Riverside County Grand Jury
2017-2018
From the annual report
The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.
📑 Year-End Report
The full consolidated volume; individual reports are listed below.
Individual reports (20)
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
The citizens of Riverside County who reside in Blythe and/or near the surrounding areas of the Colorado River, as well as tourists traveling on US Interstate Highway 10 and State Highway 78, have only limited availability for medical care. PVH is the only hospital within an average radius of 100 miles from other medical facilities. Currently, emergency ambulance services and helicopters, which operate at an extremely high cost, often transfer those in need of emergency care to distant emergency service providers rather than to nearby PVH.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
PVH, which is geographically remote from any other acute care facility shall be utilized to the extent possible in the stabilization of patients prior to transferring to other medical facilities.
F2:
PVH has historically experienced extreme staffing shortages and a lack of physician coverage, including mental health. Such shortages contribute to financial hardships resulting in unrealistic progress performance and stabilization for the hospital.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
PVH shall have trauma, surgery and emergency service teams available for 24-hour coverage. It is recommended that the Riverside County Board of Supervisors (BOS) and Riverside University Health System (RUHS) assist in the establishment of these services.
F3:
The Palo Verde Hospital District has many operational problems in servicing the Palo Verde Valley region. These problems include, but are not limited to: a) lack of sufficient number of professional medical staff, b) lack of provisions for mammogram testing, and c) unavailability of intensive and constant care units.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The BOS, Palo Verde Hospital, and Palo Verde Healthcare District shall work with RUHS authorities for the purpose of improving the 2 Palo Verde Healthcare District operations to provide necessary and acceptable community standards of care by re-establishing its link and partnership with RUHS. Report Issued: 06/25/2018 Report Public: 06/27/2018 Response Due:09/27/2018 3
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
The citizens of Riverside County who reside in Blythe and/or near the surrounding areas of the Colorado River, as well as tourists traveling on US Interstate Highway 10 and State Highway 78, have only limited availability for medical care. PVH is the only hospital within an average radius of 100 miles from other medical facilities. Currently, emergency ambulance services and helicopters, which operate at an extremely high cost, often transfer those in need of emergency care to distant emergency service providers rather than to nearby PVH.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
PVH, which is geographically remote from any other acute care facility shall be utilized to the extent possible in the stabilization of patients prior to transferring to other medical facilities.
F2:
PVH has historically experienced extreme staffing shortages and a lack of physician coverage, including mental health. Such shortages contribute to financial hardships resulting in unrealistic progress performance and stabilization for the hospital.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
PVH shall have trauma, surgery and emergency service teams available for 24-hour coverage. It is recommended that the Riverside County Board of Supervisors (BOS) and Riverside University Health System (RUHS) assist in the establishment of these services.
F3:
The Palo Verde Hospital District has many operational problems in servicing the Palo Verde Valley region. These problems include, but are not limited to: a) lack of sufficient number of professional medical staff, b) lack of provisions for mammogram testing, and c) unavailability of intensive and constant care units.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The BOS, Palo Verde Hospital, and Palo Verde Healthcare District shall work with RUHS authorities for the purpose of improving the 2 Palo Verde Healthcare District operations to provide necessary and acceptable community standards of care by re-establishing its link and partnership with RUHS. Report Issued: 06/25/2018 Report Public: 06/27/2018 Response Due:09/27/2018 3
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
11 findings
F1:
The Initial Medical History/Suicide Assessment form lacks pertinent medical questions for clinical staff to determine medical concerns of the inmate/detainee screened for booking. The title of the form indicates that a medical history will be assessed. However, the form only addresses five medical issues: exposure to a contagious disease, current drug use and type, any withdrawal symptoms, suicidal ideations and if the inmate/detainee is transgender. There are no other comprehensive medical questions on the form pertaining to the health of the individual that identify any concerns clinical staff should be aware of during the inmate’s stay. The form contains a “Statement of Consent to Medical Treatment” which states: I (do) (do not) authorize the attending physician and medical staff to provide such services and treatments as deemed reasonable and necessary for my health and well-being while in the custody of the Sheriff. This form includes a place for the inmate/detainee’s signature with date and a place for a witness signature with date. There is a place for the inmate/detainee to print their name. There is no place for a witness to print their name. In several of these forms where the inmate/detainee refused to sign, the witness signature line contained a staff identification number, not a signature, meaning that the form was not completely filled out as designated. Because staff are not properly completing the form, it makes it difficult to determine who authenticated the form. On one form utilized by the Desert Regional Medical Center titled Leaving Hospital Against Medical Advice, it was noted that an inmate signed a refusal of medical treatment. There is no subsequent refusal form signed by the inmate at the jail that the Riverside County Grand Jury (Grand Jury) could locate. Per California Title 15, §3351 – Inmate Refusal of Treatment, the Inmate Refusal of Treatment form must be signed for each subsequent clinical treatment, or appointment, whether at a detention facility or at an outside hospital. Refusal of treatment forms are not universally transferable from one area to another. There is no statement on the form to inform the inmate/detainee that lifesaving measures will be performed to preserve life. Clinical staff has a mandate to intervene in performing lifesaving measures. There is no place for the inmate/detainee to print and sign their name acknowledging that they understand this information. The Medical Department does have a policy for refusal of treatment and the inmate is required to sign each time, but it is not reflected on this form. Supplemental Intake Questionnaire
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
a. The Initial Medical History/Suicide Assessment form should contain additional medical questions and information to assist both medical and psychiatric staff in understanding the inmates/detainee’s complete medical history. b. The title of the form should be renamed to better reflect the limited information it contains, if additional medical information is not requested on the form. c. A statement should be included informing the inmate that although they have a right to refuse medical treatment, lifesaving measures will be taken. d. There should also be a statement included which informs the inmate/detainee that subsequent refusals of clinical treatments will also require their signature each time. There should be a place for the inmate/detainee to sign and print their name acknowledging that they understand what they are signing. e. There should be a signature and printed name line of staff along with a place for their ID number and rank/title to clearly identify who witnessed the signing of this form. Supplemental Intake Questionnaire
F2:
The current Supplemental Intake Questionnaire form states: Swallowing or concealing any type of drug or substance inside your body poses a serious risk of harm and could lead to sudden death. We are concerned with your health and safety and want to provide you necessary medical attention if you are concealing any drug or substance inside your body. Are you concealing any drugs or other substances inside your body? 3 There is no acknowledgment section that the inmate/detainee read the statement and/or acknowledged that they understood. The form does not contain a statement informing the inmate/detainee that the Sheriff will, with medical intervention, take X-rays or perform a body cavity search if an inmate/detainee is suspected of smuggling a controlled substance or other contraband into the facility. The Sheriff must take all precautions to maintain safety and security of its facilities. There is no provision for a witness signature and printed name if the inmate refuses to sign the form. After reviewing several Intake Questionnaire forms, the inmate/detainee’s printed name with booking number was left blank. If this form was lost or detached from the booking file, it would be difficult to match the form with the correct inmate/detainee. DNA Tracking Worksheet
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
a. The form should be revised to include a statement informing the inmate that the Sheriff will take whatever precautions are necessary to preserve the safety and security of the facility. It should also include a place for the inmate/detainee to print and sign their name acknowledging they understand. b. The form should be revised to include a provision for the witness to print and sign their name with ID number if the inmate/detainee refused to sign the form. 7 c. The inmate/detainee’s printed name should be placed on the form, regardless, to correlate the inmate to the form being completed. DNA Tracking WorkSheet
F3:
The DNA Tracking Worksheet provides for the tracking of DNA samples in compliance with California Penal Code §296.1(a)(2) and (3) and Riverside County Sheriff’s Policy 504.06 DNA Samples. Several DNA Tracking Worksheets in the booking packet were reviewed, but the form was left blank in all four sections except for the inmate/detainee’s name and booking number. Medical Attention/Observation
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The DNA Tracking Worksheet should be completed as required in the booking packet. If sections of the Tracking Worksheet Sheet do not apply, then Not Applicable (N/A) should be clearly annotated in those sections indicating all sections were reviewed. Medical Attention/Observation
F4:
When an inmate/detainee is placed into a sobering cell for observation, the custody staff is required by Policy 502.10 – Security Logs/Checks, to conduct security checks at least once every thirty minutes. This was verified. However, there was no documentation obtained, from the Riverside County Correctional Health Care Administration, requiring clinical staff to make similar thirty minute checks for clinical observations. One report indicated that an inmate/detainee was placed in a sobering cell at 0740 hours (7:40 a.m.) but was not observed by clinical staff until 1200 hours (12:00 p.m.), which was more than four hours later. There was no recorded entry in the computer of any clinical observation of the inmate/detainee during this time period, found in the documents, reviewed by the Grand Jury. If clinical observations were conducted, it was not recorded in any documents provided to the Grand Jury. If the inmate was in distress during this time, custody staff may have missed pertinent medical symptoms. Custody staff is not typically medically trained to recognize less- obvious medical or critical symptoms such as an escalating fever or dehydration, which a clinician could more easily identify. There is no clinical protocol/policy provision the Grand Jury could find, nor any notation in submitted reports, requiring medical or psychiatric clinical staff to conduct routine rounds in holding/sobering cells, consistent or similar to custody staff mandates. Critical Incident Logs
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
