Board of Supervisors

One of the thirteen lawyers carried on the staff of the County Counsel serves as an executive administrator for another County agency. Response, County Counsel. County Counsel disagrees with this finding since no member of the staff of the County Counsel serves as an executive administrator for another County agency.

Within the County Counsel's Office there is concern that a comprehensive list of primary and secondary lawyer assignments is not kept current. Response, County Counsel. County Counsel agrees with the finding although due to the small size of the office and constant interaction between the various attorneys this is not viewed by County Counsel as a significant problem. Typically updates occur every other year, or when new attorneys join the office. To address the concern updates will occur more frequently. See response to Recommendation #3.

Face-to-face annual evaluation discussions between the supervisor and employee do not always take place. 2008-09 Grand Jury Report Response 1 County of Napa Office of the County Counsel Response, County Counsel. County Counsel mostly disagrees with this finding. Face to face evaluations always occur following the completion of an evaluation and before it is submitted to Human Resources for processing. That being said, there may have been a rare situation involving a senior employee of the office where a face to face meeting did not occur. However, the County Counsel cannot recall any such instance.

Paralegal and administrative evaluations are timely; lawyer evaluations are generally delinquent by several months. Response, County Counsel. County Counsel partially agrees and partially disagrees with this finding. Paralegal and administrative evaluations have been timely for many years. Attorney evaluations were current for several years but beginning at some point in 2007 some of the evaluations of attorneys who have been with the office for extended periods of time have not been completed in a timely manner. However, evaluations of new attorneys have always been completed in a timely manner. The delinquent evaluations are being brought up to date and all are expected to be current by the end of July 2009. Finding #7. Staff meetings are infrequent. Response, County Counsel. County Counsel agrees with this finding to the extent meetings of the entire 21 person staff is being referenced. In response to the Grand Jury's finding, bimonthly meetings of the entire staff are being scheduled rather than the two or three meetings a year that have been historically scheduled. Meetings with smaller divisions within the office, which presently occur more frequently than meetings of the entire staff, will also be increased in frequency. One-on-one meetings with staff to discuss specific legal issues, which are frequent, will continue. See response to

The County Counsel's office does not have a formal conflict of interest policy. Response, County Counsel. County Counsel agrees with this finding. Representational conflict of interest issues are presently addressed on a case by case basis. Although this office does not have a formal conflict of interest policy, the County as a whole has a formal conflict of interest policy that is followed. A conflict of interest policy focused on conflicts of interest that develop when multiple departments or agencies with competing adverse interests request representation by the Office of the County Counsel will be developed on a priority basis. See response to Recommendation #8.

The County Counsel's office is well run; employees are not micro-managed. Response, County Counsel. County Counsel agrees with the finding.

County Counsel lawyers generally stay out of client policy issues. 2 2008-09 Grand Jury Report Response County of Napa Office of the County Counsel Response, County Counsel. County Counsel agrees with the finding.

The quality of some written documents to clients needs improvement. Response, County Counsel. County Counsel agrees with this finding due to the inclusion of the word "some" in the finding. Client Satisfaction surveys which have regularly been conducted since 1995 have consistently evaluated the office at the high "4" to mid "5" levels in the areas of providing decisive and understandable written legal advice as well as providing a high quality work product (Scale is 6=Exceptional; 5=Excellent; 4=Fair; 3=Poor; 2=Unacceptable). Nonetheless there is always room for improvement particularly in the area of the dozens of written agreements that are reviewed and approved each year by the office.

Personnel within the County Counsel's office have been briefed on the current County Counsel succession plan and, although concerned about who the next County Counsel may be, are supportive of the plan. Response, County Counsel. County Counsel agrees with the finding. Finding #13. There is very low turnover in County Counsel personnel. Response, County Counsel. County Counsel agrees that historically this has been the case.

County Counsel's lawyers and staff personnel are located in three separate rooms. Response, County Counsel. County Counsel agrees with the finding. This separation is required. A "firewall" exit is required by fire regulations due to the presence of a large meeting room on the same floor on which County Counsel is located (i.e. the room where the Board of Supervisors meets). That firewall hallway exit and the overall layout of the building requires that the main office of the County Counsel be separated from the two smaller offices and prevents the two smaller offices from being merged. See response to

Workload assignments are changed in an attempt to level the hours, but this leveling action generally occurs only on a one to two-year basis. Response, County Counsel. County Counsel agrees with the finding. See response to

The archaic time/billing system wastes lawyer and administrative staff time, impedes accurate client billing and makes workload leveling more difficult. Response, County Counsel. County Counsel agrees with the finding and routinely asks in its annual budget submittal that a more modern time and billing system be funded. The 3 2008-09 Grand Jury Report Response County of Napa Office of the County Counsel current time and billing system has been in use for approximately 15 years and is badly in need of an upgrade. See response to Recommendation #7. Response, County Executive Officer. County Executive Officer agrees with the Grand Jury finding that the time/billing system is archaic. However, as stated in County Executive Officer's response to Recommendation #7, it appears that the two-step process of inputting time is what is causing most inefficiency. Unless that issue is resolved, there may not be improved efficiency by procuring a new system. County Executive Officer disagrees with the finding that the existing system impedes accurate client billing. Based on the data received from the County Counsel's office, it appears that the existing system is capturing all billable hours.

Small Claims advice to the public is provided by the County Counsel's office. Response, County Counsel. County Counsel agrees with the finding.

The Grand Jury was recently denied County Counsel legal representation in a dispute with a County agency over records release. Response, County Counsel. County Counsel agrees with this finding. The Office of the County Counsel has historically not represented the Grand Jury where both the Grand Jury and a county department are taking adverse positions and both seek representation. In such a case the office cannot ethically represent each side. The Office of the County Counsel does represent the Grand Jury when non-county agencies are involved. The formal conflict of interest policy the office will be developing on a priority basis will address this issue after discussing the matter with the Court Executive Officer and, if the Court Executive Officer deems it appropriate, the Presiding Judge of the Napa Courts - Grand Jury. See response to Finding #8. Finding #19. The Grand Jury does not have a vehicle to provide timely independent counsel services if County Counsel refuses to provide legal representation. Response, County Counsel. County Counsel partially agrees and partially disagrees with this finding. Various sections of the Penal Code provide that if the Office of the County Counsel has a conflict the Grand Jury may seek representation from the District Attorney (§935), Attorney General (§936) or special counsel (§936.5). However, securing special counsel is subject to two preconditions. First, the approval of the presiding judge of the superior court must be secured after a noticed evidentiary hearing on the conflict issue. Second, the presiding judge of the superior court cannot approve a request for special counsel unless the County Auditor-Controller certifies that the Grand Jury has funds appropriated to it that are sufficient to compensate the special counsel. Whether the Attorney General would support the Grand Jury in a local non criminal investigation is an unknown. Thus County Counsel agrees with the Grand Jury that in the absence of the District Attorney providing representation in the event the County Counsel has an ethical 2008-09 Grand Jury Report Response 4 County of Napa Office of the County Counsel conflict the process of retaining securing counsel may not be timely considering the time pressures under which Grand Juries typically operate.

The County Counsel's staff has available to it adequate and updated legal reference sources. Response, County Counsel. County Counsel agrees with the finding.