📋
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.
Mendocino County Grand Jury
• 1999-2000
Mendocino County Counsel The County Counsel is charged by State law with the responsibility to defend or
⚠️ 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 12 findings
F1
Page 65
The Audit consisted of the results of a survey of all available employees and found serious problems in all of the FARs units. The employee survey results are as follows: a. Turnover rate for FARs was 59% in 1997/1998 fiscal year, which was almost twice that of the ten other comparable counties surveyed. This figure also included any FARs transferred to another division in the MCDSS. In addition, 43.4% of FARs were planning to leave. Top five 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 65 reasons cited for leaving were: low pay, inadequate management, favoritism, burnout, and lack of recognition for achievement. b. The MCDSS was out of compliance with state regulations regarding time required to process applications for CalWORKS and Food Stamps. c. 30% thought management had done a good job implementing changes in the past year. d. 30% thought their opinions were valued and respected by management, but only 11.7% thought their opinions were valued and would contribute to fulfilling the MCDSS goals and purposes. e. 33% thought management communicated the goals of MCDSS clearly and consistently, while only 15% thought communication between management and staff was good. f. 20% thought MCDSS was managed efficiently. g. 13.6% thought good work was consistently recognized and rewarded. h. 42.4% thought supervisors were fair in dealing with employees (testimony showed this has improved with personnel changes). i. 13.3% agreed that coordination between units and divisions in MCDSS was good. j. 90% were not satisfied with their salary. MCDSS salaries range between 90-93 % of the other counties surveyed (testimony revealed the Board of Supervisors {BOS} are considering the Slavin Report proposals to improve salaries). k. 18.3% thought MCDSS Human Resources Division was helpful in resolving personnel matters. l. 47.5% thought their training was sufficient. A review of documentation and testimony from several former and current employees from the Fort Bragg FARs units, including management personnel resulted in the findings listed below: Response (Social Services): Agree, with clarification. This first finding is a selective listing of information from a management audit conducted in late 1998. 66 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board and the Department agree with clarification. This finding represents a selective listing of information from a management audit conducted in late 1998. Since that time, many of the recommendations contained in that report have been implemented. Findings 2. Testimony supports most of the Audit findings. The MCDSS has developed a Multi-Faceted Action Plan, which has been approved by the BOS, to address the issues raised by the Audit. Response (Social Services): The Board agrees that a Multi-Faceted Action Plan has been approved and implemented, but is unable to confirm or deny the testimony referred to by the Grand Jury. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees that a Multi-Faceted Action Plan has been approved and implemented, but is unable to confirm or deny the testimony referred to by the Grand Jury. 3. The MCDSS management did not accept the finding by the Audit that favoritism played a part in promotions of employees. Staff reported occasions of favoritism practiced in promotions toward certain staff members, plus subtle favoritism or discrimination against men. MCDSS denies that favoritism is practiced in the MCDSS, stating this is only a “... perception of favoritism held by some people.” Response (Social Services): Do not agree. The Audit did not make a finding that favoritism played a part in promotions of employees. The Audit stated: “Although recruitment for supervisory positions in the Department follows general Merit Service Systems guidelines, the perception exists among some staff that employees are promoted to supervisory positions based upon favoritism and loyalty to management rather than merit.” The Department’s response to the Audit was: “It is accepted that the perception of favoritism is held by some people; the reality is that promotions follow personnel guidelines and are based on a determination of who appears to be able to best perform the job.” The Department follows standard government personnel practices in its adherence to Civil Service and Merit System regulations in the recruitment, testing, and selection of employees. There is no discrimination against men. The individual filing the complaint with the Grand Jury also filed an EEOC complaint regarding not getting a promotion. The Department of Fair Employment and Housing conducted an investigation and found no evidence of discrimination by the Department. This outcome was communicated to the Grand Jury prior to the completion of their report. 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 67
F2
Page 58
The County Counsel serves four-year terms. He may be removed for several reasons having to do with job performance and is subject to annual review by the BOS. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding. 58 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report
F3
Page 59
The County Counsel was created in Mendocino County by the BOS in 1977, when it was split off from the District Attorney. County Counsel shall discharge all the duties vested by law in the District Attorney, other than those of a Public Prosecutor. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding.
F4
Page 59
The County Counsel is one of the advisors to the Grand Jury. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding.
F5
Page 59
The County Counsel represents and advises the County Special Districts when: a. A Special District Board requests it. b. A Special District Board is composed in whole or in part of members of the BOS, and c. No specific provision is made to obtain legal services. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding.
F6
Page 59
According to California Government Code Section 26526, the County Counsel is the legal advisor to the BOS, shall attend its meetings, when required, and shall oppose all claims against the County that the County Counsel deems unjust and illegal. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding.
