📋
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.
⚠️ 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 8
In the purchase transaction, Humboldt County was represented by the seller's real estate agent acting as a dual agent.
F2
Page 7
Comments by those testifying often cannot be clearly heard by those in attendance, either at or observing the broadcast of the meetings, thus inhibiting the open conduct of the people's business.
F3
Page 7
Public awareness and disclosure of Board of Supervisors' meetings could be improved if Board meetings, which are presently only broadcast during the meetings, were re-broadcast at a variety of times by promptly transmitting a tape copy to Cox Cable as the county had agreed to do when the video equipment was originally donated.
F4
Page 9
No minutes were taken of deliberations by the selection committee charged with assessing the relative suitability of proposals received as a result of the Request for Proposals.
F5
Page 9
Some of the selection committee members may not have felt free to express their opinions because voting was done openly, not by ballot.
F6
Page 9
Neither specific guidelines nor the ranking form used by the selection committee were made available to potential respondents.
Recommendations 6
-
R1Page 7Recommendation 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.
-
R2Page 7Recommendation 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.
-
R3Page 7Recommendation 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. 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 6 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.
-
R4Page 9Recommendation pertinent to F4: The grand jury recommends that minutes be taken and properly filed for future review should the need arise.
-
R5Page 9Recommendation pertinent to F5: The grand jury recommends that a secret ballot process be implemented for use by future selection committees.
-
R6Page 9Recommendation 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. 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