a. Inmate/detainees booked into detention facilities, who exhibit conditions/symptoms requiring placement into a sobering or safety cell, should receive periodic observation by both custody and medical staff. These rounds should continue every thirty minutes until it is determined that clinical monitoring is no longer necessary. This dual process would enhance timely clinical intervention for the care and treatment of inmates/detainees. b. Video cameras should be installed in all sobering/safety cells. This would provide constant observation between the physical observation rounds at 30-minute intervals and would greatly enhance the monitoring process and assist clinical and custody staff for quicker response intervention. c. Funding should be provided to purchase video monitoring equipment for sobering/holding cells. Critical Incident Logs
F5:
Critical Incident Logs are designed to give a synopsis of critical information concerning issues with crime scenes, critical incidents, search and rescue missions, Special Emergency Response Team (SERT) incidents, and critical aid operations as described on the form. The current Critical Incident Logs do not contain this pertinent information and are not completed accurately as required. Personnel listed on the logs require their printed name (last, first) and rank, as well as other pertinent information. The rank of clinical staff is not properly annotated. Medical staff use a generic “medical staff” designation which is not in compliance with the form. Proper clinical rank or position such as LVN, RN, or MD must be properly annotated as required on the form, the same as required by custodial staff such as Sergeant (Sgt.) or Corporal (Cpl.). The form is not descriptive enough to give a true picture describing what the actual critical incident pertained to and the circumstances. The form only lists categories for staff, rank, ID, time in/out, name, and not the synopsis of the incident. In the incident section, it listed “non-responsive”; in another report in the incident section, it lists “10- 44”. This does not reflect why this incident required special response. Outside Hospitals “OK to Book”/Exclusion of Normal Medical Screenings
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The name of the incident should clearly define, and fully describe, specifically what the incident or situation was to obtain a full picture of what transpired. Clinical and custody staff should properly complete the Critical Incident Logs as designated on the form with their actual rank or title. Outside Hospitals “OK to Book”/Exclusion of Normal Medical Screenings
F6:
The standard booking protocol requires a non-correctional hospital to clear an inmate/detainee for formal booking at a detention facility if there is a medical concern, mental health concern, or injury at the time of arrest before the inmate/detainee will be accepted at a detention facility. However, in reviewing documents provided to the Grand Jury from medical and custody staff pertaining to the “OK to Book” clearance from a non-correctional hospital, there were no additional documents indicating that a more thorough comprehensive clinical screening was conducted. The non-correctional hospital may only focus on the immediate health issues to determine if the inmate/detainee is “OK” to be processed and accepted into the detention facility. If the detention clinical staff do not conduct a thorough medical screening in addition to the “OK to Book” clearance, the facility may not be aware of any 5 undiagnosed medical or mental health conditions or diseases until a later date. Sobering Cell Logs
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
a. All detention facilities, regardless of whether the inmate was first screened at a non-correctional hospital for “OK to Book”, should conduct a full medical and mental health screening and evaluation of inmates/detainees at the time of booking. This will ensure the facility is fully aware of any medical or mental health issues. b. The booking form should note that a full medical and mental health screening was conducted and is recorded in the inmates/detainee’s medical file in accordance with HIPAA. Sobering Cell Logs
F7:
A review of several Sobering Cell Logs revealed they were not properly completed according to protocol codes listed on the form. Some of the notations were not legible. The only annotation listed was C-4, commonly known as “Code 4”, meaning that everything is OK. However, this code is not one of the authorized codes listed on the form. Physician or Other Clinical Staff on Call
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
Sobering Cell Logs should be written legibly and clearly, and if a C- 4 code is to be an acceptable code, then it should be included as an option on the form. Physician or Other Clinical Staff on Call
F8:
There is no process in place to identify the medical personnel or the physician on call for each shift in an easily accessible database. The Medical Director informed the Grand Jury that payroll would have to be contacted to ascertain this information. Critical Incident Reports Completed by Custody and Clinical Staff
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
There should be an easily accessible historical database in all duty stations to identify all clinical staff on duty who were on-call for a particular shift or who were physically working a particular shift on a particular date. Critical Incident Reports Completed by Custody and Clinical Staff
F9:
All reports start out as “I” as the person “writing” the report. There is no way to identify the person actually writing, or authoring, the report because there is no signature line, printed name line, or employee ID number line to connect the report to the author. The word “I” does not identify who actually wrote the report. There is no indication a supervisor reviews any reports ensuring all information and issues of the incident are thoroughly addressed. There is no place for a supervisor to print and sign their name, affix their ID number and rank, or identify who reviewed the report. Reports Not Properly Screened for Content Continuity
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
All reports should have a signature line, printed name line, staff ID number line and rank line to properly identify and authenticate who authored the report. There should be a similar signature line, printed name line, staff ID number line and rank line to authenticate the supervisor reviewing the report. Reports Not Properly Screened for Content Continuity
F10:
In a Critical Incident Report reviewed, custody and clinical staff observed a plastic bag secured to an inmate/detainee and the clinician removed the bag. However, there was no further mention of the bag, the disposition of the bag in the original report, or any subsequent or supplemental reports. Continuity of information and “chain of custody” evidence, if it was deemed evidence, was lost in subsequent documentation. Supervisory review would have caught this discrepancy and had it addressed in a supplemental report. Automated External Defibrillators (AED)
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
All information in reports should clearly and thoroughly address all issues described in the report. All reports should be reviewed by a supervisor for accuracy and completeness. The supervisor’s printed name, signature, rank and date should be annotated on the report. When clarification or additional information is required after further review, a supplemental report should be prepared. All supplemental reports shall have the same original report linking them all together for reference. Automated External Defibrillators (AED)
F11:
In reviewing reports from the nursing staff, one report indicated that the AED was available and the AED electric pads were placed on the inmate to deliver a shock. However, the AED did not deliver a shock. There was no documentation clarifying whether the AED 6 malfunctioned or if the AED indicated a shock was not warranted and therefore did not deliver the shock. When reading the reports, it is not clear whether the AED was malfunctioning or if it was a proper reading by the machine.
Related Recommendations (1)
R11:
All reports regarding the use of an AED should clearly and accurately state the reason why an AED did not deliver a shock. Report Issued: 06/21/2018 Report Public: 06/25/2018 Response Due: 09/25/2018 9
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
Riverside County Fire Station #43, located in Blythe, is unable to sufficiently support the vehicles and equipment assigned there. The 2014-2015 Grand Jury recommended the replacement of Station #43 or relocating it to a site closer to the Colorado River. The station is not large enough to accommodate all vehicles and equipment, and is therefore, inadequate. In the 2016 commissioned independent study by TriData of RCFD resources, several recommendations were made including the closure of Station #43 and consolidating its personnel with Station #45. The study noted that few emergency responses were required of Battalion 8 during the study period, and that few were structure fires or major emergencies. The 2017-2018 Grand Jury visited three stations in Battalion 8 and observed the fire engine assigned to Station #43 was parked in the driveway and the rescue vehicle was on the street. This exposes the vehicles to extreme weather, tampering, and vandalism. The sun and heat causes deterioration of the paint, decals and rubber seals on the engine and pumps. Fine dust infiltrates essential electrical parts. This exposure of RCFD vehicles to the elements and to passersby on the street, including children and vagrants, is a serious problem especially when considering that a life-saving medical supply kit is onboard Engine #43, as it is on all County fire engines. The Grand Jury queried personnel of various ranks and failed to obtain a consistent answer to the question of whether the medical kits were even securely locked while onboard the vehicles.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Board of Supervisors (BOS), along with the RCFD, should review the prior recommendations from the 2014-2015 Grand Jury report and the independent 2016 TriData, LLC, Final Report concerning the utility of Station #43, and take appropriate actions. RCFD should relocate Station #43, or close it, and consider consolidating operations with Station #45.
F2:
The city of Blythe maintains an historic fire department which responds to calls within the city. The Fire Chief, or his designee, assembles a team and provides guidance when a call for emergency service is received. After the volunteers arrive at the station, a 3 firefighting team – which typically consists of a Captain, an Engineer, and a Firefighter – is dispatched to the emergency. Public reports from the Blythe Fire Department for the period of October 2017 through April 2018 indicate that the Department received 221 calls for service. More than half of those calls were not fire-related, but for public assistance, rescues, or medical aid. The Blythe Fire Department is staffed with volunteers who are trained Emergency Medical Technicians (EMTs) who can only provide Basic Life Support (BLS) assistance. They are not certified paramedics and cannot provide Advance Life Support (ALS) measures, if needed. In the event ALS measures are required, EMTs must wait for the arrival of an ambulance which is staffed with a certified paramedic. Blythe pays an annual salary to the Fire Chief and the Deputy Chief. The volunteer firemen receive a flat payment for each incident response and an additional payment when response to an incident exceeds one hour. While this may appear to be a cost saving in relation to a fully-staffed, 24-hour RCFD contract team, Blythe is spending approximately $440,000 annually for volunteer personnel and the costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of fire vehicles. Public records indicate that at least $220,000 was paid to volunteers in 2016. The Blythe Fire Department has old equipment which is subject to reliability issues. There is a newer model engine (2015), but the other two fire engines are more than 15 years old, an age when most fire companies reduce front-line use of engines and move them to back- up use. At fifteen years of age, engine reliability is questionable and servicing issues can be expensive. The historic vehicles include a 1923 fire engine and a 1975 truck.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The city of Blythe review the quality of service which they can provide with a volunteer service in light of the large number of medical assist calls within the city limits. Review the level of fire/emergency services if the County were to deactivate or move Station #43.
