📋

Extraído del Informe Consolidado

Esta investigación fue publicada originalmente como parte de un informe consolidado más amplio que contiene múltiples investigaciones. Consulte el PDF consolidado para ver el documento completo.

Sacramento County Grand Jury • 2004-2005

The Sacramento County Primary Care Clinic Issue The Sacramento County Grand Jury reviewed the quality and availability

Published: January 10, 2005 5 pages

View PDF View Full Original

⚠️ Aviso de traducción: Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.

⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.

Findings 6 findings

There is currently a shortage of pharmacists employed by Sacramento County. Without action on the county's part, it is likely that the recruitment and retention problems will increase. This will prove extremely costly and is likely to compromise medical services.

The DHHS and the county purchasing department did not properly review the RFP for the CMMS. They further did not monitor compliance of the selected vendor as to the RFP requirements.

The vendor (PCSI) did not fulfill its contractual obligations. The outpatient system is not fully operational and the inpatient system has never worked.

The Commission, by its own rules, does not allow itself the ability to consider information contained in the full transcript of a disciplinary appeal hearing before a hearing officer. The transcript contains “all relevant facts and circumstances” which the Commission should be able to consider in making a final decision. The hearing officer’s proposed decision may contain only those facts and circumstances deemed pertinent to that officer’s proposed decision, and rarely contains “all” of the relevant facts and circumstances. By limiting the basis for its review only to the material in the hearing officer’s proposed decision, the Commission has limited its ability to make a duly informed final decision.

The Commission, by its own rules, has precluded any argument on appeal from a disciplinary action relating to evidentiary, procedural, or legal issues which were raised or could have been raised before the hearing officer, or to the weight of the evidence, or the credibility of a witness. Thus, the hearing officer’s determinations as to all issues of evidence, procedure, or law, including the weight of the evidence, or the credibility of witnesses, are not subject to review by the Commission. By refusing to consider any such argument, the Commission has ceded too much of its authority and responsibility to exercise its own judgment in making a final decision, to the discretion of the hearing officer.

Improper interpretations as to the elements of proof were applied in one or more of the cases reviewed related to the following causes for disciplinary action: (a) “Failure of good behavior . . . which is of such a nature that it causes discredit to [the employee’s] agency or employment”, and Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2005 9 (b) “Conviction of a misdemeanor which is of such a nature as to adversely affect the employee’s ability to perform the duties and responsibilities of his position.”

Recommendations 6

R1

The DHHS needs to restructure the salary scale for county pharmacists to make it competitive in today's market.
R2

DHHS must be certain that awarded contracts fulfill all requirements mandated by the RFP on any purchases made by the department.
R3

The DHHS needs to assure that the county has a functional CMMS as soon as possible. Within the provisions of the contract with PCSI, the county should seek restitution for any services paid for and not provided. Response Requirements Penal Code sections 933 and 933.5 require that specific responses to both the findings and recommendations contained in this report be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Sacramento Superior Court by October 1, 2007, from: • Sacramento County Board of Supervisors
R4

The Commission should amend its rules to preserve its option to consider information contained in the full transcript of the case under appeal, and to maintain its option to hear any case with or without a hearing officer, or if previously heard by a hearing officer, to rehear the case with or without a hearing officer.
R5

The Commission should amend its rules to allow for argument before the Commission relating to evidentiary, procedural, and legal issues, raised before the hearing officer, including descriptions of evidence, weight of the evidence, and credibility of witnesses.
R6

The Commission: (a) should not require proof of actual discredit to the employee’s agency, when deciding whether there was a “Failure of good behavior . . . which is of such a nature that it causes discredit to the [employee’s] agency or employment”, and (b) should not require proof of an actual adverse affect upon the employee’s ability to perform the duties of his position, when deciding whether there was a “Conviction of a misdemeanor which is of such a nature as to adversely affect the employee’s ability to perform the duties and responsibilities of his position.”

No Responses Found 1

Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.

Sacramento County Board of Supervisors Elected County Office