Submittal to the Board of Supervisors Item County of Riverside, State of California*

Excessive Litigation Costs Response to Grand Jury Finding #1: Respondents disagree wholly with the Finding. HR provided the Board of Supervisors (BOS) information that disagreed with the information provided by the ACO to the BOS regarding Legal Settlement Costs, as compared to other public agencies. HR attempted to replicate the information provided to the BOS by the Auditor- Controller's office (ACO) but did not receive the same information from the public agencies queried by the ACO. HR has no knowledge or evidence that managers, appointed and elected officials disregard HR advice. HR advises departments of the laws that impact County decisions related to HR topics and departments respect and follow HR's advice. Board Policy C-23 states there are four types of cases where HR determines the range of discipline and the department is to choose from within the range. In all other cases HR makes a recommendation for discipline which the department may choose to follow or take another action. HR follows Board Policy C-23, which provides guidance for employee discipline. 2018-2019 Grand Jury Report Riverside County Human Resources Department and Office of Riverside County Counsel HR has no knowledge of or response regarding whether employees have chosen not to litigate or the reasons for their choice. HR advises County Counsel and all departments regarding the steps to discipline and terminate employees. HR has no knowledge whether an employee retired due to the perception of harassment. HR hasn't been told of the case being referenced by the Grand Jury and cannot factually reply to the removal or substitution of an HR advisor on a matter. HR has no knowledge that individuals over age 40 having been forced to leave the County. Over the past five years, there have been several instances in which employees had below- standards performance and/or engaged in misconduct. In each instance, the County Counsel's Office consulted and worked collaboratively with the Human Resources Department to ensure that all County and Office policies and procedures as well as applicable law were followed. There have been only three notices of intent to discipline issued in the past five years. Two of those resulted in the issuance of the imposition of serious discipline (a termination and a reduction in pay). In the third case, the employee chose to retire with proposed discipline pending. Specific details as to the basis for each personnel decision cannot be provided in this response due to the confidentiality of personnel matters and the employee's right to privacy. None of those former employees appealed the discipline or filed a complaint with the Human Resources Department, the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing, or the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission. The former attorney who was terminated filed a lawsuit against the County and the County Counsel alleging that she was retaliated against for having filed a prior lawsuit against the County (before the current County Counsel was hired). The Honorable Daniel Ottolia, Judge of the Riverside County Superior Court entered judgment in favor of the County and the County Counsel finding that the Counsel had a legitimate, non- discriminatory, non-retaliatory basis for the termination of the attorney. The former attorney did not file an appeal of the trial court decision. No former legal assistant, paralegal or attorney has filed a complaint with the Human Resources Department, the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH), or the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission alleging constructive discharge in the past five years. No former legal assistant, paralegal or attorney has filed a state or federal lawsuit alleging constructive discharge in the past five years. Recently, a former legal support assistant filed a complaint with the DFEH alleging age discrimination. The former employee retired voluntarily and never made any complaint to the Human Resources Department. The only litigation costs incurred by the County with respect to County Counsel's personnel decisions were those related to the successful defense of the single lawsuit referenced above.

Timely and Constructive Evaluations Response to Grand Jury Finding #3: Human Resources Department partially agrees with the Finding; Riverside County Counsel disagrees wholly with the Finding. HR maintains the County-wide system of Employee Performance Management (EPM). The EPM reports indicated that County-wide, there was a need to improve the completion of employee performance evaluations. Since sharing the EPM report earlier this year, there has been a significant increase in the completion of evaluations County-wide. HR has no knowledge of the statements related to a specific employee evaluation. Specific detail cannot be provided in this response due to the confidentiality of personnel matters and the employee's right to privacy. Performance Improvement Plans (PIP) are not disciplinary in nature and are used to try to improve an employee's below-standards performance and are required for performance management by Board Policy C-21. There have been no demotions or constructive discharges in the County Counsel's office in the past five years. Timely and accurate evaluations are an important tool to the management of the County Counsel's Office. The County Counsel's Office is current on all of its evaluations.

Exit Interviews Response to Grand Jury Finding #4: Respondents agree in part and disagree in part with the Finding. HR took over the responsibility to issue exit surveys in 2017 for employees departing the County. The Grand Jury is correct that few former employees complete the exit survey. HR agrees with the Grand Jury that exit interviews can be a source of valuable information to make improvements in the workplace. HR is reviewing alternate systems and practices for improving the exit survey/interview experience. County Counsel agrees that some of its employees have department County service but disagrees that they left for reasons of coercion or similar reasons.

Personnel Files Response to Grand Jury Finding #5: Respondents disagree wholly with the Finding. HR maintains the official personnel file of its employees, while the departments maintain the official personnel files for employees in their departments. HR will send out information to the 5 of 11 2018-2019 Grand Jury Report Riverside County Human Resources Department and Office of Riverside County Counsel departments to ensure that the proper practices are maintained related to official personnel files.