F3:
RCFD Station #43 is located less than one-quarter of a mile from the Blythe Fire Department. Station #43 is staffed with a full complement of firefighting professionals, including certified paramedics. Since there is no formal agreement between the RCFD and Blythe, except for the standard mutual aid agreement that exists between all local jurisdictions, Station #43 does not respond to emergency calls within the city limits. The Grand Jury concluded that available and certified paramedics and other first responders are not being utilized to the benefit of the residents of the Palo Verde Valley or the city of Blythe. 4
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The city of Blythe form a partnership with the County of Riverside to develop a comprehensive fire and medical assistance protection plan that would better utilize existing resources and best serve the residents of the Palo Verde Valley including the city of Blythe. Report Issued: 06/14/2018 Report Public: 06/18/2018 Report Response: 09/18/2018 5
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
Fleet Services is not serving as the single control point for the inventory of all vehicles owned by the County and Special Districts within the County, as required by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors (BOS) Policy D-2, Section 4, which states in part: While elected and appointed department heads have the primary responsibility for the monitoring, oversight, and enforcement of this policy within their 2 respective departments, the County of Riverside Fleet Services Director will be responsible for establishing an effective fleet management program including, but not limited to: Policies and procedures that will ensure Fleet Services is the single point of control for all vehicles owned or leased by the County and its departments, agencies or special districts regardless of funding source. Fleet Services was unable to provide a complete inventory of County-owned vehicles because all departments are not integrating their inventory systems into Fleet Services. Some departments, such as the Riverside County Fire Department (County Fire) and the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Flood Control), maintain separate inventory tracking systems. Fleet Services, however, is unable to provide an accurate report of the total number of vehicles owned by the County.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Fleet Services should establish an effective Countywide fleet management program by reviewing and revising its policies and procedures for compliance with BOS Policy D-2. This should ensure that the inventory control of all County-owned vehicles is centralized under one system. A centralized inventory system will enable the County to effectively track vehicle management, inventory and disposal, which could ultimately result in a substantial savings to the taxpayer.
F2:
In October 2015, the County contracted KPMG, LLP, a professional consulting firm, to conduct an assessment of the financial accountability of County departments. In July 2017, the County amended the contract (Amendment No. 4) to specifically include a $2.1 million study for the optimization of the County’s procurement processes, management of fleet services, and the maintenance of County facilities. One goal of the study was to analyze the “right-size” of the County fleet and recommend the disposal of older, underutilized vehicles. The total amount of money allocated to this effort was $300,000. KPMG issued a report to the BOS identifying 748 County-owned, light-duty vehicles (autos and small trucks) that were seven years old or older and potentially underutilized, i.e., driven less than 6,000 miles annually. In January 2018, KPMG issued an updated report which stated that the County had reduced the number of potentially underutilized vehicles by 293. This brought the total count of fleet vehicles to 4,027, a 7% overall reduction. However, in April 2018, the newly-hired Assistant Director of Fleet Services reported to the Grand Jury that there were 4,378 vehicles in the County fleet. That is 351 more than previously reported by KPMG. There are significant discrepancies between the count of vehicles recorded in the Fleet Services inventory and the KPMG report. The narrow criteria for classification of vehicles as “underutilized” do not seem to recognize that there may be objective reasons for low use of certain vehicles, such as an isolated posting or limited perimeter of service.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Fleet Services should evaluate the capability of the inventory control system. They should conduct a physical count of all County-owned vehicles in their inventory. Fleet Services should discontinue the acquisition and retirement of vehicles until the physical count is completed. The BOS should discontinue the practice of contracting consulting firms and expending public funds for services that can be obtained internally.
F3:
The Grand Jury discovered several departments which provide their own servicing of heavy-duty and specialty vehicles, and also provide service and maintenance of light-duty vehicles (cars, small-trucks and vans). This is not in compliance with BOS Policy D-2, which states in part: …Fleet Services provides all service repairs, maintenance and warranty tracking in order to provide centralized vehicle services records and improved monitoring of repair and maintenance costs.** ** Heavy trucks and fire engines are excluded from this requirement. Each of these departments, over time, have assumed the responsibility for servicing and maintaining their light-duty vehicles – a responsibility that County policy delegates to Fleet Services. This variance from Policy has developed due to matters of history, costs, proximity of local servicing facilities, and priority of urgent turnaround. Although primary focus of these departments is servicing the needs of the department’s heavy trucks or specialty vehicles, some use these facilities for servicing their light-duty vehicles as well. County Fire has over 800 vehicles, of which 214 are identified as light-duty. The light-duty vehicles are serviced in the County Fire vehicle maintenance shops or through local car dealers. Flood Control has 220 vehicles, of which 115 are light-duty and are maintained in their own shop. The Riverside County Waste Resources Department (Waste Resources) has 126 vehicles of which 102 are identified as light-duty and are maintained in the Waste Resources shop. The County Transportation Department has a total of 435 vehicles, however, consistent with BOS Policy, of these 129 light-duty vehicles are serviced by Fleet Services.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Review and revise Policy D-2 as it relates to the centralization of Fleet Services maintenance responsibilities. Clearly define which vehicles qualify for exception to the Policy. Evaluate the value of continued local servicing in the named departments. Fleet Services needs a clear understanding of how many and which type of vehicles it will be servicing so that they can appropriately structure their facility and staffing needs for these vehicles.
F4:
County Policy mandates preparation of specific, routine reports to identify areas where the count and costs of underutilized vehicles can be reduced. These reports are not being generated as required. BOS Policy D-2 states: Fleet Services has the ability to compile reports about vehicle utilization. These reports can be useful tools for 4 managing the use and purchase of county vehicles. Fleet Services should provide the following reports on a periodic basis: A. Monthly Vehicle Utilization Report Fleet Services shall prepare a Vehicle Utilization Report on a monthly basis. The report should be distributed to all departments that utilized vehicles during the previous month and should include statistics about mileage, fuel, and the overall utilization of vehicles. The report will also clearly identify vehicles that are being underutilized and those that Fleet Services recommends the department retire. Departments must take steps to correct the underutilization of vehicles and address the recommendation to retire a vehicle(s) within 60 days of the report. Fleet Services will evaluate special circumstances on a case-by-case basis and determine if the department is exempt from taking corrective action. These exemptions will be clearly documented and available for review upon request. As a part of the annual budget process, Fleet Services will also prepare an annual Vehicle Utilization Report to distribute to analysts within the Executive Office. This report will be a valuable resource during the review of the department budget proposals and fixed asset requests. B. Quarterly Vehicle Retirement Report Fleet Services shall prepare a Vehicle Retirement Report on a quarterly basis. The report shall include a list of vehicles that Fleet Services has recommended departments retire and a list of vehicles that were retired during the quarter. A summary of this report will be submitted to the Board of Supervisors as part of the quarterly budget report. C. Annual Fuel Efficiency Standards Report Fleet Services will prepare a written status report to the Board of Supervisors annually including
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The BOS and the Executive Office hold Fleet Services accountable to ensure that vehicle utilization, retirement, and fuel efficiency reports are generated and distributed on-time as mandated in BOS Policy D-2.
F5:
The Blythe garage is a full-service maintenance facility that is staffed with only one person – a mechanic. In addition to his responsibilities as a mechanic, he also serves as the auto parts delivery person and office administrator. The mechanic is responsible for the maintenance and care of 61 County vehicles. During those times when the mechanic is not on duty, a supervisor and a mechanic from the Indio garage travel to Blythe and perform those maintenance functions. An automotive mechanic encounters a variety of potential safety hazards in the course of their job and may, at any time, need immediate assistance from another person to prevent serious injury. Assigning a mechanic to work alone in a garage places the employee at an unnecessary safety risk and increases financial liability to the County.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Due to safety risks, no mechanic should work in a Fleet Services garage without at least one other person nearby to render immediate assistance, or call for help in the event of an emergency. As an alternative to placing a second employee at a one-person operation, Fleet Services should adopt an electronic safety monitoring and reporting system. Report Issued: 06/14/2018 Report Public: 06/18/2018 Response Due:09/18/2018 7
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
Fleet Services is not serving as the single control point for the inventory of all vehicles owned by the County and Special Districts within the County, as required by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors (BOS) Policy D-2, Section 4, which states in part: While elected and appointed department heads have the primary responsibility for the monitoring, oversight, and enforcement of this policy within their 2 respective departments, the County of Riverside Fleet Services Director will be responsible for establishing an effective fleet management program including, but not limited to: Policies and procedures that will ensure Fleet Services is the single point of control for all vehicles owned or leased by the County and its departments, agencies or special districts regardless of funding source. Fleet Services was unable to provide a complete inventory of County-owned vehicles because all departments are not integrating their inventory systems into Fleet Services. Some departments, such as the Riverside County Fire Department (County Fire) and the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Flood Control), maintain separate inventory tracking systems. Fleet Services, however, is unable to provide an accurate report of the total number of vehicles owned by the County.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Fleet Services should establish an effective Countywide fleet management program by reviewing and revising its policies and procedures for compliance with BOS Policy D-2. This should ensure that the inventory control of all County-owned vehicles is centralized under one system. A centralized inventory system will enable the County to effectively track vehicle management, inventory and disposal, which could ultimately result in a substantial savings to the taxpayer.
