B. Grand Jury Process Summary

Recommendations 9

• R1
  Recommendation pertinent to F1: The grand jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors: (a) Purchase lapel microphones to enhance thorough communication by individual Supervisors to all in attendance. (b) The Clerk of the Board and the Supervisors should ensure that all of the microphones are turned on for the entire meeting, so that the deliberative process is fully communicated. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ RESPONSE TO R1: Recommendation (a) to purchase lapel microphones will not be implemented because it is not warranted. Each of the microphones in the Board of Supervisors’ Chambers has recently been replaced with a longer microphone to enhance audio quality. Staff is working on adjusting the volume for each microphone to ensure that the Supervisors, staff and the public can be clearly heard over the sound system. Recommendation (b) has been implemented. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO R1: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable. All the microphones in the Board of Supervisors’ Chambers have been replaced with a longer microphone. We are currently working on adjusting the volume for each microphone to ensure that Supervisors, staff and the public are heard over the sound system. This is an ongoing process that is more cost efficient than having each Supervisor wear a lapel microphone. Also, the microphones are turned on every meeting.
• R2
  Recommendation pertinent to F2: The grand jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors: (a) Research the feasibility of purchasing an adjustable podium or microphone so those who testify can be clearly heard. (B) The Board Chair will also instruct all who testify, staff and the public, to speak clearly into the provided microphones. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ RESPONSE TO R2: Has been implemented. There is an adjustable microphone on the podium for public speakers that has been replaced in the past six months. The microphones at the staff table have also been replaced, and adjustments continue to be made to adjust the volume to ensure staff and the public can be clearly heard over the sound system. All the microphones in the Board of Supervisors’ Chambers are adjustable. When public testimony cannot be heard, the Board Chair requests the individual providing testimony to speak into the microphones provided. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO R2: The recommendation has been implemented. There is an adjustable microphone on the podium for public speakers that has been replaced in the past six months. The microphones at the staff table have been replaced as well. We are currently working on adjusting the volume for the staff microphones. All the microphones in the Boards’ Chambers are adjustable.
• R3
  Recommendation pertinent to F3: The grand jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors: (a) Provide a meeting tape to Cox Cable promptly after each meeting for re- broadcast. (b) Utilize the public government access channel available at Cox Cable. This would improve the ability for the public to view the conduct of the people=s business. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ RESPONSE TO R3: Has been implemented. Arrangements have been made with Cox Cable for the evening rebroadcast of Board of Supervisors meetings to take place Wednesdays at 8:00 p.m. This will begin with the Board meeting of September 2, 2003. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO R3: Has been implemented. Arrangements have been made with Cox Cable for the evening rebroadcast of Board of Supervisors meetings to take place Wednesdays at 8:00 p.m. This will begin with the Board meeting of September 2, 2003. RESPONSES: THE FOLLOWING RESPONSES TO REPORT 03-AF-01 ARE REQUIRED PURSUANT TO PENAL CODE 933 AND THE STANDARD FORMAT FOR RESPONSES. 1. The Humboldt County Board of Supervisors shall respond to R1, R2 and R3. 2. The General Services Administration Director shall respond to R3. GRAND JURY REPORT NO: 03-AF-02 REAL PROPERTY DIVISION Administration & Finance Committee INTRODUCTION: The Humboldt County Grand Jury conducted a routine investigation of the operations of the Real Property Division (RPD). The RPD is supervised by the General Services Director. The staff consists of one Senior Real Property Agent whose function, in spite of having an extensive job description implying considerable authority, more resembles that of a clerical position. Although the RPD works closely with various department heads and the County=s architect in filling the space requirements of County government, little real authority is given to act as the County=s advocate in the resulting real property transactions. The grand jury=s investigation included analyzing two real estate transactions, one a purchase, the other a long-term lease. Several personal interviews were also conducted and document reviews of both transactions were made. Early in the purchase transaction, the seller=s agent declared themselves a Adual agent@, representing both the buyer and the seller. In the real estate business, dual agency means that the interests of both parties to the transaction must be uppermost in all the agent=s actions and recommendations. It is difficult, if not impossible, to serve two such divergent interests. The potential for inadequate representation is present as well as the temptation to minimize potential risks, costs and liabilities. Although the agent in this transaction correctly identified the potential existence of lead paint, firm estimates or bids to mitigate the hazard were not sought and renovation costs ballooned to over three times the preliminary estimate, largely due to environmental hazards abatement. The RPD should have the authority to conduct its own due diligence and negotiate all terms, including a reduction in the purchase price to reflect the value of its contribution to the transaction. Traditionally, a commission paid by the seller of a property is split between the seller=s agent and the buyer=s agent. If the RPD is doing the work of the buyer=s agent when the County buys real property, the County should benefit proportionately. The final purchase price should be negotiated downward to reflect the value of one-half of a standard real estate commission. In the long-term lease transaction, a relatively new Request for Proposals process was used. The process was flawed from the beginning; the proposed location map included the entire area of greater Eureka, when in fact only those proposals near the courthouse were to be seriously considered. This fact was specified within the documentation, but the prominence of the misleading map may have caused several respondents to discount the importance of proximity to the courthouse, resulting in the needless expenditure of tens of thousands of dollars for proposals having no chance of success. It appears that the selection committee may have used arbitrary methods to assign rankings to the subjective criteria intended to fairly compare the competing proposals. Ironically, the ranking criteria were not shared with the project sponsors until after the final decision was made. Rankings were not done using specific quantitative guidelines, but involved open discussion leading to consensus. The makeup of the committee included several employees of the affected department along with the department head. No minutes of these important sessions were kept. When two of the three Afinalists@ dropped out of contention, reportedly a sense of urgency felt by the department head on the committee caused them to not reconsider two other highly competitive projects. Lease costs, although purportedly a Aspecial@ ranking consideration, were not weighted as to proposed annual increases; the winning proposal was the most expensive. No final price negotiation was attempted by the County, although the County had that right.
• R4
  Recommendation pertinent to F4: The grand jury recommends that minutes be taken and properly filed for future review should the need arise. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO R4: The recommendation will be partially implemented when we undergo the next process for evaluating long-term lease proposals. Although step-by-step minutes will not be taken of the selection committee discussions, the outcome of those discussions will be documented and retained in the applicable file(s).
• R5
  Recommendation pertinent to F5: The grand jury recommends that a secret ballot process be implemented for use by future selection committees. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO R5: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable. The selection process is based on evaluating the responding proposals both objectively and subjectively. After that evaluation, then a determination is made. It is not appropriate to use a secret ballot to make the final selection.
• R6
  Recommendation pertinent to F6: The grand jury recommends that quantitative, specific guidelines and the selection criteria ranking form be made available to all parties by inclusion in the Request for Proposals documentation. GENERAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO R6: The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. As stated earlier this was new process and the RFP did have guidelines (parameters) regarding the location the County was looking for, but did not indicate the ranking for the criteria. In future RFP for lease property, there will be a better handle on our needs, which will include the specific guidelines and selection criteria ranking in the actual RFP documentation. RESPONSES: THE FOLLOWING RESPONSES TO REPORT 03-AF-02 ARE REQUIRED PURSUANT TO PENAL CODE 933 AND THE STANDARD FORMAT FOR RESPONSES. 1. The General Services Administration Director shall respond to R1, R2, R3, R4, R5 and
• R7
  Replace the rear door at the Hoopa Substation:
• R8
  Replace the fire door at the Hoopa Substation with one that meets state standards:
• R9
  Modify the Hoopa Substation to comply with American Disability Act (ADA) standards: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATIONS R-3 - R-9: