Civil Service Commission • The CAO could make de facto rule changes to County hiring processes • Lessening the Civil Service Commission’s independence in enforcing Civil Service rules E. During the 2015 BOS reorganization meeting, there was public comment that stakeholders were not brought into the transition process. F. Based on interviews with County officials, the new structure is as responsive or, in some instances, more responsive to the hiring needs of the departments. G. The Director of Human Resources is responsible for administering the Civil Service Rules but no longer reports to the Civil Service Commission, thereby, curtailing the Commission’s ability to enforce the rules. H. In order to bring the Civil Service Commission into compliance with Civil Service Rule 204.21 (See Appendix A), a procedural change was made in the role of the Commission regarding the approval process for job specifications. Formerly, all 2019-2020 Kern County Grand Jury Report specifications were officially approved by the Commission. Now formal Commission approval is only solicited in instances where objections are raised by employee organizations or affected County departments. I. Civil Service Rule 1800 governs complaints based on discrimination and harassment. (See Appendix B) At times, the Human Resources Division has had difficulty meeting the timelines mandated in the rule. Over the past two years, in six of 29 reported complaints, the Human Resources Division has not met timeline requirements. There are no penalties for this lack of adherence.

Portions of the websites under the Board of Trade and Office of County Wide Communications (visitkern.com, filmkern.com) are not maintained and updated consistently.

No recommendations for this finding

F10

While not actually a Kern County maintained website, kerncountyboardoftrade.com projects an unprofessional image of the County and could confuse potential visitors. COMMENTS: The Grand Jury would like to thank all who participated in interviews and provided vital information.

No recommendations for this finding

Comments 13

CO1

The citizen concern that the BOS changes made to the BOT in 2015 would negatively impact tourism is unfounded. There is no direct correlation between the changes and tourism activity in the County.
CO2

The Office of County Wide Communications continues to promote tourism and filmmaking with an increased emphasis on electronic media rather than relying on methods used in the past such as the visitor center, flyers and other paper publications.
CO3

If the Transient Occupancy Tax rate is increased, Kern County would have additional resources that could be applied to promoting tourism and filmmaking.
CO4

Portions of the websites under the Board of Trade and Office of County Wide Communications (visitkern.com, filmkern.com) are not maintained and updated consistently.
CO5

While not actually a Kern County maintained website, kerncountyboardoftrade.com projects an unprofessional image of the County and could confuse potential visitors. COMMENTS: The Grand Jury would like to thank all who participated in interviews and provided vital information. 2019-2020 Kern County Grand Jury 39
CO6

Attraction (job creation)
CO7

Retention (keep them here)
CO8

Growth (help them to be profitable) The Grand Jury noted the following facts: A. KEDC is an independent 501(c)(6) non-profit corporation established for the purpose of creating a strong and diverse economy in Kern County. B. KEDC offices are housed in the County Public Services Building, 2700 ‘M’ Street, Suite 200, Bakersfield, CA 93301. C. KEDC is not part of the Kern County government structure. KEDC workers are not employees of the County. D. Within one business day, KEDC provided all requested documents to the Grand Jury, e.g., budget, income and expense reports, independent audit, meeting minutes, by-laws and project summaries. E. KEDC produces an annual publication, the KERN COUNTY MARKET OVERVIEW (and membership directory). 2019-2020 Kern County Grand Jury 60 F. KEDC operates on an annual budget of approximately $1.1 million (See Appendix A), with a staff of six full-time employees. G. Funding for KEDC primarily comes from:  A performance based agreement with Kern County ($175,000) Kern County also provides space and utilities as an ‘in-kind’ o contribution  Private membership ($415,000)  Public membership other than the County ($50,000)  Special events and miscellaneous ($473,800) H. The County agreement establishes goals for KEDC’s performance. The limit is $175,000 even if KEDC significantly exceeds these goals. In 2018-2019, KEDC reached the limit early in the year. I. KEDC invites businesses and government entities to become members of the corporation. Currently, KEDC has 171 dues paying members representing business, education, non-profit organizations and government entities:  KEDC offers several membership levels with dues ranging from $1,000 to $20,000 per year depending on the level selected  Membership benefits include newsletters and updates, KEDC assistance, networking, exposure, advertising and tickets to KEDC events J. KEDC has a 48 member Board of Directors elected by the members. They meet quarterly and meetings are subject to the California Open Meeting Law known as the Ralph M. Brown Act (The Brown Act). K. There is also a seven member KEDC Executive Committee that includes two members from the BOS appointed in order to protect the interests of the County. The remaining five members are selected by the Board of Directors. The Executive Committee oversees the KEDC staff and meets regularly:  Monthly meetings are scheduled with the exception of July and December and are subject to The Brown Act  Monthly meetings are often cancelled due to a probable lack of a quorum when committee members do not RSVP  From August 2017 to September 2019, out of 22 scheduled meetings, seven were cancelled  From August 2017 to September 2019, two meetings were conducted without a member of the Board of Supervisors or a designee present  California Corporation Code section 7211(c) states: “Each director shall have one vote on each matter presented to the board of directors for action. No director may vote by proxy.” At 12 meetings a staff designee attended in lieu of a BOS o member and acted as a proxy 2019-2020 Kern County Grand Jury 61 Occasionally, the designees acted as a proxy by moving, o seconding and voting on motions L. Currently, KEDC conducts four annual events:  The State of the County Dinner  The Kern County Energy Summit  The Kern County Economic Summit (in conjunction with the Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce and California State University, Bakersfield)  The KEDC Member Dinner M. KEDC targets five industry sectors:
CO9