F2:
In October 2015, the County contracted KPMG, LLP, a professional consulting firm, to conduct an assessment of the financial accountability of County departments. In July 2017, the County amended the contract (Amendment No. 4) to specifically include a $2.1 million study for the optimization of the County’s procurement processes, management of fleet services, and the maintenance of County facilities. One goal of the study was to analyze the “right-size” of the County fleet and recommend the disposal of older, underutilized vehicles. The total amount of money allocated to this effort was $300,000. KPMG issued a report to the BOS identifying 748 County-owned, light-duty vehicles (autos and small trucks) that were seven years old or older and potentially underutilized, i.e., driven less than 6,000 miles annually. In January 2018, KPMG issued an updated report which stated that the County had reduced the number of potentially underutilized vehicles by 293. This brought the total count of fleet vehicles to 4,027, a 7% overall reduction. However, in April 2018, the newly-hired Assistant Director of Fleet Services reported to the Grand Jury that there were 4,378 vehicles in the County fleet. That is 351 more than previously reported by KPMG. There are significant discrepancies between the count of vehicles recorded in the Fleet Services inventory and the KPMG report. The narrow criteria for classification of vehicles as “underutilized” do not seem to recognize that there may be objective reasons for low use of certain vehicles, such as an isolated posting or limited perimeter of service.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Fleet Services should evaluate the capability of the inventory control system. They should conduct a physical count of all County-owned vehicles in their inventory. Fleet Services should discontinue the acquisition and retirement of vehicles until the physical count is completed. The BOS should discontinue the practice of contracting consulting firms and expending public funds for services that can be obtained internally.
F3:
The Grand Jury discovered several departments which provide their own servicing of heavy-duty and specialty vehicles, and also provide service and maintenance of light-duty vehicles (cars, small-trucks and vans). This is not in compliance with BOS Policy D-2, which states in part: …Fleet Services provides all service repairs, maintenance and warranty tracking in order to provide centralized vehicle services records and improved monitoring of repair and maintenance costs.** ** Heavy trucks and fire engines are excluded from this requirement. Each of these departments, over time, have assumed the responsibility for servicing and maintaining their light-duty vehicles – a responsibility that County policy delegates to Fleet Services. This variance from Policy has developed due to matters of history, costs, proximity of local servicing facilities, and priority of urgent turnaround. Although primary focus of these departments is servicing the needs of the department’s heavy trucks or specialty vehicles, some use these facilities for servicing their light-duty vehicles as well. County Fire has over 800 vehicles, of which 214 are identified as light-duty. The light-duty vehicles are serviced in the County Fire vehicle maintenance shops or through local car dealers. Flood Control has 220 vehicles, of which 115 are light-duty and are maintained in their own shop. The Riverside County Waste Resources Department (Waste Resources) has 126 vehicles of which 102 are identified as light-duty and are maintained in the Waste Resources shop. The County Transportation Department has a total of 435 vehicles, however, consistent with BOS Policy, of these 129 light-duty vehicles are serviced by Fleet Services.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Review and revise Policy D-2 as it relates to the centralization of Fleet Services maintenance responsibilities. Clearly define which vehicles qualify for exception to the Policy. Evaluate the value of continued local servicing in the named departments. Fleet Services needs a clear understanding of how many and which type of vehicles it will be servicing so that they can appropriately structure their facility and staffing needs for these vehicles.
F4:
County Policy mandates preparation of specific, routine reports to identify areas where the count and costs of underutilized vehicles can be reduced. These reports are not being generated as required. BOS Policy D-2 states: Fleet Services has the ability to compile reports about vehicle utilization. These reports can be useful tools for 4 managing the use and purchase of county vehicles. Fleet Services should provide the following reports on a periodic basis: A. Monthly Vehicle Utilization Report Fleet Services shall prepare a Vehicle Utilization Report on a monthly basis. The report should be distributed to all departments that utilized vehicles during the previous month and should include statistics about mileage, fuel, and the overall utilization of vehicles. The report will also clearly identify vehicles that are being underutilized and those that Fleet Services recommends the department retire. Departments must take steps to correct the underutilization of vehicles and address the recommendation to retire a vehicle(s) within 60 days of the report. Fleet Services will evaluate special circumstances on a case-by-case basis and determine if the department is exempt from taking corrective action. These exemptions will be clearly documented and available for review upon request. As a part of the annual budget process, Fleet Services will also prepare an annual Vehicle Utilization Report to distribute to analysts within the Executive Office. This report will be a valuable resource during the review of the department budget proposals and fixed asset requests. B. Quarterly Vehicle Retirement Report Fleet Services shall prepare a Vehicle Retirement Report on a quarterly basis. The report shall include a list of vehicles that Fleet Services has recommended departments retire and a list of vehicles that were retired during the quarter. A summary of this report will be submitted to the Board of Supervisors as part of the quarterly budget report. C. Annual Fuel Efficiency Standards Report Fleet Services will prepare a written status report to the Board of Supervisors annually including
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The BOS and the Executive Office hold Fleet Services accountable to ensure that vehicle utilization, retirement, and fuel efficiency reports are generated and distributed on-time as mandated in BOS Policy D-2.
F5:
The Blythe garage is a full-service maintenance facility that is staffed with only one person – a mechanic. In addition to his responsibilities as a mechanic, he also serves as the auto parts delivery person and office administrator. The mechanic is responsible for the maintenance and care of 61 County vehicles. During those times when the mechanic is not on duty, a supervisor and a mechanic from the Indio garage travel to Blythe and perform those maintenance functions. An automotive mechanic encounters a variety of potential safety hazards in the course of their job and may, at any time, need immediate assistance from another person to prevent serious injury. Assigning a mechanic to work alone in a garage places the employee at an unnecessary safety risk and increases financial liability to the County.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Due to safety risks, no mechanic should work in a Fleet Services garage without at least one other person nearby to render immediate assistance, or call for help in the event of an emergency. As an alternative to placing a second employee at a one-person operation, Fleet Services should adopt an electronic safety monitoring and reporting system. Report Issued: 06/14/2018 Report Public: 06/18/2018 Response Due:09/18/2018 7
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
1 findings
F1:
The Riverside County Coroner’s office has the authority under California Government Code §27490, et seq., to investigate specific deaths in-custody and/or within its jurisdiction. The Review is completed in-house with no independent or neutral County Coroner’s Office participation. However, toxicology testing is conducted by an independent private firm and is used to ensure an unbiased finding of toxicology results. Although the Riverside County Sheriff Coroner’s Department is staffed with well-qualified, trained and professional personnel, there is the perception of a conflict of interest by the public. No legal obligation currently exists requiring an autopsy be performed in an adjacent County whenever a person dies while in custody or in the presence of Law Enforcement. The Riverside Sheriff-Coroner’s office had an agreement with Orange County from 1999-2005 to perform independent, neutral, in-custody death autopsies. The contract expired in 2005 and was not renewed. San Bernardino County (SBC) has a current agreement with the RCSD to perform autopsies for SBC under similar circumstances. SBC acknowledges the benefit of public perception and trust, so in- custody death autopsies must be performed and reviewed by a neutral and un-involved party. This is reflected in the agreement signed by San Bernardino and Riverside counties. Thirteen years have elapsed and no new adjacent county autopsy agreement has been negotiated with the Riverside Coroner’s Office with acceptable terms. The following reasons as annotated in the Riverside Sheriff’s Department Memorandum – Coroner’s Bureau dated April 16, 2018 were given for allowing the agreement with Orange County to expire in 2005: 2 Lack of availability and/or delay of forensic pathologists from the adjacent county to perform an autopsy Lack of availability and/or delay of scheduling forensic pathologists from adjacent county for Coroner Review presentations Extensive delays in receiving cause of death and/or autopsy protocols Fiscal impact of services (average cost per autopsy- $5,000) Coroner Review presentations provided transparency via oversight of public representatives (Grand Jury) Adjacent County provided cause of death only, manner of death determination remained with Riverside County Coroner Riverside County Sheriff’s Department in-custody investigations are performed by Riverside County Sheriff’s employee, not outsourced Two areas listed above have misinterpretations which need addressing as follows: A. The statement that the Grand Jury provides oversight as part of public representation is misleading. The Grand Jury is invited as a guest, but as lay people, Grand Jury members may not always understand the technical terms used. Coroner reviews only answer the questions of manner, mode and cause of death. There is no California law compelling the Grand Jury to attend a Coroner’s review. The Grand Jury has no legal authority over any Coroners’ reviews. B. The Grand Jury is unaware of what transpires during the actual autopsy procedure and therefore the Grand Jury gets an abbreviated version of the autopsy, pathology and toxicology results presented at each Coroners’ review. If the Grand Jury has a concern, or needs additional information after the Review, they may request a full Coroner’s packet. The italicized statement below was annotated on the form submitted to the Riverside County BOS by the County Executive Office recommending the adoption of the San Bernardino contract for independent county autopsies. The same principle is applicable for Riverside County to contract with an adjacent county to perform independent autopsies for in-custody deaths. The use of an independent party to conduct autopsy service for officer involved shootings and in custody deaths is integral to remove any actual or perceived conflict of interest.[sic]