Abuse of Whistle Blower Law Response to Grand Jury Finding #6: Respondents disagree wholly with the Finding. HR has no knowledge of this occurring. HR does advise departments throughout the county about the disciplinary and termination procedures and what is required for these processes. This is a proper function of HR and is done with the purpose to guide and educate departments. HR has no knowledge of the underlying employee complaints referenced by the Grand Jury in this section. Specific detail cannot be provided in this response due to the confidentiality of personnel matters and the employee's right to privacy. The written directive at issue was reviewed and approved by the Human Resources Department. Over the past five years, there have been several instances in which employees had below-standards performance and/or engaged in misconduct. In each instance, the County Counsel's Office consulted and worked collaboratively with the Human Resources Department to ensure that all County and Office policies and procedures as well as applicable law were followed. There have been only three notices of intent to discipline issued in the past five years. Two of those resulted in the imposition of serious discipline (a termination and a reduction in pay). In the third case, the employee chose to retire with charges pending. Specific detail as to the basis for each personnel decision cannot be provided in this response due to the confidentiality of personnel matters and the employee's right to privacy. None of those former attorneys appealed the discipline or filed a complaint with the Human Resources Department, the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing, or the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission. The former attorney who was terminated filed a lawsuit against the County and the County Counsel alleging that she was retaliated against for having filed a prior lawsuit against the County (before the current County Counsel was hired). The Honorable Daniel Ottolia, Judge of the Riverside County Superior Court entered judgment in favor of the County and the County Counsel finding that the County Counsel had a legitimate, non-retaliatory basis for the termination of the attorney. The former attorney did not file an appeal of the trial court's decision. The only litigation costs incurred by the County with respect to the County Counsel's personnel decisions were those related to the successful defense of the single lawsuit referenced above. Any proposed or imposed discipline was based on a factual finding of gross misconduct and violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar. All actions taken by the County Counsel were lawful, appropriate, and consistent with the management rights afforded to County Counsel. 6 of 11 2018-2019 Grand Jury Report Riverside County Human Resources Department and Office of Riverside County Counsel

Past and Present Practices of RCC. Response to Grand Jury Finding #7: Respondents disagree wholly with the Finding. These issues have been raised before and responses have repeatedly been issued clarifying the role of the County Counsel and his statutory and ethical duties to his clients; thus, Respondents repeat and incorporate those responses by reference herein. o At the empanelment of the 2014-15 GJ, the Honorable Mark Cope, the then- Presiding Judge of the Superior Court appointed the District Attorney's Office as the grand jury's legal advisor; this decision was made before the County Counsel's first day in office. Since July of 2014, the Riverside County District Attorney's Office has ably acted as the grand jury's legal advisor. County Counsel has a legal and ethical duty to serve as legal advisor to the County Board of Supervisors, its officers and employees. (See Government Code §§ 26526, 26529 & 27642). Further, the California Rules of Professional Conduct require County Counsel to act in the County's best interest by providing fair and competent legal advice. o The County Counsel has declined to represent the grand jury since it already has an assigned legal advisor and moreover, it would be a conflict of interest to do so under the Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of California. The County Counsel's Office is not required to represent the grand jury; the County 0 Counsel must decline a request for representation if it appears to the County Counsel that doing so would be a conflict of interest. The determination of whether there is a conflict is a discretionary decision for the 0 County Counsel to make; failure to declare a conflict of interest when the Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of California command it, subjects the County Counsel to potential State Bar discipline as well as another Motion for Disqualification filed by the grand jury. The 2014-15 grand jury sought to disqualify the County Counsel's Office from 0 representing the County, its Departments, and its officials and employees in any matter before the grand jury. On June 24, 2014, the Honorable John Vineyard, Judge of the Riverside County Superior Court issued an order finding "... that there is no basis to disqualify the County Counsel from proceedings before the Grand Jury and that the office of the County Counsel may provide representation to County employees during their testimony before the Civil Grand Jury pursuant to Penal Code Section 939.22." On October 21, 2015, the Court of Appeal summarily denied the writ petition filed by 2018-2019 Grand Jury Report Riverside County Human Resources Department and Office of Riverside County Counsel o On January 13, 2016, the California Supreme Court issued an order denying the 14- 15 grand jury's petition for review thus ending the litigation. Moreover, the law does not permit the court or the grand jury to question the declaration of a conflict of interest. Once made by the County Counsel, the determination stands. o With the conflict having been declared, the County is assured that the County Counsel's Office will be able to discharge its duties to its client without a potential conflict of loyalties. The full and faithful discharge of the County Counsel's statutory and ethical duties 0 do not constitute interference when the County Counsel: Advises County officials and staff on the law governing civil grand juries Advises County officials and staff on their legal obligation to provide information to which the grand jury is entitled Advises County officials and staff as to that information which may not, by law, be disclosed to the grand jury Offers representation for County officials and staff when they are called to appear before the grand jury The assertions of the attorney-client and attorney work-privileges were required and proper in each instance; specific detail cannot be provided due to the confidential nature of the information. Every year, the grand jury initiates at least 25 - 50 investigations, makes hundreds of requests for documents, and interviews hundreds of officials and employees; the grand jury has never been denied access to witnesses or to documents to which it was entitled by law to receive; it is the rare instance in which the grand jury seeks information to which it is not entitled and in that instance, the request is denied; the grand jury has never sought a court order to provide information to which it was denied. GRAND JURY RECOMMENDATIONS: