📋
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.

San Bernardino County Grand Jury • 1999-2000

Suggestion Awards Program

View PDF View Full Original

Findings 12 findings

F1 Page 15
The suggestion form is date stamped.
F2 Page 15
A letter is sent to the suggestor acknowledging receipt of the suggestion.
F3 Page 15
Pertinent data is entered into a self-developed computer- tracking program by the staff support person.
F4 Page 15
The suggestion is sent to the affected department for evaluation, analysis, and comment. The bylaws say the suggestion is to be evaluated within three months, but this isn’t always followed.
F5 Page 15
The affected department evaluates the suggestion and, if it is recommended for approval, the Suggestion Awards Committee meets and takes an action. If not recommended for approval, action will be postponed until there are other matters for consideration. Sometimes the Suggestion Awards Committee will request that the suggestion be sent back to the department for further evaluation.
F6 Page 15
Meetings of the Suggestion Awards Committee are to be held on a quarterly basis (currently calendared monthly) to determine the suggestion’s eligibility/ awards based on their evaluation, and/or to hear appeals of suggestion award decisions. The amount of awards in fiscal year 1999 totaled between $20,000 and $25,000; one of the awards was for $5,000. The bylaws state that the award for a suggestion is ten percent (10%) of the total net savings and/or revenue of County, State and/or Federal funds for the first year’s projection, with a minimum award of $100 and a maximum of $5,000. A random selection of Suggestion Award files was reviewed to observe how the program was being administered. Three files from fiscal year 1997 and three files from fiscal year 1999 were selected. The program was under different staff support during these two periods. Each of the six files demonstrated serious weaknesses in program administration. The findings can be summarized as follows:
F7
A suggestion was received on May 5, 1997. Requests for evaluations were sent to two separate departments on May 13 and responses were received on June 13 and June 19. The letter to the suggestor notifying him that the suggestion was not going to be implemented was dated August 24, 1998. This was 14 months after the departments had responded.
F8
A suggestion was received August 13, 1997. Requests for evaluations to two separate departments were sent on August 19. One evaluator returned the completed form on September 11, 1997 but the other department never completed the evaluation. No suggestion was awarded because the estimated annual tangible savings was less than $1,000 so the award would have been less than the minimum $100. There is no evidence in the file to indicate that the suggestor was ever informed of the final disposition.
F9
A suggestion was received on March 4, 1998. A request for evaluation was sent on May 29, nearly three months later. The evaluator completed the form on June 9, but the department head did not sign off until October 26, four and one-half months later. The letter from the department head to the Suggestion Awards Program staff support person stating the reasons for not recommending approval, was inappropriately sent to the suggestor directly by the department head. On February 18, 1999 the program staff support person notified the suggestor by letter that his suggestion had not been recommended and on February 17, 1999, the suggestor appealed the decision. In light of the appeal, on February 23, 1999 the staff support person requested the department head complete a reevaluation of the suggestion no later than March 23, 1999. More than 12 months had passed without a response from the department head. The program staff support person sent a follow-up request on March 1, 2000. A response from the department was received on March 22, 2000 and the suggestor was notified on April 7, 2000 that the appeal was denied.
F10
A suggestion was received on February 3, 1999. The suggestor was notified of receipt of the suggestion on February 9 and the evaluation by the department head was requested on the same date. The department head responded with a negative
F11
A suggestion was received on June 28, 1999. The suggestor was notified of receipt of the suggestion on June 28 and the evaluation by the department head was requested on the same date. Nine months later the department head still has not responded, in violation of the written procedures.
F12
A suggestion was received September 23, 1999. The suggestor was notified of receipt of the suggestion on September 27, and the evaluation by the department head was requested on the same date. Six months later the department head still has not responded, in violation of the written procedures. In addition to the above examples, it was reported that many old files lack sufficient documentation to accurately determine the final disposition. Some files dating back to 1994 have never been closed out. In the past, some requests to department heads for evaluations were never answered and any follow-up by support staff was sporadic, if at all.

Recommendations 5