📋

Extracted from Consolidated Report

This investigation was originally published as part of a larger consolidated report containing multiple investigations. View the consolidated PDF for the complete document.

Trinity County Grand Jury • 1998-1999

Collections of Trial Court Accounts Receivable

View PDF View Full Original

⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.

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

Findings 6 findings

F1 Page 41

Cost Basis Disputed The claim that the Marshal’s office overhead ran 25% is disputed. The numbers used in this computation are not agreed upon as right by all parties involved.

F2 Page 41

Objectives Undefined. Exactly what services the county required of CSB were not spelled out before entering contract negotiations or turning account information over to them. That is to say, CSB become a solution in search of a problem. The cause for this fuzziness is rooted in Finding #3.

F3 Page 41

Meetings Not Held. No planning meetings were held that included County Counsel, Marshall, Probation and other participants. Due to changes in staffing and funding, some of them connected with implementation of AB233 The Trial Court Funding Act (see Finding #6), CAO and CRA felt the need and saw the opportunity to move quickly. They took the chance when it came and felt they could deal with the consequences later.

F4 Page 41

Probation Department Responsibili- ties. Probation Officers were shocked and embarrassed by the August 1 collection notice going out from CSB. Confidentiality was violated in some juvenile cases. Such information should not have been released to CSB. This problem has since been resolved. Confusion was bred in many misdemeanor and felony cases because collections which had regularly been made by the Probation Department were suddenly announced to be the business of CSB in Napa. This problem has since been resolved.

F5 Page 42

Legalities A contract between the County and CSB was negoti- ated and signed. CSB has two years to raise collections significantly or the contract will not be renewed. Trinity County can withdraw from the contract at any time for cause (30 days notice) or for any reason at all (60 days notice). CSB knows the laws pertinent to collections, as well as how to collect. Local personnel cannot duplicate these skills. The decision of CAO and CRA violates no laws. Demands of confidentiality are being met.

F6 Page 42

ABB233 The Trial Court Funding Act Great changes in the Marshal’s Office responsibilities have been produced by a new law, AB233 The Trial Court Funding Act. AB233 was a new law for 1998 but it applied retroactively to the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1997. As a result, departments found themselves in a scramble to implement AB233 for the old year and plan for the new year at the same time. The Marshal’s salary historically came mostly from County funds, but the new law indicated that the salary should come from Court accounts. Thus many respon- sibilities of the Marshall’s Office had to be redefined, and a Memorandum of Understanding had to be negoti- ated between the County and the Court. Negotiations on that Memorandum of Understanding are nearly complete, and it is expected that the Marshall’s Office responsibilities will be clearly spelled out and agreed upon before fiscal year 2000 begins on July 1, 1999.

Recommendations 6

R1
Page 41

Control must be established over amounts owed Trinity County and the costs of collecting them; only then can an accurate rate of overhead be computed.
R2
Page 41

It is essential for Department Heads to define objectives before a search for solution is launched.
R3
Page 41

Departments charged with responsibilities must be con- sulted in making major decisions. A coordinated attack on major problems is essential.
R4
Page 41

Professional standards of behavior must be maintained at all times.
R5
Page 42

The County Counsel is to be commended for straight- ening this situation out before it got completely out of control.
R6
Page 42

Implementation of AB233 was probably not a direct cause of the change in collection procedures. However, the 1998-99 Grand Jury recommends that the 1999- 2000 Grand Jury follow up on this matter and monitor the progress of AB233 implementation. CONCLUSION: Transfer of collections to the California Service Bureau is smoothing out. We expect collections to be made le- gally and conscientiously, and we expect collections to increase. Participating parties believe the system is go- ing to work. The decision process, however, was fla- grantly dictatorial. 30-DAY RESPONSES REQUESTED FROM: the Board of Supervisors, the Chief Administrative Officer, the Clerk/Recorder/Assessor, the Marshal, the County Counsel, the Chief of the Probation Department. Response of Trinity County Counsel Date: April 20, 1999 To: John K. Letton, Superior Court Judge From: David R. Hammer, Trinity County Counsel Re: Response to 1998/99 Trinity County Grand Jury Judicial Committee Final Report – Collections of Trial Court Accounts Receivable My response to the findings and recommendations of the Grand Jury’s Report is as follows: