Orange County Grand Jury • 2009-2010

1. Summary In launching one of the largest transportation Based on public statements, published reports,

10 pages
View Original PDF

Note: Missing finding numbers detected: F3, F4

Findings and Recommendations 4 findings

F1
Inadequate RFP: Santa Ana political leaders Responses to Findings F.1, F.2, F.3, F.4 and and administrative staff followed inconsis-
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
The City of Santa Ana should develop spe- requested from the Orange County Transportation cific guidelines in its RFP process, specifying Authority. all program requirements used to evaluate applicants, including the scope and vision of 7. REQUIRED RESPONSES the leadership. The California Penal Code specifies the required
F2
Recommendations of Expert Panel Ignored: In accordance with California Penal Code Sec- Santa Ana City staff created an expert panel tions 933 and 933.05, each recommendation will be to evaluate the capabilities of the three ap- responded to by the government entity to which it is plicant groups but the findings from this addressed. The responses are to be submitted to the evaluation were ignored in awarding the final Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. The 2009- contract. The contract was awarded to the 2010 Grand Jury arrived at the following recom- lowest-rated bidder with a poorly document- mendations: ed process. 2009-2010 Orange County Grand Jury
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
City Council should give full consideration permissible responses to the findings and recom- to the findings of the duly appointed evalua- mendations contained in this report. The specific tion team and publicly disclose, with justifi- sections are quoted below: cation, at a Council meeting any deviation from the team’s recommendation so as not to §933.05 jeopardize public confidence. (a) For purposes of Subdivision (b) of Section
F5
Lack of Transparency: Elected City officials applicants in developing a consolidated agreement. violated the intent and specific provisions Witnesses interviewed by the Grand Jury re- of their Code of Ethics and Conduct as well vealed that the City Manager’s close contact with as provisions of AB 1234, the Government all of the Council members during this period took Transparency and Fair Process Act. City place outside public view. The City Council may leaders and elected officials failed to provide have come to a consensus on the Cordoba pro- transparency and public input in the con- posal by using the City Manager as an intermediary tract award, possibly violating the Brown among all parties. Act.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5
The City Attorney should conduct a retrain- 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the ing program for the City Council regarding responding person or entity shall report one of the the Ralph M. Brown Act, AB1234 and the following actions: City of Santa Code of Ethics and Conduct (1) The recommendation has been imple- by June 1, 2010. The training programs mented, with a summary regarding the shall be scheduled every two years thereafter implemented action. including an emphasis on an open and trans- (2) The recommendation has not yet been parent process. implemented, but will be implemented in
F6
Limited OCTA Oversight: Over 90% of 5. FINDINGS funding for the Santa Ana Street Car plan- ning project came from Orange County In accordance with California Penal Code Sec- Transportation Authority-administered sales tions 933 and 933.05, each finding will be re- tax funds (Measures M1 and M2). OCTA sponded to by the government entity to which it is provided limited oversight for award of this addressed. The responses are to be submitted to the contract. and use of funds. Similar projects Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. The 2009- funded with State or Federal taxes require 2010 Grand Jury arrived at the following findings: aggressive oversight of grant awards
Related Recommendations (1)
R6
OCTA should exercise stronger oversight in the future, with a timeframe for implemen- awarding planning and engineering con- tation. tracts involving Measure M1 and M2 funds. (3) The recommendation requires further Currently, OCTA utilizes 1% of Measure analysis, with an explanation and the scope M funds for oversight of approved projects. and parameters of an analysis or study, and This should be increased to allow for greater a timeframe for the matter to be prepared oversight of transportation contract awards for discussion by the officer or head of the consistent with State and Federal funding agency or department being investigated guidelines. to insure that Measure M funds or reviewed, including the governing body are properly spent. of the public agency when applicable. This Responses to Recommendations R.1, R.2, R.3 timeframe shall not exceed six months from and R.4 are required from the Santa Ana City the date of publication of the grand jury Council and requested from the City Manager. report. Responses to Recommendation R.5 are required (4) The recommendation will not be imple- from the Santa Ana City Council and the City mented because it is not warranted or is not Attorney. Response to Recommendation R.6 is reasonable, with an explanation therefore.” 2009-2010 Orange County Grand Jury

Additional Recommendations 2

These recommendations are not explicitly linked to specific findings.