2004-2005 Final Report

Conclusions 27

• CL1 Page 34
  Absence of communication to educational community.
• CL2 Page 34
  Lack of interagency cooperation.
• CL3 Page 34
  Failure to recognize year-to-year trends.
• CL4 Page 34
  Flawed Average Daily Attendance (ADA) projections.
• CL5 Page 34
  Failure to maintain reserves.
• CL6 Page 34
  Insufficient consideration of long-term bargaining agreement effects.
• CL7 Page 34
  Flawed multi-year projections.
• CL8 Page 34
  Inaccurate revenue and expenditure estimations.
• CL9 Page 34
  Poor cash flow analysis and reconciliation.
• CL10 Page 34
  Bargaining agreements beyond state COLA.
• CL11 Page 34
  No integration of position control with payroll.
• CL12 Page 34
  Limited access to timely personnel, payroll, and budget control date and reports.
• CL13 Page 34
  Escalating general fund encroachment.
• CL14 Page 34
  Lack of regular monitoring. 34
• CL15 Page 40
  The Alameda County Board of Education’s agendas do not fully inform the public of the substance of the issues coming before the board. In some cases, the agenda was actually misleading as to the substance.
• CL16 Page 40
  The board’s minutes do not provide information on the substance of controversial issues. The public can see from the minutes that an item passed or failed and who voted for and against it, but not the nature of the controversy.
• CL17 Page 40
  The county office of education’s line-item budget does not provide the public with useful information on the activities of the office and the cost of those activities.
• CL18 Page 40
  Holding board meetings in different locations in the county, instead of always at the board’s office in Hayward, would be beneficial to residents who have a stronger interest in some agenda items than others and could engender greater public participation.
• CL19 Page 40
  Despite Grand Jury recommendations in the past, there continues to be a degree of incivility during board meetings. 40
• CL20 Page 22
  Last year, the Grand Jury recommended the board of trustees carefully scrutinize their consultant’s recommendations to insure that medical care did not suffer in bringing financial responsibility to the Medical Center. That Grand Jury could not have anticipated the lack of responsibility to the community and to the Medical Center demonstrated by the board of trustees. The current board of trustees has done little to inspire confidence in the taxpayers and citizens of Alameda County. Trustees have shown more interest in petty squabbling over small issues like which trustees should occupy which board officer position and whether senior medical center management should be allowed to meet directly with senior county staff, than with vital issues like balancing the Medical Center’s budget. The trustees have also demonstrated an astonishing lack of personal accountability by continuing to blame lack of “county” support, or Board of Supervisor interference for their poor performance. Measure A was designed to close the gap between the Medical Center’s cost of delivering medical care to the indigent and the reimbursement it receives. The Medical Center board of trustees seems to have taken the passage of Measure A as a signal to engage in irresponsible spending. Instead, the Medical Center board of trustees should make the cuts necessary to control runaway costs and balance the Medical Center budget, even if that means laying off employees or reducing the scope of medical services it provides. Prudent management will ensure that Measure A funds allow the Medical Center to continue to provide vital services. If the board of trustees continues on the current course, it guarantees that the Medical Center will collapse, crushed by its debt. Instead of hiding from problems, the Medical Center board of trustees must take action now. To do so requires more responsibility and courage than this board has demonstrated. The board has been deeply divided. The Grand Jury believes it is time for the individual members of the board of trustees to set aside their personal agendas and begin to act for the common good. 22
• CL21 Page 59
  Local agencies are attempting to meet the challenges of a local terrorist attack. Documents, reports, and a 14 city survey of homeland security preparedness illustrate the varying depth of preparation underway. Personnel from throughout the county presented a common picture of agencies working to fulfill a mandate. Overall, the Grand Jury is pleased that this work is ongoing, but stresses that preparedness for homeland security is not a static issue. It is 59
• CL22 Page 60
  one that requires continuing attention and oversight by department heads and review by subsequent grand juries. Responding to a threat to homeland security continues to be a work in progress. WHERE TO GO AND WHAT TO DO Securing personal safety of citizens and families is a top priority in the event of a terrorist attack. Preparedness is critical. Information is available from various sources. Immediate information can be found in your local telephone book under the heading “Homeland Security Guide,” and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security brochure, “Preparing Makes Sense. Get Ready Now.” The brochure is available at 1-800-BE-READY (1-800-237-3230) or at www.ready.gov. One constant piece of information the Grand Jury received during its term regarded “Shelter-In-Place.” When a hazardous material accident occurs, citizens have two basic choices in what to do: one is to evacuate the area affected by the hazardous material; the other is to “Shelter-In-Place” – that is, go indoors, close up the building, and wait for the danger to pass. The goal of sheltering in place is to avoid or minimize exposure to dangerous chemicals during a hazardous material emergency. Normal sheltering includes closing all doors and windows, and turning off all furnaces, air conditioners, and other ventilation equipment. In addition to normal sheltering, expedient sheltering involves taking extra measures to reduce exposure: placing plastic sheeting over windows and vents, taping over electrical outlets, around doors, and other openings. Normal and expedient sheltering are the most commonly used techniques in communities around the country. Both are easy and quick to implement if a chemical emergency occurs, and both will provide protection for occupants. Additional information regarding “Shelter-In-Place” can be obtained at: www.cicsinfo.org/ShelterInPlace, or through the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services at www.oes.ca.gov. 60
