Board of Supervisors Richard Valle President Board of Supervisors January 14, 2020 Honorable Tara Desautels Acting*

Mismanagement of the review process by the Alameda County Board of Supervisors resulted in the loss of essential regional emergency preparedness training, leaving county residents less safe. Response to Finding 19-16: The County of Alameda Board of Supervisors ("Board") disagrees with this finding. The Ad Hoc Committee on Urban Area Security Initiative ("Committee") met 12 times, at locations throughout the County, heard expert testimony from multiple emergency management professionals, as well as community-based organizations, and members of the public. Each Committee member was given the opportunity to propose recommendations, which were discussed in depth, received public input, were refined, and then put to a vote. Recommendations that received majority support (at least three votes) were included in the report as official recommendations of the Committee to the Board. Sheriff's representatives participated, provided feedback and information as part of this process, as did other stakeholders with knowledge and concerns regarding the permissible uses of grant funds. The Board took up the

The Board of Supervisors failed to provide clear and complete guidelines to the ad hoc committee, particularly in regard to making recommendations that are consistent with grant guidelines. Response to Finding 19-17: The Board disagrees with this finding. The charge given to the Committee was based upon community concerns and sufficiently reflected the intent of the Board.

The Board of Supervisors failed to ensure that the ad hoc committee worked with Alameda County Sheriff's Office to assure a successful grant application. Response to Finding 19-18: The Board disagrees with this finding. The Sheriff and his staff were engaged in the Committee's process and the Committee worked with the Sheriff as it developed its recommendations. The Committee and the Sheriff did not reach agreement on every recommendation. The Committee voted, and majority vote prevailed. The Committee was not charged to put forth only those recommendations that "assured" that the grant would be awarded to the Sheriff. It was not the Board's intent that the Committee be held to such a restrictive standard at ALAMEDA COUNTY RESPONSE TO THE 2018-2019 GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT the expense of bringing forth policy recommendations that aligned with a well-rounded vision of safe and secure communities for all facets of Alameda County.

The Board of Supervisors selected members to the ad hoc committee that virtually guaranteed partisan advocacy and predictable intractability. Response to Finding 19-19: The Board disagrees with this finding. Each member of the Board had the right to make an appointment to the ad hoc committee. Each Supervisor acted independently in selecting his or her appointee. This is a process routinely used by the County of Alameda ("County") to make appointments to boards, commissions and ad hoc bodies with success.

The Board of Supervisors failed to involve county administrative staff for counsel and oversight, a practice routine for important votes involving grants, liability and expenditures. Response to Finding 19-20: The Board partially agrees with this finding. Although the Board did not specifically designate a role for the County Administrator, and she did not place a recommendation regarding the matter on the agenda, her office performed its usual and customary role of reviewing the Board letter before it was placed on the agenda; providing feedback to the entity authoring the Board letter; reviewing the supporting material; and conferring with the County departments involved.

The ad hoc committee failed to make available to the public materials under consideration at its meetings in a timely manner. Response to Finding 19-21: The Board disagrees with this finding. The timing of the ad hoc committee's release of materials to the public did not violate any policies, rules or laws.