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The RCSD Coroner, in conjunction with the Riverside County BOS, should initiate and negotiate an agreement with acceptable terms, with an adjacent County, to perform autopsies of in-custody deaths. In-custody deaths include those who die at the hands of law enforcement, in the presence of law enforcement, or those with recent contact with law enforcement. The integrity of the process should assure County citizens that Coroner’s reviews are fair, unbiased, fostering a reputation of trust above reproach, and diminishing the perception of a conflict of interest. Alternatively, consistent with California Government Code §27491.6, a Coroner’s Inquest should be required in any circumstance when a person dies at the hands of law enforcement or in a situation with law enforcement involvement. Report Issued: 06/14/2018 Report Public: 06/18/2018 Response Due: 09/18/2018 4
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
1 findings
F1:
The Riverside County Coroner’s office has the authority under California Government Code §27490, et seq., to investigate specific deaths in-custody and/or within its jurisdiction. The Review is completed in-house with no independent or neutral County Coroner’s Office participation. However, toxicology testing is conducted by an independent private firm and is used to ensure an unbiased finding of toxicology results. Although the Riverside County Sheriff Coroner’s Department is staffed with well-qualified, trained and professional personnel, there is the perception of a conflict of interest by the public. No legal obligation currently exists requiring an autopsy be performed in an adjacent County whenever a person dies while in custody or in the presence of Law Enforcement. The Riverside Sheriff-Coroner’s office had an agreement with Orange County from 1999-2005 to perform independent, neutral, in-custody death autopsies. The contract expired in 2005 and was not renewed. San Bernardino County (SBC) has a current agreement with the RCSD to perform autopsies for SBC under similar circumstances. SBC acknowledges the benefit of public perception and trust, so in- custody death autopsies must be performed and reviewed by a neutral and un-involved party. This is reflected in the agreement signed by San Bernardino and Riverside counties. Thirteen years have elapsed and no new adjacent county autopsy agreement has been negotiated with the Riverside Coroner’s Office with acceptable terms. The following reasons as annotated in the Riverside Sheriff’s Department Memorandum – Coroner’s Bureau dated April 16, 2018 were given for allowing the agreement with Orange County to expire in 2005: 2 Lack of availability and/or delay of forensic pathologists from the adjacent county to perform an autopsy Lack of availability and/or delay of scheduling forensic pathologists from adjacent county for Coroner Review presentations Extensive delays in receiving cause of death and/or autopsy protocols Fiscal impact of services (average cost per autopsy- $5,000) Coroner Review presentations provided transparency via oversight of public representatives (Grand Jury) Adjacent County provided cause of death only, manner of death determination remained with Riverside County Coroner Riverside County Sheriff’s Department in-custody investigations are performed by Riverside County Sheriff’s employee, not outsourced Two areas listed above have misinterpretations which need addressing as follows: A. The statement that the Grand Jury provides oversight as part of public representation is misleading. The Grand Jury is invited as a guest, but as lay people, Grand Jury members may not always understand the technical terms used. Coroner reviews only answer the questions of manner, mode and cause of death. There is no California law compelling the Grand Jury to attend a Coroner’s review. The Grand Jury has no legal authority over any Coroners’ reviews. B. The Grand Jury is unaware of what transpires during the actual autopsy procedure and therefore the Grand Jury gets an abbreviated version of the autopsy, pathology and toxicology results presented at each Coroners’ review. If the Grand Jury has a concern, or needs additional information after the Review, they may request a full Coroner’s packet. The italicized statement below was annotated on the form submitted to the Riverside County BOS by the County Executive Office recommending the adoption of the San Bernardino contract for independent county autopsies. The same principle is applicable for Riverside County to contract with an adjacent county to perform independent autopsies for in-custody deaths. The use of an independent party to conduct autopsy service for officer involved shootings and in custody deaths is integral to remove any actual or perceived conflict of interest.[sic]
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The RCSD Coroner, in conjunction with the Riverside County BOS, should initiate and negotiate an agreement with acceptable terms, with an adjacent County, to perform autopsies of in-custody deaths. In-custody deaths include those who die at the hands of law enforcement, in the presence of law enforcement, or those with recent contact with law enforcement. The integrity of the process should assure County citizens that Coroner’s reviews are fair, unbiased, fostering a reputation of trust above reproach, and diminishing the perception of a conflict of interest. Alternatively, consistent with California Government Code §27491.6, a Coroner’s Inquest should be required in any circumstance when a person dies at the hands of law enforcement or in a situation with law enforcement involvement. Report Issued: 06/14/2018 Report Public: 06/18/2018 Response Due: 09/18/2018 4
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
The number of mental illness cases has increased in Riverside County while treatment care facilities and funding have not kept up with the demand. Mental health care providers and experts recommend that there be one acute care mental health bed per 2,000 people. According to California Hospital Association Center for Behavioral Health, California has 6,610 acute care mental health beds. With a population of 39,144,818, California has one acute care mental health bed per 5,922 people. Riverside County, by contrast, has a population of 2,423,266 people as of 2017 (U.S. Census Bureau) with a total of 365 acute care mental health beds (California Hospital Association Center for 3 Behavioral Health). This puts Riverside County at one acute care bed per 6,567 people – which is a larger disparity than the State. At the recommended rate of one bed per 2,000 people, Riverside County should have available 1,211 acute care mental health beds. Considering Riverside County has a total of 365 such beds, including the 77 County beds at Arlington Campus and 288 privately- contracted beds, which makes the County needing approximately 846 beds. Insufficient Staffing
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Board of Supervisors, in conjunction with Riverside County Behavioral Health, work with appropriate sources to obtain adequate and continuous funding in order to bring Riverside County up to the bed capacity needed for the acute care mental health population. Insufficient Staffing
F2:
The RUHS-BH utilizes locum tenens contracts to hire private psychiatrists to fill vacant authorized, and budgeted staff psychiatrist positions (currently 60 of the 140 positions remain unfilled). It was determined that Riverside County salaries and benefits are not competitive to neighboring counties and the private sector. A major concern centers on trying to keep clinicians from departing the County for employment in other counties or private industry.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
It is recommended that Riverside County seek ways to ensure competitive salaries and benefits exist for filling its vacant psychiatrist positions. Report Issued: 06/13/2018 Report Public: 06/15/2018 Response Due: 09/15/2018 4
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
A ramp leading to the main Veterans Services facility in Riverside is not in compliance with the American’s with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards because there are no handrails (Attachment 1). The Auditor/Controller’s Report (Internal Audit Report 2018-005, dated December 28, 2017) states: …The 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design, Section 405, identifies a ramp as having a slope of greater than 1:20 and requires handrails for ramp runs with a rise greater than six inches. The facility entrance has two elevated runs heading toward the entrance on each side. When facing the entrance, the run on the left has a slope of less than 1:20, as such it does not meet the definition of a ramp. However, the run on the right has a slope greater than 1:20, qualifying it as a ramp per ADA standards. This same ramp has a run rise greater than six inches and is required to have hand rails. With the rise of the ramp over six inches, the lack of handrails can cause injury to individuals who have difficulty walking. This increases the risk of litigation against the County of Riverside. The same Auditor/Controller’s Report had an estimated correction date of March 1, 2018. Veterans Services requested an evaluation for design plans and an estimate of costs to install the handrails through the Riverside County Economic Development Agency (EDA). EDA referred the issue to the Riverside County Engineering Division. As of May 7, 2018, the Veterans Services Director was still awaiting the requested estimate.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The BOS consider installing proper handrails for the front ramp of the main Veterans Services building in Riverside. This will help prevent injuries, possible litigation and conform to ADA standards.
F2:
Based on Riverside County Grand Jury (Grand Jury) research and interviews, Veterans Services is understaffed. Staffing consists of one Director, one Assistant Director, three Senior Veterans Service Officers, five Veterans Representatives, one Executive Assistant, and five Office Assistants serving at seven locations throughout Riverside County. According to the Veterans Services website, the veteran population is 129,364 which is 5.6% of the Riverside County total population. Countywide, beginning fiscal year July 2016 through February 2018, Veterans Services served and assisted 36,966 in-house clients, handled 60,511 phone calls and responded to 23,803 e-mails. The phone call and e-mail statistics are incoming and outgoing combined.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The BOS consider approving an increase to the Veterans Services budget for hiring additional staff. This will help alleviate long wait times and limited days of operation at field offices.
F3:
Riverside County Veterans Services offices are closed to the public on Fridays. The Veterans Services Director explained to the Grand Jury that Friday closures allow Representatives to process caseloads steadily and uninterrupted. In-house clients are seen on a first-come, first-served basis. Representatives are rarely able to schedule appointments because they spend whatever amount of time necessary to address the needs of each 3 client. The field offices are open at limited times throughout the week. Schedules are subject to change without notice if Representatives are unavailable. According to several interviewed veterans, walk-in wait times can be as much as three hours (Attachment 2).
