County of SAN Bernardino Grand Jury

Additional Recommendations 11

These recommendations are not explicitly linked to specific findings.

• R1

  Page 19
  Each department is responsible to maintain a list of sensitive equipment items (not defined as fixed assets in 11-04SP2) as identified: (a) All electronic devices with a monthly access or rental lease fee including, but not limited to, cellular telephones, photocopiers and radio communication devices. (b) All personal digital assistants (PDAs), digital cameras or video cameras and any electronic equipment or photography equipment with a purchase price of $1,000 up to $5,000. (c) All computer central processing units (CPUs), laptop computers, and all printers, scanners, monitors and facsimile machines with a purchase price of $1,000 up to $5,000. (d) Each department may make a determination to include items in addition to those identified in this Standard Practice on its list.
• R2

  Page 19
  “Purchase price” is defined as the acquisition cost of an item, including the purchase price, before trade- in allowance, less discounts, plus freight, transportation and installation costs and sales or use tax.
• R3

  Page 19
  Each department will be responsible to ensure that employees return County property, which is provided for use off site, to the department in the event of the transfer, termination or separation from employment.
• R4

  Page 20
  Once a department establishes the list of sensitive equipment (as well as those items added to the list pursuant to 1(d) above), the list shall be updated on an annual basis and filed with the County Clerk. COMplAINTS COMMITTEE COMplAINTS COMMITTEE 2009-2010 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE MEMBERS Kent Fogleman, Chair Ever Marie James Brad Kuiper Albert vande Steeg 16 2009-2010 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE The Grand Jury receives complaints throughout the year. The purpose of this committee is to review all complaints and determine if the Grand Jury has jurisdiction to investigate the complaint. If jurisdiction is confirmed and the complaint warrants investigation, it is assigned to an appropriate committee. In some cases, an ad hoc committee is formed to handle the complaint. Complaints are typically received on an official Complaint Form. Although the Grand Jury normally does not investigate unsigned complaints, sometimes, depending on the issue, it will conduct an investigation from an anonymous source. The 2009-2010 Grand Jury received 47 new complaints and two were referred from the 2008-2009 Grand Jury. Of those, 17 were assigned and investigated while 20 were not within the jurisdiction of the Grand Jury. The additional 12 complaints are being referred to the 2010-2011 Grand Jury. HUMAN SERVICES/ ECONOMIC DEVElOpMENT COMMITTEE DEVElOpMENT COMMITTEE HUMAN SERVICES/ECONOMIC 2009-2010 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report HUMAN SERVICES/ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEMBERS Ever Marie James, Chair Julie C. Crites Clifford DeVost Shawn-Marie Green Rosie Hinojos Donna Howard William E. Howard Melinda O’Connor Porfirio (PV) Rodriguez 18 2009-2010 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report HUMAN SERVICES/ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE The Human Services and Economic Development Committee had the responsibility of reviewing all aspects of social services and economic development operations in the county, including: Child Support Services Redevelopment Agency Department of Aging and Adult Services Transitional Assistance Department Economic Development Agency Veterans Affairs Department Housing and Community Development Workforce Development Human Services Group Administration Cities/Municipalities Performance, Education and Resources Centers School/Community College Districts Preschool Services Special Districts Public Guardian/Public Administrator Areas of specific review undertaken by the Committee included the following: City of San Bernardino Conservatorship/Guardianship County Airports Department of Aging and Adult Services Foster Care HUD Dollar Homes Program In-Home Supportive Services Redevelopment Agency The Human Services and Economic Development Committee submits reports on the following topics: HUD Dollar Homes Program Department of Aging and Adult Services (See Response Accountability Section of Report) During the course of the Grand Jury term the Human Services and Economic Development Committee had the Redevelopment Agency Subcommittee examine operation of the following Cities Redevelopment Agencies: Chino Ontario Chino Hills Rancho Cucamonga Colton Rialto Fontana San Bernardino Montclair Upland 19 2009-2010 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY HUD DOLLAR HOMES PROGRAM
• R08-52

  Page 47
  Provide additional workspace for the Sheriff’s Scientific Investigation Division taking into account the growth of the county.
• R08-53

  Page 47
  Increase the number of Crime Scene Investigators from 12 to 24
• R08-54

  Page 47
  Increase the number of Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA)/Forensic Analysts from 10 to 20. Findings and Responses are as follows:
• R10-15

  Page 35
  Establish a data base which will track the critical program information for each home and a process for monitoring subsequent home sales.
• R10-16

  Page 35
  Include a detailed covenant history within the data base while filing with the County Recorder a “Notice of Affordability Covenant” on each property. 22
• R10-17

  Page 36
  Assure that all EDA partners are well versed in HUD or other program requirements.
• R10-18

  Page 36
  Institute an in-house program or engage an outside vendor to provide vetting and homeownership responsibility education for first-time homebuyers. COMMENDATION The EDA has already taken steps to implement a number of the above-mentioned recommendations. EDA now keeps a detailed data base to track the sale and resale of Dollar Homes, as well as all covenant agreements. An outside agency has also been contracted to assist with monitoring, marketing and reviewing all sales agreements to qualified buyers. The Grand Jury commends EDA personnel for the time and effort they spent in complying with this committee’s requests. Upon review of all the facts provided by EDA and after conducting interviews with EDA personnel, it is obvious that EDA has taken corrective action to address implementation and oversight deficiencies in affordable housing projects, such as the HUD’s Dollar Home Program. These types of projects provide for the betterment of cities, such as the City of San Bernardino, and they can only be successful when they are administered as they are intended.