F7
Page 59
The Grand Jury heard testimony that there exists a state of animosity between the County Counsel, the District Attorney, some County Supervisors, and past Grand Juries. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board believes that due to the nature of County Counsel’s responsibilities that, at times, determinations and/or investigations might be perceived as animosity between the various offices and individuals. However, without further detailed information regarding specific incidents, the Board is unable to respond further to this finding.
F8
Page 59
Outside counsel is hired by the County Counsel when a conflict of interest arises, which, contrary to allegations, testimony showed occurred less than once a year. 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 59 Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding.
F9
Page 60
The County Counsel reviews contracts for legal aspects, not content, to determine if the contract is legally defensible. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding.
F10
Page 60
Staff attorneys work with minimal supervision and are overseen by the Chief Deputy County Counsel. Staff meetings are seldom held. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding.
F11
Page 60
On occasion, County Counsel has been unable to advise the Grand Jury and other County departments due to its representation of County departments, which created, in the view of County Counsel, a conflict of interest. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding.
F12
Page 60
A review of the past seven years of County Counsel opinions did not support the allegation that 50% of County Counsel opinions have been reversed. The Grand Jury investigations revealed such reversals as minimal. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding.
Recommendations 4
-
R1Page 60Penal Code Section 934 allows the grand jury to seek, at all times the advice of the court or the judge thereof, the district attorney, the county counsel or the attorney general. The attorney general may grant or deny a request for advice from the grand jury. If the attorney general grants a request for advice from the grand jury, the attorney general must fulfill that request within existing financial and staffing resources.
-
R2Page 60Penal Code Section 936 authorizes a grand jury to request the attorney general to employ special counsel and special investigators. These services are a charge against the county.
-
R3Page 60Penal Code Section 936.5 authorizes the presiding judge of the Superior Court, when requested by the grand jury, to employ special counsel and special investigators, subject to the following procedure: a) Prior to the appointment, the presiding judge shall conduct an evidentiary hearing and find that a conflict exists that would prevent the local district attorney, the county counsel and the attorney general from performing such investigation. b) Notice of the hearing shall be given to each of them unless he or she is a subject of the investigation. c) The finding of the presiding judge may be appealed by the district attorney, the county counsel or the attorney general. d) The authority to appoint is contingent upon the certification by the auditor—comptroller of the county that the grand jury has funds appropriated to it sufficient to compensate the special counsel. In the absence of a certification, the court has no authority to appoint. In the event the county board of supervisors or a member thereof is under investigation, the County has the obligation to appropriate the necessary funds. The Grand Jury commented upon the creation of an ethical wall or screen within the County Counsel’s office to avoid potential conflicts in the future and to allow County Counsel to continue to provide representation to County clients who are in conflict with one another. The creation of an ethical wall or screen between attorneys in a county counsel’s office depends upon the nature of the representation undertaken, as well as sufficient professional and support staff and office space to be able to institute a complete screening between 62 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report attorneys and staff. Another problem with a screening device, particularly in significant litigation, is what role would the County Counsel play as the appointing authority and supervisor of County Counsel staff and as advisor to the Board of Supervisors? Can and should the County Counsel abdicate his duties as defined by state law to permit his deputies to operate with complete autonomy? A screening device is not a “one size fits all” proposition. County Counsel is currently reviewing the benefits of creating a screen with respect to certain recurring county counsel functions. However, for cases which pose a significant risk of liability we believe the prudent course of action is to retain outside independent counsel to represent one of the adversarial parties. As can be seen from the above examples, when the County did retain outside counsel, it was either mandated by law or it was a conscious decision of the Board of Supervisors, based upon a recommendation from this office. The instances requiring outside legal representation are so few that we are surprised this is even the subject of Grand Jury comment. We particularly find this puzzling because many county counsel offices do not undertake to defend 1983 actions, wrongful termination actions and tort actions in-house, opting instead for outside legal counsel. Keeping these cases in-house has been extremely cost-effective for the County. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with the response of the County Counsel and concurs that state legislature has provided sufficient alternative mechanisms with respect to legal representation for the Grand Jury as cited in Penal Code Sections 934, 936 and 936.5. The Board also agrees that County Counsel should continue its review of the benefits of creating an ethical wall or screen with respect to certain recurring County Counsel functions. Time Frame for Implementation: Review of the benefits of creating an ethical wall or screen with respect to certain recurring County Counsel functions is an on-going process. Comments Representatives of the County Departments that were interviewed, which are clients of the County Counsel, testified that they were pleased with the service provided to them by the County Counsel. The Grand Jury agrees that it is proper for the County Counsel to confine its review of contracts to legal content. The Grand Jury agrees that it is the responsibility of each department to acquire and provide the necessary expertise to enable the County to obtain the best goods and services. To accomplish this, all County Departments should pool their resources. For example, all County Departments 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 63 now rely on Information Services for all computer matters including service and procurement. The County Administrative Officer should create a roster of County experts and knowledgeable people in all areas of specialization to facilitate this process. The citizens of Mendocino County deserve, and have every reason to expect, that all Government officials conduct themselves in a mature, professional manner, without political, territorial battles that seem to be the norm. Response Required Mendocino County Board of Supervisors Response Requested Mendocino County Counsel Mendocino County Administrative Officer 64 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report MENDOCINO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES The Mendocino County Department of Social Services (MCDSS) is organized into four program divisions: Employment and Family Assistance Services, Family and Children’s Services, Adult Services, and Veterans Services. The Employment and Family Assistance Division is responsible for administration of CalWORKS (CalWORKS is mandated and primarily funded by the Federal and State governments to provide financial support to children and their families who are unable to support themselves), Medi-Cal, the County Medical Services Program (CMSP), Food Stamps, and Employment Services. The Family Assistance Representatives (FARs) in Fort Bragg are assigned to two different units: CalWORKS with nine staff positions including one supervisor; Medi- Cal/ Food Stamps/CMSP with eight staff positions including one supervisor. The Fort Bragg office, which is the focus of this investigation, consists of a Program Manager who supervises those two units plus one other nine staff Benefit Issuance unit. Reason for Investigation The Grand Jury received a citizen’s complaint. Method of Investigation The Grand Jury interviewed the complainant, current employees, former employees, one Supervisor, one Program Manager, MCDSS Director and one union representative. Documents reviewed: the December, 1998 Management Audit (Audit), MCDSS response to the Audit, Job Classification List, 2000 Slavin Report, miscellaneous documents, MCDSS employee turnover results for the years 1995/1996 to 1999/2000, correspondence, and copies of interoffice memoranda and the County Training Institute Class Schedule.
-
R90-93Page 66% of the other counties surveyed (testimony revealed the Board of Supervisors {BOS} are considering the Slavin Report proposals to improve salaries). k. 18.3% thought MCDSS Human Resources Division was helpful in resolving personnel matters. l. 47.5% thought their training was sufficient. A review of documentation and testimony from several former and current employees from the Fort Bragg FARs units, including management personnel resulted in the findings listed below: Response (Social Services): Agree, with clarification. This first finding is a selective listing of information from a management audit conducted in late 1998. 66 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report
Comments 3
-
CO1 Page 63Representatives of the County Departments that were interviewed, which are clients of the County Counsel, testified that they were pleased with the service provided to them by the County Counsel. The Grand Jury agrees that it is proper for the County Counsel to confine its review of contracts to legal content. The Grand Jury agrees that it is the responsibility of each department to acquire and provide the necessary expertise to enable the County to obtain the best goods and services. To accomplish this, all County Departments should pool their resources. For example, all County Departments 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 63
-
CO2 Page 64now rely on Information Services for all computer matters including service and procurement. The County Administrative Officer should create a roster of County experts and knowledgeable people in all areas of specialization to facilitate this process. The citizens of Mendocino County deserve, and have every reason to expect, that all Government officials conduct themselves in a mature, professional manner, without political, territorial battles that seem to be the norm. Response Required Mendocino County Board of Supervisors Response Requested Mendocino County Counsel Mendocino County Administrative Officer 64 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report
-
CO3 Page 65MENDOCINO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES The Mendocino County Department of Social Services (MCDSS) is organized into four program divisions: Employment and Family Assistance Services, Family and Children’s Services, Adult Services, and Veterans Services. The Employment and Family Assistance Division is responsible for administration of CalWORKS (CalWORKS is mandated and primarily funded by the Federal and State governments to provide financial support to children and their families who are unable to support themselves), Medi-Cal, the County Medical Services Program (CMSP), Food Stamps, and Employment Services. The Family Assistance Representatives (FARs) in Fort Bragg are assigned to two different units: CalWORKS with nine staff positions including one supervisor; Medi- Cal/ Food Stamps/CMSP with eight staff positions including one supervisor. The Fort Bragg office, which is the focus of this investigation, consists of a Program Manager who supervises those two units plus one other nine staff Benefit Issuance unit. Reason for Investigation The Grand Jury received a citizen’s complaint. Method of Investigation The Grand Jury interviewed the complainant, current employees, former employees, one Supervisor, one Program Manager, MCDSS Director and one union representative. Documents reviewed: the December, 1998 Management Audit (Audit), MCDSS response to the Audit, Job Classification List, 2000 Slavin Report, miscellaneous documents, MCDSS employee turnover results for the years 1995/1996 to 1999/2000, correspondence, and copies of interoffice memoranda and the County Training Institute Class Schedule.
No Responses Found 1
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
Mendocino County
County