Transportation, Logistics & Advanced Manufacturing
CO10

Value-Added Agriculture N. KEDC does not promote tourism and film. O. KEDC meets with potential employers and provides them with assistance in site selection, permitting and incentive programs. They also maintain a relationship with established employers to provide services to assist them in their success and growth. To facilitate these objectives, KEDC participated in creating the following programs:  Advance Kern: a job growth initiative; an incentive based recruitment program  Kern Initiative for Talent and Entrepreneurship (KITE): a program designed to incorporate regional collaboration to develop the next generation of businesses and their related ecosystems P. In 2018-2019, KEDC successfully completed 10 projects in the following sectors: Sector Projects Jobs Created Distribution 5 2,605 Professional Services 1 500 Transportation 2 50 Manufacturing 1 20 Industrial 1 15 Q. KEDC is actively pursuing nine projects with potential job creation of 4,600 jobs. 2019-2020 Kern County Grand Jury 62 R. In 2008, KEDC formed the Kern Economic Development Foundation (KEDF) as a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, to educate and develop a local pipeline of talent especially in the Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) professions. KEDF has developed several programs and activities:  Mentoring girls between 4th and 7th grade  Created mentoring programs at the Health Careers Academy and Energy & Utilities Academy at two local high schools  Presents the annual Kern County STEMposium where students showcase their inventive STEM projects, which was attended by 3,000 students in 2019  Created Kern County Women in STEM Circle which creates a forum for educating and networking and STEM career advancement FINDINGS: F1. The KEDC staff is organized, professional and very efficient. F2. The KEDC website is well-managed and user friendly. F3. Kern Economic Development Corporation is member driven. In addition to being a funding source, membership is an important collaborative feature that provides critical oversight to KEDC management and its overall success. F4. Kern County Board of Supervisors and County Administrators are very supportive of KEDC providing oversight without micro-managing. F5. Regular attendance by a duly appointed member of the BOS at all Executive Committee meetings would better safeguard the public interest. F6. The practice of allowing designees to make motions, second motions or vote at Board or Executive Committee meetings, on behalf of a BOS member, is inconsistent with California Corporations Code section 7211(c). F7. The current contract between the County and KEDC, with a limit of $175,000, has the potential to hinder performance based initiative. The collaboration between KEDC and Kern County would benefit from an increased limit to the agreement so the concept that, Business Is Boundless, is personified. F8. Most Kern County residents may not be aware of the collaboration between the County and KEDC, or its role in the economic growth of the County. Many of the clerical, blue-collar, professional, and technical employees, who will ultimately fill jobs, may not be informed that economic development and jobs are not created from thin air. KEDC continues to fulfill its role with little fanfare. 2019-2020 Kern County Grand Jury 63 COMMENTS: The Grand Jury would like to thank all who participated in interviews and who provided vital information for this report.
CO11

The Kern County Board of Supervisors and the Kern Economic Development Corporation should post a copy of this report where it will be available for public review
CO12

Persons wishing to receive an email notification of newly released reports may sign up at: kerncounty.com/grandjury
CO13

Present and past Kern County Grand Jury Final Reports and Responses can be accessed on the Kern County Grand Jury website: kerncounty.com/grandjury 2019-2020 Kern County Grand Jury 64 RESPONSE REQUIRED WITHIN 90 DAYS: PRESIDING JUDGE KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT 1415 TRUXTUN AVENUE, SUITE 212 BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301 CC: FOREPERSON KERN COUNTY GRAND JURY 1415 TRUXTUN AVENUE, SUITE 600 BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301 Reports issued by the Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code section 929 requires that reports of the Grand Jury not contain the name of any person or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to the Grand Jury. 2019-2020 Kern County Grand Jury 65 APPENDIX A: 2019-2020 Kern County Grand Jury 66 67

No Responses Found 1

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

Kern County County