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Veterans Services consider changing Riverside, Hemet and Indio office client walk-in hours to Monday through Friday from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. This will allow an extra day to service clients. The 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. time period should be used as uninterrupted time to process caseloads. Staggered employee working hours would enable the office to remain open during lunch, thereby minimizing delayed service to our veterans. Report Issued: 06/05/2018 Report Public: 06/07/2018 Response Due: 09/07/2018 4 (Attachment 1) 5 Current Veterans Services Office Hours Main Office: Riverside Office Hours: 8:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m. Monday-Thursday CLOSED – FRIDAY Branch Offices: Indio Office Hours: 8:00 a.m. – Noon and 1:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m. Monday-Thursday CLOSED-FRIDAY Hemet Office Hours: 8:00 a.m. – Noon and 1:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m. Monday-Thursday CLOSED-FRIDAY Field Offices: Banning - Riverside Department of Public Social Service Office Office Hours: 12:30 p.m. – 3:30 p.m. 3rd Wednesday of the Month Blythe - Blythe VA Clinic Office Hours: 10:00 a.m. – 2:00 p.m. 3rd Wednesday of the Month Corona - Corona Vet Center Office Hours: 9:00 a.m. – 12: 00 p.m. 1st & 3rd Thursdays of the Month Palm Desert - VA Clinic Office Hours: 9:00 a.m. – 2:00 p.m. 2nd & 4th Wednesdays of the Month Murrieta - VA Clinic Office Hours: 8:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. & 1:00 p.m. - 4:00 p.m. Every Tuesday (Attachment 2) 6
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
A ramp leading to the main Veterans Services facility in Riverside is not in compliance with the American’s with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards because there are no handrails (Attachment 1). The Auditor/Controller’s Report (Internal Audit Report 2018-005, dated December 28, 2017) states: …The 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design, Section 405, identifies a ramp as having a slope of greater than 1:20 and requires handrails for ramp runs with a rise greater than six inches. The facility entrance has two elevated runs heading toward the entrance on each side. When facing the entrance, the run on the left has a slope of less than 1:20, as such it does not meet the definition of a ramp. However, the run on the right has a slope greater than 1:20, qualifying it as a ramp per ADA standards. This same ramp has a run rise greater than six inches and is required to have hand rails. With the rise of the ramp over six inches, the lack of handrails can cause injury to individuals who have difficulty walking. This increases the risk of litigation against the County of Riverside. The same Auditor/Controller’s Report had an estimated correction date of March 1, 2018. Veterans Services requested an evaluation for design plans and an estimate of costs to install the handrails through the Riverside County Economic Development Agency (EDA). EDA referred the issue to the Riverside County Engineering Division. As of May 7, 2018, the Veterans Services Director was still awaiting the requested estimate.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The BOS consider installing proper handrails for the front ramp of the main Veterans Services building in Riverside. This will help prevent injuries, possible litigation and conform to ADA standards.
F2:
Based on Riverside County Grand Jury (Grand Jury) research and interviews, Veterans Services is understaffed. Staffing consists of one Director, one Assistant Director, three Senior Veterans Service Officers, five Veterans Representatives, one Executive Assistant, and five Office Assistants serving at seven locations throughout Riverside County. According to the Veterans Services website, the veteran population is 129,364 which is 5.6% of the Riverside County total population. Countywide, beginning fiscal year July 2016 through February 2018, Veterans Services served and assisted 36,966 in-house clients, handled 60,511 phone calls and responded to 23,803 e-mails. The phone call and e-mail statistics are incoming and outgoing combined.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The BOS consider approving an increase to the Veterans Services budget for hiring additional staff. This will help alleviate long wait times and limited days of operation at field offices.
F3:
Riverside County Veterans Services offices are closed to the public on Fridays. The Veterans Services Director explained to the Grand Jury that Friday closures allow Representatives to process caseloads steadily and uninterrupted. In-house clients are seen on a first-come, first-served basis. Representatives are rarely able to schedule appointments because they spend whatever amount of time necessary to address the needs of each 3 client. The field offices are open at limited times throughout the week. Schedules are subject to change without notice if Representatives are unavailable. According to several interviewed veterans, walk-in wait times can be as much as three hours (Attachment 2).
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Veterans Services consider changing Riverside, Hemet and Indio office client walk-in hours to Monday through Friday from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. This will allow an extra day to service clients. The 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. time period should be used as uninterrupted time to process caseloads. Staggered employee working hours would enable the office to remain open during lunch, thereby minimizing delayed service to our veterans. Report Issued: 06/05/2018 Report Public: 06/07/2018 Response Due: 09/07/2018 4 (Attachment 1) 5 Current Veterans Services Office Hours Main Office: Riverside Office Hours: 8:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m. Monday-Thursday CLOSED – FRIDAY Branch Offices: Indio Office Hours: 8:00 a.m. – Noon and 1:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m. Monday-Thursday CLOSED-FRIDAY Hemet Office Hours: 8:00 a.m. – Noon and 1:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m. Monday-Thursday CLOSED-FRIDAY Field Offices: Banning - Riverside Department of Public Social Service Office Office Hours: 12:30 p.m. – 3:30 p.m. 3rd Wednesday of the Month Blythe - Blythe VA Clinic Office Hours: 10:00 a.m. – 2:00 p.m. 3rd Wednesday of the Month Corona - Corona Vet Center Office Hours: 9:00 a.m. – 12: 00 p.m. 1st & 3rd Thursdays of the Month Palm Desert - VA Clinic Office Hours: 9:00 a.m. – 2:00 p.m. 2nd & 4th Wednesdays of the Month Murrieta - VA Clinic Office Hours: 8:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. & 1:00 p.m. - 4:00 p.m. Every Tuesday (Attachment 2) 6
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
On August 3, 2017, in response to a request from the Riverside County HR Director, the Grand Jury Foreperson, Grand Jury Foreperson pro tem, and the Assistant District Attorney (ADA) met with the HR Director and a Deputy Director in Grand Jury chambers. The HR Director stated that a previous Grand Juror, and an anonymous person, had filed a complaint containing certain allegations of misconduct. The HR Director proceeded to inform those present that he was planning to investigate a County employee (EMPLOYEE) for misconduct. Since the complainant was a previous Grand Juror, the ADA informed all those present that, as the Grand Jury’s legal advisor, if any Grand Jurors were to be interviewed, the ADA must be present. This was to ensure that no intimidating actions or undue pressure was applied to violate Grand Jury secrecy, or that inappropriate information was disclosed. HR proceeded with their investigation by hiring a Private Investigator (PI) on September 12, 2017. He was informed, via email, that he was to investigate the sole allegation of a previous Grand Juror. However, within days, at the request of the PI, HR explicitly agreed to expand the investigation beyond its original scope. With the help of HR, the unfettered PI (now a contracted agent of the County) interviewed at least eight prior or current Grand Jurors. Even though the ADA had directed HR that he was to be present during all interviews with any prior or current Grand Jurors, the PI proceeded to interview at least eight prior or current Grand Jurors without the presence of the ADA. During these interviews, the PI questioned Grand Jurors about what was said, who it was said by, what matters were pending before the Grand Jury, and how they voted relative to the matters pending. This is in direct violation of PC §924. Hiring a Private Investigator
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
HR shall comply with PC §924 et seq., in any and all dealings with the Grand Jury. HR shall add a new policy that defines how the HR Department will work with the Grand Jury in matters which impact Grand Jury secrecy, including compliance with any and all requirements specified by the Grand Jury and/or the County District Attorney’s Office. Hiring a Private Investigator
F2:
HR Divisional Manager contacted an outside attorney, who occasionally works for the County, for a recommendation to hire a PI. The reason stated for hiring an outside PI was due to the perceived sensitivity of the investigation. The HR Divisional Manager was not confident the in-house investigators could conclude the investigation in less than 120 days. The HR Divisional Manager also received instructions from the HR Director to complete the investigation within 30 days. The PI was hired with the approval of the HR Director with only a phone call and an email confirmation. There was no formal agreement or confirmation letter to define the scope of the investigation, the amount of time, maximum billing amount, or other covenants between the parties. With no formal contract between the County, and without proper hiring documentation and no specific direction, the PI apparently had free reign and complete authority to act with no oversight. When the Grand Jury interviewed the PI, he stated he did not feel he needed to provide a confirmation letter defining the scope or his understanding of the County’s expectations. The PI stated he could base his scope of investigation on his own interpretation of the allegations. Comprehensive Investigation
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Hiring an outside investigator instead of using an in-house investigator, if based on sound reasoning and justification for doing so, shall include proper hiring documents. These documents should include a hiring letter which should include the scope of the investigation, length of the investigation, operational parameters, client expectations and maximum bill rate for such services. This process then becomes a binding contract clearly defining the duties, responsibilities, obligations and legal requirements of the parties. Comprehensive Investigation
F3:
The PI conducted his investigation by interviewing the Grand Jurors who had lodged complaints, or Grand Jurors referred by those interviewed. The Grand Jurors, in their statements to the PI, expressed animus against the EMPLOYEE. The PI was made aware of other Grand Jurors who may have provided a different interpretation, however, the PI chose not to seek out potential exculpatory evidence. An email dated December 19, 2017, from the PI to the HR Principal Analyst stated that a particular witness has animosity toward the EMPLOYEE making the motivation of this witness questionable. The PI stated that he chose to believe this witness any way. In an email dated October 26, 2017, from the PI to the HR Division Manager and Employee and Labor Relations Division, the PI states in part: …I believe it’s important to understand that only five Grand Jurors have been interviewed. It sounds like there are a few Grand Jurors who have served several terms over the years, and who may be advocating for EMPLOYEE with a different take on EMPLOYEE behavior. [sic] An email from the HR Principal Analyst dated December 20, 2017 addressed to the PI, states in part: When you send me a revised draft of your report, could you send it in Word please? This will make it easier for … and I… to communicate with each 5 other re any further recommended edits or comments any of us may have re the report… We would not finalize any tracked changes without sharing them with you first, as we, and I’m sure you, would not want a situation down the road where you are testifying about your investigation, and someone shows you something in the report that you don’t recognize or agree with. That wouldn’t be good for anyone… [sic] The PI’s response in part: …But again, given the assortment of other inappropriate comments I don’t know that it was necessary to include this one as well, (but I’m happy to do so if you’d like)… Failure to Properly Protect Employee Rights Under Investigation
