Score: +16
(16/0/0)
Sacramento County Grand Jury
• 2011-2012
Investigations and Reports Sacramento Area Sewer District
⚠️ 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 and Recommendations 5 findings
F1
The SASD acted swiftly and responsibly upon learning of allegations of employee misconduct. Further, the District Board adopted a comprehensive District Ethics Policy recommended by SASD.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
The District Ethics Policy should be distributed, read, and signed by every District employee on an annual basis. Reviews of guidelines and principles should be conducted with staff periodically. Each incident of review should be documented, signed by the reviewer, and placed in the employee's personnel file. If not now assigned, the District needs to have an ethics officer assigned to monitor this effort on an ongoing basis. Additionally, the District needs to submit an Annual Ethics Report to the District Board.
F2
The District proactively initiated a series of professionally facilitated mediations between SASD and commercial plumbing business owners who had concerns about the contract bidding process. The first such meeting, conducted by the Center for Collaborative Policy at Sacramento State University, took place on July 7, 2011.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
The District should enact provisions to prohibit the awarding of District contract(s) to any past employee for a period of one year subsequent to their date of separation from the District, eliminating the potential for unfair competition.
F3
The District has, since 2009, appropriately asserted more direct oversight on matters related to BIS claims.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
The District contracting officer must be more involved in monitoring contract procedures, performance and compliance, particularly for professional services contracts. 23 egaP Reports issued by the Civil Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code Section 929 requires that reports of the Grand Jury not contain the name of any person or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to the Civil Grand Jury. Request for Requirements Penal Code section 933.05(f) require that specific responses to indicated finding and recommendations contained in this report be submitted to the presiding Judge of the Sacramento County Superior Court by August 28, 2012. From: Stan Dean, SASD District Engineer 10060 Goethe Road Sacramento, CA 95827 CC: Sacramento Area Sanitation District Board of Directors 300 H St., Room 2450] Sacramento, CA 95814 Mail or hand-deliver a hard copy of the response to: Hon. Laurie Earl, Presiding Judge Sacramento County Superior Court 720 9th Street, Department 47 Sacramento, CA 96814 In addition, email the response to Rebecca Castaneda, Grand Jury Coordinator, at castanb@saccourt.com
F4
Review of the District contracting process for professional services such as “Rodding” 13 egaP and “Cleaning” of sewer lines indicates a need for better oversight of approved contracts by the District contracting officer. In this case multiple contracts for a single RFP (in one instance as many as eight contractors with eight similar contracts) creates confusion and inefficiency. The practice of breaking a contract into segments to spread the work among several contractors, depending on their location in the district, basically ignores the rule of awarding work to the lowest qualified bidder. Similarly, the contracting officer does not receive regular informational reports relative to the contractors’ compliance with the terms of the contract.
No recommendations for this finding
F5
The District currently has no policy regarding contracts being awarded to employees who have recently separated from the District. Recommendations
No recommendations for this finding
Agency Responses 2
Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.
No Responses Found 1
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
San Juan Water District
Special District