• CL23 Page 61
  INTRODUCTION The primary function of the Government committee is to investigate complaints pertaining to city, county and local agencies other than those involving health care, education, social services or law and justice. This year, the Government committee received several complaints, most of which were not within the Grand Jury’s jurisdiction to investigate. Two of the complaints within the Grand Jury’s scope related to the City of Oakland’s towing contract, and hazardous materials training for Oakland firefighters. Reports on those investigations follow. Members of the Government committee also participated in Alameda County’s voting process as members of the Logic and Accuracy Board. Jurors witnessed activities on election night and interviewed the Registrar of Voters. The committee did not obtain sufficient information to report fully on the status of electronic voting in Alameda County. The Grand Jury believes that both this issue and mail-in balloting may be of interest to future grand juries. 61
• CL24 Page 62
  CITY OF OAKLAND – TOWED VEHICLE CONTRACT INTRODUCTION The Grand Jury received complaints regarding contract towing services provided to the city of Oakland by the Oakland Tow Car Association (OTCA). The complaints included the adequacy of the agreements between the OTCA and the city, the methods of towed vehicle appraisal (important in determining the process of disposing of the vehicle), the lack of the city’s financial oversight of the agreements, the lack of reasonable revenue, and other issues affecting proper business conduct in the towing of vehicles. The Grand Jury reviewed documents including internal city communications, a contract compliance audit between the city of Oakland and the Oakland Tow Car Association from July 23, 1970 to May 4, 1999, that illustrates the evolution of the OTCA’s towing ownership and contract extension authorizations, portions of agreements, city auditor reports, and other communications regarding the relationship between the OTCA and the city of Oakland. Following this review, the Grand Jury heard testimony from current city, and Oakland police department, administrators regarding the contract evolution. The Grand Jury reviewed available portions of contract terms and conditions, and investigated the enforceability of the agreements to determine whether the city of Oakland has been operating in a prudent business manner. HISTORY Since the early 1980’s, the city of Oakland has had an agreement with the Oakland Tow Car Association. The services provided under this contract include towing of vehicles ordered by the police department, appraising, storing, auctioning, dismantling and selling reusable parts, and sales of bulk scrap. 62
• CL25 Page 63
  Recent information indicates that this agreement covers the towing of from 27,000 to 30,000 vehicles annually. The OTCA originally consisted of several independent companies combined to provide towing services ordered by the Oakland Police Department. During the past two decades, the OTCA membership has diminished to the point that it now consists of only A&B Auto Company, Inc. Since the original contract, there have been twelve amendments, modifications or extensions, all made without competitive bid. According to records obtained by the Grand Jury, extensions and modifications were made well in advance of the expiration of the preceding agreement. No one at the Oakland Police Department or within the city of Oakland was able to locate the original contract or all twelve amendments. The current contract lacks provisions to provide revenue to the city for the sale of unclaimed impounded vehicles. Due to the lack of specific provisions in the contract requiring OTCA to share financial information with the city, the city auditor’s attempts to review financial records were unsuccessful. This leaves the city auditor in the position of being unable to determine what monies are owed to the city by the OTCA. The finance committee of the Oakland City Council recommended correcting the existing contract in order to provide favorable and enforceable terms, or issuing a new request for proposal (RFP) that would allow a fresh approach to the contract process. The Oakland City Council took no action on these recommendations. Also, the relationship between the Oakland police department and the city’s purchasing department deteriorated to the point where the city’s purchasing department refused to coordinate with the Oakland police department in the oversight of the contract. The Oakland police department has taken a leadership position in working to improve this situation. Although satisfied with the daily work provided by the OTCA, the police department has advocated a comprehensive change of the existing relationship. The police department and city staff has 63
• CL26 Page 64
  researched other city towing contracts in California to develop a list of best practices to guide the city in creating a new RFP for the services now consolidated into the OTCA contract. The city of Oakland has, over the years, allowed a contract involving very important and potentially revenue positive services to be performed by a single vendor. Over these decades, the city has opted to continue this business relationship by amending, modifying, and extending this contract, the terms and conditions of which are all but unenforceable. In this situation, city leadership has paid scant attention to requests to create a competitive business environment in which the city could enhance revenues, improve auditing provisions and provide business opportunities to organizations other than the OTCA. The continuation of this business relationship should be more in alignment with city purchasing policies. The preparation of a new RFP indicates a willingness by city leaders to return to an open competitive business process which should lead to contracts allowing improved revenue to the city, more opportunity for Oakland businesses, and complete accountability by service providers.
• CL27 Page 66
  The Oakland Fire Department is in compliance with the regulations regarding both hazardous materials training and the assignment of personnel charged with public safety pursuant to the 1997 training manual.

No Responses Found 1

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