📋

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.

Alameda County Grand Jury • 2009-2010

Alameda County Superior Court, Rene C. Davidson Courthouse, Oakland, California Photo Courtesy of Seth Gaines,

Published: July 06, 2010 20 pages

View PDF View Full Original

⚠️ 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.

Recommendations 20

10-1
Page 1

The Peralta Community College District Board of Trustees must review, update, follow and enforce all existing policies regarding food, travel and professional development.
10-2
Page 1

The Peralta Community College District Board of Trustees must approve salary raises and contracts before they are awarded.
10-3
Page 1

The Peralta Community College District Board of Trustees must take a more active role in supervising the chancellor, including conducting a monthly review in open session of the chancellor’s expenses.
10-4
Page 1

The Peralta Community College District Board of Trustees must severely restrict and require written justification of all food purchases and meals by stating who attended, why and the results of the business conducted. Information regarding these purchases must be disclosed to the public.
10-5
Page 1

The Peralta Community College District Board of Trustees must instruct the chancellor not to issue credit cards to the chancellor or members of the board of trustees.
10-6
Page 1

The Peralta Community College District Board of Trustees must justify and restrict travel by the board and the chancellor.
10-7
Page 1

The Peralta Community College District Board of Trustees must require that all out-of-district travel by board members and the chancellor be approved in advance at a board meeting and heard as an individual action item, not as part of the agenda’s consent calendar.
10-8
Page 1

The Peralta Community College District Board of Trustees must require that once travel is completed, individual board members and the chancellor submit written reports describing the total cost of the trip and the benefit to the district.
10-9
Page 1

The Peralta Community College District Board of Trustees must provide an on-site shared office space available to trustees and eliminate home offices and all cell phone stipends.
10-10
Page 1

The Peralta Community College District Board of Trustees must review the financial statements of the district during open session at a regular meeting of the board of trustees on a monthly basis.
10-11
Page 1

The Peralta Community College District Board of Trustees must fill the position of internal district auditor.
10-12
Page 1

In negotiating the employment contract with all future chancellors, the Peralta Community College District Board of Trustees must abandon the use of incentives and special accounts. Instead, choose a single salary number that represents total compensation.
10-13
Page 1

The Peralta Community College District Board of Trustees must schedule a meeting every year with the outside auditors to discuss their
10-14
Page 1

The Peralta Community College District Board of Trustees must require that the chancellor and senior managers implement recommendations made by outside auditors to ensure a budget can be developed as required.
10-15
Page 1

The Peralta Community College District Board of Trustees must require out- of-state travel by all district employees to be approved in advance by the board and heard as individual action items at a board meeting and not as part of the agenda’s consent calendar.
10-16
Page 1

The Peralta Community College District Board of Trustees must establish penalties and an enforcement procedure for violation of policies by trustees and the chancellor.
10-17
Page 44

The Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum Authority Board of Commissioners must hire a full-time executive director whose duties include: short-term and long-term planning for development of the property should any or all of the tenants leave; and, monitoring and monthly reporting to the board of commissioners of the performance of contractors.
10-18
Page 44

The Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum Authority Board of Commissioners must develop short and long term plans for the best use of the coliseum property.
10-19
Page 44

The Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum Authority Board of Commissioners must maintain and expand their website to include current board meeting minutes and agendas, detailed information about the complex, and the overall annual debt.
10-20
Page 44

The Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum Authority Board of Commissioners must schedule and hold monthly meetings at the same time, day of the week, and location each month.