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
By allowing HR to make changes to his investigative report and not seeking out exculpatory evidence, the PI, and by inference HR, has demonstrated their conformational bias toward this investigation. All future investigations should be conducted by HR in a fair, unbiased, neutral manner, without any preconceived prejudice. This will ensure the entire investigation is conducted ethically and professionally, and any disciplinary outcome is weighted with both aggravating and mitigating factors in reaching a fair and equitable disciplinary decision. Both aggravating and mitigating factors must be part of a comprehensive investigatory report for a balanced account of the circumstances. Failure to Properly Protect Employee Rights Under Investigation
F4:
In the letter from the Deputy County Executive Office to EMPLOYEE informing EMPLOYEE about the ongoing investigation, EMPLOYEE was instructed to cooperate with the investigator. This letter states in part: …In order to preserve the confidentiality of the investigation, you are not to discuss the investigation with anyone other than your representative, legal counsel, or the Private investigator. If you are unsure whether a comment or discussion would be a violation of this directive, you must first contact Mr. … for guidance… [sic] HR Policy Requires Progressive Discipline
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
As an “unrepresented confidential” employee with property rights to the job but no representation, EMPLOYEE’s only recourse was to hire an attorney, or per EMPLOYEE’s supervisor, seek guidance from the very person conducting the investigation, an obvious conflict of interest. An employee under such circumstances should be given a neutral, unbiased avenue to seek assistance or advice. An employee should never be forced to seek advice from the investigator. HR Policy Requires Progressive Discipline
F5:
HR policy (Disciplinary Process Manual) stipulates that progressive disciplinary steps (from least to most severe), should be followed and implemented in relation to the alleged offenses being substantiated and supported. When there is a continued pattern of the employee failing to comply with a policy or a directive, then a more serious penalty may need to be imposed. This progressive disciplinary history must be clearly documented by the employee’s supervisor. The disciplinary penalty imposed should be appropriate in relation to the offense committed – starting with the least severe. The evidence developed by the PI did not confirm the initial allegation. The underlying incident, as discovered by the PI, had been handled appropriately. The PI then proceeded to search for other allegations. These complaints made, and corroborated, by the 6 shared testimony of a few disgruntled Grand Jurors, were then used to pile on the allegations against EMPLOYEE, in order to establish the case to terminate EMPLOYEE without progressing through the normal disciplinary steps. No Provision to Inform Employee They Are Under Investigation
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
HR shall comply with its policy of Progressive Discipline by using and documenting offenses alleged against an employee, by the employee’s supervisor. No Provision to Inform Employee They Are Under Investigation
F6:
There is no provision or policy to inform an employee that they are under investigation unless they are employed as a peace officer or they have been placed on administrative leave. Breach of Confidentiality of Grand Jury Information
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
County employees who are being considered for termination should be given notice when an investigation begins. Policy should be revised to add this provision. Employees deserve the respect and dignity of such protection as members of the workforce for the County. Breach of Confidentiality of Grand Jury Information
F7:
Other than their names, the Grand Juror’s personal information is confidential and shall not be disclosed except by order of the Presiding Judge. The Executive Office staff, HR staff, along with a prior Grand Juror, breached this confidentially by providing home addresses and other personal contact information to the PI. The PI used this information to contact current and past Grand Jurors by phone, and/or visiting their residences, in an attempt to gather investigative material for the case he was building against EMPLOYEE. The PI even went as far as to interview a Grand Juror’s neighbor. Grand Jury Subpoenas
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
Confidential information pertaining to Grand Jurors shall not be disclosed. Grand Jury Subpoenas
F8:
The Grand Jury subpoenaed the HR Director and PI to appear and produce documents to assist the Grand Jury in its investigation. The HR Department contacted County Counsel. County Counsel elected to file a motion to quash or modify these subpoenas. County Counsel further contacted the PI instructing him not to comply with the subpoena. Upon receipt of this motion, the Grand Jury sent a letter to County Counsel requesting his office provide legal representation for the Grand Jury. The Grand Jury did not receive a response from County Counsel. The County then hired an attorney to represent the contracted PI. The Grand Jury appeared before the Court to defend its subpoena without representation. The Court questioned why County Counsel was not providing representation to the Grand Jury as required under California Government Code §27642. County Counsel did not provide an answer acceptable to the Court.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
Pursuant to California Government Code §27642 and PC §925, the BOS should create and publish a policy instructing County Counsel to fully cooperate with the Grand Jury in its legal requirement to inquire into all County departments. Report Issued: 06/21/2018 Report Public: 06/25/2018 Response Due: 09/25/2018 9
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
On August 3, 2017, in response to a request from the Riverside County HR Director, the Grand Jury Foreperson, Grand Jury Foreperson pro tem, and the Assistant District Attorney (ADA) met with the HR Director and a Deputy Director in Grand Jury chambers. The HR Director stated that a previous Grand Juror, and an anonymous person, had filed a complaint containing certain allegations of misconduct. The HR Director proceeded to inform those present that he was planning to investigate a County employee (EMPLOYEE) for misconduct. Since the complainant was a previous Grand Juror, the ADA informed all those present that, as the Grand Jury’s legal advisor, if any Grand Jurors were to be interviewed, the ADA must be present. This was to ensure that no intimidating actions or undue pressure was applied to violate Grand Jury secrecy, or that inappropriate information was disclosed. HR proceeded with their investigation by hiring a Private Investigator (PI) on September 12, 2017. He was informed, via email, that he was to investigate the sole allegation of a previous Grand Juror. However, within days, at the request of the PI, HR explicitly agreed to expand the investigation beyond its original scope. With the help of HR, the unfettered PI (now a contracted agent of the County) interviewed at least eight prior or current Grand Jurors. Even though the ADA had directed HR that he was to be present during all interviews with any prior or current Grand Jurors, the PI proceeded to interview at least eight prior or current Grand Jurors without the presence of the ADA. During these interviews, the PI questioned Grand Jurors about what was said, who it was said by, what matters were pending before the Grand Jury, and how they voted relative to the matters pending. This is in direct violation of PC §924. Hiring a Private Investigator
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
HR shall comply with PC §924 et seq., in any and all dealings with the Grand Jury. HR shall add a new policy that defines how the HR Department will work with the Grand Jury in matters which impact Grand Jury secrecy, including compliance with any and all requirements specified by the Grand Jury and/or the County District Attorney’s Office. Hiring a Private Investigator
F2:
HR Divisional Manager contacted an outside attorney, who occasionally works for the County, for a recommendation to hire a PI. The reason stated for hiring an outside PI was due to the perceived sensitivity of the investigation. The HR Divisional Manager was not confident the in-house investigators could conclude the investigation in less than 120 days. The HR Divisional Manager also received instructions from the HR Director to complete the investigation within 30 days. The PI was hired with the approval of the HR Director with only a phone call and an email confirmation. There was no formal agreement or confirmation letter to define the scope of the investigation, the amount of time, maximum billing amount, or other covenants between the parties. With no formal contract between the County, and without proper hiring documentation and no specific direction, the PI apparently had free reign and complete authority to act with no oversight. When the Grand Jury interviewed the PI, he stated he did not feel he needed to provide a confirmation letter defining the scope or his understanding of the County’s expectations. The PI stated he could base his scope of investigation on his own interpretation of the allegations. Comprehensive Investigation
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Hiring an outside investigator instead of using an in-house investigator, if based on sound reasoning and justification for doing so, shall include proper hiring documents. These documents should include a hiring letter which should include the scope of the investigation, length of the investigation, operational parameters, client expectations and maximum bill rate for such services. This process then becomes a binding contract clearly defining the duties, responsibilities, obligations and legal requirements of the parties. Comprehensive Investigation
F3:
The PI conducted his investigation by interviewing the Grand Jurors who had lodged complaints, or Grand Jurors referred by those interviewed. The Grand Jurors, in their statements to the PI, expressed animus against the EMPLOYEE. The PI was made aware of other Grand Jurors who may have provided a different interpretation, however, the PI chose not to seek out potential exculpatory evidence. An email dated December 19, 2017, from the PI to the HR Principal Analyst stated that a particular witness has animosity toward the EMPLOYEE making the motivation of this witness questionable. The PI stated that he chose to believe this witness any way. In an email dated October 26, 2017, from the PI to the HR Division Manager and Employee and Labor Relations Division, the PI states in part: …I believe it’s important to understand that only five Grand Jurors have been interviewed. It sounds like there are a few Grand Jurors who have served several terms over the years, and who may be advocating for EMPLOYEE with a different take on EMPLOYEE behavior. [sic] An email from the HR Principal Analyst dated December 20, 2017 addressed to the PI, states in part: When you send me a revised draft of your report, could you send it in Word please? This will make it easier for … and I… to communicate with each 5 other re any further recommended edits or comments any of us may have re the report… We would not finalize any tracked changes without sharing them with you first, as we, and I’m sure you, would not want a situation down the road where you are testifying about your investigation, and someone shows you something in the report that you don’t recognize or agree with. That wouldn’t be good for anyone… [sic] The PI’s response in part: …But again, given the assortment of other inappropriate comments I don’t know that it was necessary to include this one as well, (but I’m happy to do so if you’d like)… Failure to Properly Protect Employee Rights Under Investigation
