Orange County Grand Jury • 2008-2009 • Agency Response
Response to: The Guardian of Last Resort 05/06/09, 440K

Office of the Bldg. C Public Administrator Santa Anal California Public Guardlan Mailing Addrw: Box 11526 Santa Anal Ca

Published: July 02, 2009
View Original PDF

Note: Missing finding numbers detected: F2, F3

Findings and Recommendations 6 findings

F1
b The Executive Manager position is redundant with the Program Chief Deputy. PNPG's Response The PNPG wholly disagrees with this finding. The Executive Manager position is not redundant to the Program Chief Deputy. The Executive Manager position sets policy and acts in the absence of the PNPG. The Chief Deputy organizes and directs the conservatorship and decedent investigation and administration programs.
No recommendations for this finding
F4
"Evidence of questionable pension practices was found at the PAIPG, which could cost taxpayers nearly one and one half million ($1,500,000) dollars. " PAIPG's Response The PNPG wholly disagrees with this finding. Pension practices are not determined by the PNPG. The Board of Supervisors approves pension practices and rates through contract negotiations. Employees are enrolled in the Orange County Employees Retirement System as a condition of employment. Currently, there are two tiers of employees, Tier 1 for employees hired prior to 1977 and Tier 2 which covers all employees hired after 1977. Tier 1 employees' retirement is calculated on their highest earning year. Tier 2 employees' retirement is calculated on their highest combined earning for three years. Every promotion potentially contributes to an employee's pension. When an employee is promoted, their salary is increased. Thus, it will contribute to their retirement calculation rate in some way.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
"The County lnternal Audit Department should conduct an in-depth review of OCHR personnel records to determine if additional instances of questionable pension practices exist in agencies other than the PAPG office. The audit report and any resulting County responses will be forwarded to the Grand Jury for information. " - PAIPG's Response The recommendation has not yet been implemented but will be implemented in the future. lnternal Audit will be conducting an audit of the OCHRD personnel records in Fiscal Year 2009-2010 . -
F5
"Public Administrator/Public Guardian polices and procedures are outdated, confusing and are not being adhered to as written making it difficult to effectively implement the PNPG stated mission. " PAIPG's Response The PNPG wholly disagrees with this finding. Policies and procedures should be reviewed constantly to ensure the business needs are being met. Currently, there is a committee in place that reviews and modifies all policies and procedures. As laws change, so must our P & P's. A policy may be old but it does not mean it's outdated. Some policies may still apply even if they are several years old. The Grand Jury may have found them confusing because they are complex documents that require extensive training in order to understand. Employees also have desk references that are "companions" to the Policies and Procedures that assist them with their duties and responsibilities.
No recommendations for this finding
F6
"The lack of business metrics used to measure the effectiveness of PAIPG internal operations and its delivery of those services described in their mission statement makes it difficult to manage and continuously improve agency operations." PAIPG's Response The PNPG partially disagrees with this finding. The current computer system was not designed as an expandable program nor is it able to produce reports of any great value. The new computer system, which will roll out in February 2010, provides an upgraded application that will document the standards and measure the effectiveness through a comprehensive reporting structure. Until implementation of the new computer system, manual measurements are in use.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6
"The PAPG should develop a method of tracking to measure improvements of service and reduction of costs. " - PA/PGSsR esponse 'The recommendation has been implemented. This process is taking place as part of the budget and business planning process. Administration, Program and the Finance units all collaborate on measuring results and implementing efficiencies. -
F7
"Management practices used since the separation of the Public Guardian from the Health Care Agency have significantly increased administrative management costs. " PAIPG's Response The PNPG wholly disagrees with this finding. When compared to other County departments of similar size, PNPG's management costs are in range of appropriate management to staff ratios. PNPG has nine administrative managers in a department of 65 filled positions. That is 13.8% of its staffing, which is lower than Clerk of the Board at 15.5%, Treasurerrrax Collector at 16.3% and the Registrar of Voters at 17.6%.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7
"The Board of Supervisors should complete a comprehensive independent review of the Public Administrator/Public Guardian. Based on the results of this review and the Grand Jury report, they should consider whether separating the PA/PG from the Health Care Agency and turning it into a stand-alone County department has been cost and performance improvement effective. If not, the Board of Supervisors should return Public Guardian to the HCA or another County department. " - PAIPG's Response The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable. The PNPG respectfully disagrees with this recommendation. When the Board of Supervisors voted to approve the separation of PNPG from the Health Care Agency, they also ordered a review of the PNPG Office be conducted by the Internal Audit Department. That review was conducted in 2005-2006. There were no significant findings other than the issue of the outdated computer system and the need for segregation of duties as part of the internal controls. -
F8
"The combining of the PA and PG in 2005 has not produced the anticipated administrative cost reductions. The administrative costs have actually increased without any apparent improvement in decedent estate processing or conservatee care. The agency has made ineffective decisions that have cost Orange County taxpayers and conservatees a significant amount of money. " PA/PG9sR esponse The PNPG wholly disagrees with this finding. The PA and PG have been combined for over forty years. The PNPG Office was merged with the Health Care Agency (HCA) from 2003 to 2005. Upon separating from HCA, PAIPG anticipated a savings of $300,000 over the next three years. This was immediately realized as PNPG's net County cost was reduced by $103,000 for that year and each year after. Since that time, PNPG has also been able to return $685,000 for FY 2005-2006, $160,000 for FY 2006- 2007 and $43,000 for FY 2007-2008 to the General Fund, in addition to the $750,000 we have placed in reserves. Responses to recommendations R.la, R.1 b, R.lc, R.ld, R.2, R.3a, R.3b, R.3c, R.4,
Related Recommendations (1)
R8
"When the term of the current PA expires in two years, the Board of Supervisors should consider moving the Public Administrator function into the same department that administers Public Guardian activities. This action should be coordinated with the recommendations identified in R .7t o eliminate logistics or redundancy problems. " - PAIPG's Response The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable. The PNPG respectfully disagrees with this recommendation. The elected Public Administrator1 ex officio Public Guardian comprise the PNPG department. The administrative functions that serve both areas are combined and performed by the same support staff. The California Probate Code defines what the PA shall do to safeguard trust funds and further defines that the PG shall safeguard trust funds in the same manner as the PA trust funds, requiring the two functions to operate in a similar manner. As the elected Public Administrator and ex officio Public Guardian, the PNPG cannot be forced to rely upon other County departments to provide essential services. This is clearly mandated in the California appellate case of Hicks vs. the County of Orange.