Conclusions 2

CL1

The board of trustees needs to take full, immediate responsibility for the behavior of itself as well as the chancellor and the employees of the district under the chancellor's supervision. The board of trustees has three main responsibilities: hire and evaluate a chancellor; make policy; and financial oversight. An ineffective and permissive relationship exists between the board and the chancellor. Although the board supervises the chancellor, the chancellor appears to have some influence over the board. There should be a clear line of accountability between the board and the chancellor. The board has exercised little oversight of the chancellor and failed to hold him accountable for questionable spending of district funds while traveling. For example, the chancellor traveled to the Presidential Inauguration in Washington, D.C. While he claimed the principal purpose of the trip was to conduct lobbying business, the trip may be perceived as for his personal enjoyment and entertainment especially considering the chancellor spent $324.50 of district 2009-2010 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report funds for two tickets for one of the inaugural balls. Lobbying benefits to the district could have been achieved more efficiently and for a lower cost if done a few months before or after the festivities of the inauguration. Clearly, some board members have acted responsibly. However, the board appeared to only react after media exposure and a grand jury inquiry. While some board members barely traveled or used credit cards, others spent exorbitant amounts of district funds. The irresponsibility of some members makes the entire board appear fragmented. Their willingness to remain individually silent on multiple issues, such as the chancellor's performance, has led the board to questionable decision-making. The board as a whole has failed to provide the leadership for the district to which they were elected. The board failed to not only follow its own policies, but failed to implement policies that would allow for better control of the district. The use of credit cards and the automatic approval of paying credit card bills demonstrated fiscal irresponsibility, and the spending often was excessive or unverified as to the benefit it offered to the district. To prevent unjustified spending, policies must be directed at pre-approval, not post-approval. The board needs to learn to do more with less. This will require cutting back on travel, conferences, spending, dining, home offices and many other spending opportunities that the board, chancellor and senior management have enjoyed in recent years. The financial oversight by the board is weak and has even jeopardized the accreditation of the district. The board needs to know how to assess financial documents, and training for trustees should be made available to them. An outside consultant needed to be hired in early 2010 to assist the district in regaining control over its finances. The district must adopt more stringent internal controls. Home offices should not be provided to board members and credit cards should not be reissued. The board needs to establish communication with the chancellor and with the finance staff, 2009-2010 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report outside auditors, and consultants in a way that leads to a more efficient and thorough evaluation of the overall financial situation of the district. Transparency of all spending should be mandatory. At monthly meetings, the board must receive financial reports and advise the public of the district's financial status. The chancellor's contract must not include numerous stipends and financial extras that may cloud the total amount of the chancellor's compensation. Everything from the chancellor's contract to benefits given to board members needs to be disclosed. The public has a right to know how its tax dollars are being spent. 2009-2010 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report
CL2

The grand jury believes continued outreach of the Family Justice Center is important. Public outreach within the community could help victims in obtaining assistance before emergency intervention is required. We encourage the Family Justice Center to continue their outreach efforts and we commend Alameda County for its effort in establishing this truly groundbreaking facility. The Alameda County Family Justice Center is located at 470 27th Street in Oakland. Call (510) 267-8800 for more information. http://www.acfjc.org/ Recommendations: none 2009-2010 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report OAKLAND POLICE DEPARTMENT STAFFING Two years ago, the grand jury investigated the Oakland Police Department's ability to adequately police Oakland. The grand jury concluded that a 50% increase in the number of police officers was required to meet minimum modern- day standards for police staffing. The city of Oakland agreed with the grand jury's recommendation but said it lacked sufficient resources to recruit, hire, train and equip the 400 additional officers. This year the grand jury re-examined the police department's ability to deliver minimum police services for Oakland and found the problem has, indeed, worsened. Staffing levels for detectives responsible for investigating crimes have substantially diminished. Investigators have been reassigned to patrol duty, and at present, there are only two detectives assigned to investigate all residential burglaries in Oakland, a city of 400,000 population. In one area, the Oakland Police Department reports a backlog of over 2,400 domestic violence cases and investigators of all other serious crimes are also equally overwhelmed. Modern policing standards call for a patrol officer to spend approximately 30% of each shift performing community-based services: walking business streets on their beat, meeting with neighbors concerned about criminal activity on their block, or contacting parolees and probationers. Because there are currently an insufficient number of officers to patrol Oakland, these essential duties cannot be adequately performed. Instead, officers are only able to spend their shifts answering emergency 9-1-1 calls for assistance and taking reports of crimes that have already taken place, being reactive rather than proactive. The grand jury also heard disturbing anecdotes, for example, a citizen called the police to report his home had been burglarized only to call back 15 hours later to cancel the call because no officer had arrived to take the report. Due to the inadequate number 2009-2010 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report of officers, the focus of the Oakland Police Department is now on responding to crime rather than crime prevention. The shortage of officers also negatively impacts the police department's ability to respond to the most serious emergencies. Current response times to 9-1-1 calls for emergency police assistance are fifteen minutes. National standards call for a response time in four minutes. In spite of the recent drop in overall levels of crime, Oakland remains a very high-crime city. The grand jury believes this situation is unlikely to change as long as the police department suffers from its current substantial understaffing. While the grand jury understands that Oakland is experiencing a profound financial crisis, we remain concerned that Oakland officials do not place a high enough priority on public safety. Government's first priority should be providing basic levels of safety for its citizens. In the matter of public safety, the grand jury believes that public officials have a duty to speak with one voice. Here, Oakland fails dramatically. If Oakland's only alternative to increase police staffing to meet minimum levels is to increase taxes, Oakland's mayor, city council, and other elected officials must summon the political courage to lead a unified campaign to raise the necessary funds. Safe streets are key to improving Oakland's economic and civic development. Recommendations: none