Appearance of Conflict of Interest*

- NVBH and Ortner are clearly linked in both business and professional matters. The Board of Supervisors disagrees in part with this finding with clarification. Ortner Management Group (OMG) is the Administrative Services Organization (ASO) for Mendocino County for Mental Health Services. North Valley Behavioral Health Services (NVBH) is a subcontractor of OMG.

- As administrator of NVBH-Fairfield, the BHRS Director had a business and financial Relationship with Ortner through NVBH-Fairfield immediately prior to coming to work for the County. The Board of Supervisors disagrees in part with this finding with clarification. The Behavioral Health and Recovery Services Director worked for OMG between 2008 and 2010. In September 2010, he was hired by Mendocino County as a consultant for Mental Health Services on an independent contractor basis. He was hired as the BHRS Director on April 16, 2012.

- The Grand Jury perceived a possible conflict of interest in the selection of Ortner for the privatization contract for adult mental health services. The Board of Supervisors disagrees wholly with this finding. The Grand Jury's "perception" is not a finding. If this finding was meant to assert that there was a conflict of interest in the selection of OMG to provide mental health services for the County, the Board of Supervisors wholly disagrees. There has been no evidence brought forward that establishes that there was any conflict of interest by anyone involved in awarding the contract to OMG

- There was a lack of transparency to the public regarding the timelines and the changing work relationships between the consultants and the management of H&HS. The Board of Supervisors disagrees wholly with this finding. To begin with, it is unclear what the Grand Jury means "regarding the timelines and the changing work relationships between the consultants and the management of H&HS". However, whether the comment refers to the employment history of the current BHRS Director, his relationship with H&HSA management, or the process for obtaining and awarding proposals for mental health services, in every instance, contracts were awarded and relationships established based on an open process available for anybody to review. RESPONSE TO GRAND JURY REPORT TITLED: PRIVITIZATION OF MENTAL HEALTH DELIVERY SERVICES

- There was a lack of transparency to the public as to the legal relationship and responsibilities of the concerned parties during the changing work relationships. The Board of Supervisors disagrees wholly with this finding. It is unclear what the Grand Jury means "as to the legal relationship and responsibilities of the concerned parties during the changing work relationships." However, whether the comment refers to the relationships and responsibilities of the current BHRS Director, H&HSA management, or the contractor for adult mental health services, the specific duties and responsibilities are a matter of public record with substantial information available online, including the contract for Adult Mental Health Services.

- Given the response published by the County in the Request for Proposal Addendum No. 1, the Grand Jury finds the County guidelines are insufficient to address perceptions of undue influence. The Board of Supervisors disagrees wholly with this finding. Addendum No. 1, referenced above, simply requires County employees to disclose their names if they were part of an organization/group bidding on the contract in question. The guidelines are clear that County employees must fully disclose their employment with the County when bidding on a public contract.

- It is not entirely clear to the Grand Jury whether or not there was undue influence in the selection process. The Board of Supervisors wholly disagrees with this finding. To begin with, the lack of clarity on the part of the Grand Jury is not a finding. In addition, the Board of Supervisors believes there was no undue influence in the process for awarding the Mental Health contract in question. The County took all reasonable measures to ensure the selection process was transparent and void of undue influences. The Grand Jury has provided no documentation to the contrary.