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
By allowing HR to make changes to his investigative report and not seeking out exculpatory evidence, the PI, and by inference HR, has demonstrated their conformational bias toward this investigation. All future investigations should be conducted by HR in a fair, unbiased, neutral manner, without any preconceived prejudice. This will ensure the entire investigation is conducted ethically and professionally, and any disciplinary outcome is weighted with both aggravating and mitigating factors in reaching a fair and equitable disciplinary decision. Both aggravating and mitigating factors must be part of a comprehensive investigatory report for a balanced account of the circumstances. Failure to Properly Protect Employee Rights Under Investigation
F4:
In the letter from the Deputy County Executive Office to EMPLOYEE informing EMPLOYEE about the ongoing investigation, EMPLOYEE was instructed to cooperate with the investigator. This letter states in part: …In order to preserve the confidentiality of the investigation, you are not to discuss the investigation with anyone other than your representative, legal counsel, or the Private investigator. If you are unsure whether a comment or discussion would be a violation of this directive, you must first contact Mr. … for guidance… [sic] HR Policy Requires Progressive Discipline
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
As an “unrepresented confidential” employee with property rights to the job but no representation, EMPLOYEE’s only recourse was to hire an attorney, or per EMPLOYEE’s supervisor, seek guidance from the very person conducting the investigation, an obvious conflict of interest. An employee under such circumstances should be given a neutral, unbiased avenue to seek assistance or advice. An employee should never be forced to seek advice from the investigator. HR Policy Requires Progressive Discipline
F5:
HR policy (Disciplinary Process Manual) stipulates that progressive disciplinary steps (from least to most severe), should be followed and implemented in relation to the alleged offenses being substantiated and supported. When there is a continued pattern of the employee failing to comply with a policy or a directive, then a more serious penalty may need to be imposed. This progressive disciplinary history must be clearly documented by the employee’s supervisor. The disciplinary penalty imposed should be appropriate in relation to the offense committed – starting with the least severe. The evidence developed by the PI did not confirm the initial allegation. The underlying incident, as discovered by the PI, had been handled appropriately. The PI then proceeded to search for other allegations. These complaints made, and corroborated, by the 6 shared testimony of a few disgruntled Grand Jurors, were then used to pile on the allegations against EMPLOYEE, in order to establish the case to terminate EMPLOYEE without progressing through the normal disciplinary steps. No Provision to Inform Employee They Are Under Investigation
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
HR shall comply with its policy of Progressive Discipline by using and documenting offenses alleged against an employee, by the employee’s supervisor. No Provision to Inform Employee They Are Under Investigation
F6:
There is no provision or policy to inform an employee that they are under investigation unless they are employed as a peace officer or they have been placed on administrative leave. Breach of Confidentiality of Grand Jury Information
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
County employees who are being considered for termination should be given notice when an investigation begins. Policy should be revised to add this provision. Employees deserve the respect and dignity of such protection as members of the workforce for the County. Breach of Confidentiality of Grand Jury Information
F7:
Other than their names, the Grand Juror’s personal information is confidential and shall not be disclosed except by order of the Presiding Judge. The Executive Office staff, HR staff, along with a prior Grand Juror, breached this confidentially by providing home addresses and other personal contact information to the PI. The PI used this information to contact current and past Grand Jurors by phone, and/or visiting their residences, in an attempt to gather investigative material for the case he was building against EMPLOYEE. The PI even went as far as to interview a Grand Juror’s neighbor. Grand Jury Subpoenas
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
Confidential information pertaining to Grand Jurors shall not be disclosed. Grand Jury Subpoenas
F8:
The Grand Jury subpoenaed the HR Director and PI to appear and produce documents to assist the Grand Jury in its investigation. The HR Department contacted County Counsel. County Counsel elected to file a motion to quash or modify these subpoenas. County Counsel further contacted the PI instructing him not to comply with the subpoena. Upon receipt of this motion, the Grand Jury sent a letter to County Counsel requesting his office provide legal representation for the Grand Jury. The Grand Jury did not receive a response from County Counsel. The County then hired an attorney to represent the contracted PI. The Grand Jury appeared before the Court to defend its subpoena without representation. The Court questioned why County Counsel was not providing representation to the Grand Jury as required under California Government Code §27642. County Counsel did not provide an answer acceptable to the Court.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
Pursuant to California Government Code §27642 and PC §925, the BOS should create and publish a policy instructing County Counsel to fully cooperate with the Grand Jury in its legal requirement to inquire into all County departments. Report Issued: 06/21/2018 Report Public: 06/25/2018 Response Due: 09/25/2018 9
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
A member of the City Council verbally directed the City Manager to assist a local auto dealership by trimming the brush along the Interstate 10 right- of-way adjacent to the business. The shrubbery obscured the view of the business property. The City Manager directed the Public Works Director to arrange for the trimming of the shrubbery by City employees. The Public Works Director applied for, and received, a no-fee public agency encroachment permit from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and City employees completed the project in early April 2017. There was no written agreement between the City and the auto dealership for this project. After this use of City resources became public knowledge through the local media, the City Council directed the Finance Department to prepare an invoice for City services and submit it to the auto dealership. On April 10, 2017, the City received a check in the amount of $3,000 prior to an invoice being prepared. Later that same day, the City calculated the cost of the project at $3,431.66. They then prepared a Reimbursement Request for $431.66 to cover the balance due to the City and submitted the invoice to the auto dealership for payment. In a subsequent City Council meeting, a Councilmember questioned whether the amount billed to the dealership reflected the full cost to the City, including use of the City equipment. As a result, the Council directed that an amended invoice be prepared to include the equipment costs. The City Administrative Services Director prepared a second invoice on May 2, 2017, in the amount of $3,549.64 for equipment use. The auto dealership then issued a second check bringing the total amount received by the City to $6,981.30, which completed the payment of the amount billed. A 2015-2016 Riverside County Grand Jury report identified a similar finding of undocumented, informal agreements and recommended: That Banning formalize its financial dealings and not utilize handshakes or past practices with other entities. The City continues to engage in informal and undocumented “handshake” agreements with private parties. To date, no policy has been developed or implemented to prohibit the practice of using “handshake” agreements.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The City immediately discontinue and prohibit the use of undocumented and informal “handshake” agreements. The City adopt strict policies for formalizing agreements and/or contracts with private parties. Stricter policies would preclude the appearance of the gifting or misuse of public funds.
F2:
To benefit a private party, the undertaking of the shrubbery removal project required agreement to an indemnity clause in the Caltrans permit application which was done without legal review or approval of the City Council. This action placed the City at a greater risk of financial liability. The Caltrans Encroachment Permit Application states: The applicant, understands and herein agrees to the general provisions, special provisions and conditions of the encroachment permit, and to indemnify and hold harmless the State, its officers, directors, agents, employees and each of them (Indemnitees) from and against any and all claims, demands, causes of action, damages, costs, expenses, actual attorneys’ fees, judgments, losses and liabilities of every kind and nature whatsoever (Claims) arising out of or in connection with the issuance and/or use of this encroachment permit and the placement and subsequent operation and maintenance of said encroachment for: 1) bodily injury and/or death to persons including but not limited to the Applicant, the State and its officers, directors, agents and employees, the Indemnities, and the public; and 2) damage to property of anyone. Except as provided by law, the Indemnification provisions stated above shall apply regardless of the existence or degree of 4 fault of Indemnities. The Applicant, however, shall not be obligated to indemnify Indemnities for Claims arising from the sole negligence and willful misconduct of State, its officers, directors, agents or employees. [sic]
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The City Manager review all contracts and agreements to ensure any terms affecting liabilities that might be borne by the City are reviewed and evaluated by the City Attorney and approved by the City Council in order to minimize or eliminate any risks of financial liability to the City.
F3:
The City has no policy addressing the use of public resources and/or equipment to provide services to private parties.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The City establish a comprehensive policy to address the use of public resources including City labor and/or equipment when providing services to private parties. 6
F4:
The City’s Policies and Procedures manual is outdated. Some of the policies are 40 years old and date back to 1977. Additionally, there is no evidence policies and procedures are being reviewed on a regular basis to ensure that they are relevant and accurate.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The City establish a policy to review and update all City Policies and Procedures on a regular basis. Policies and Procedures should be made available to the public on the City website.
F5:
In the past eight years (2010-2017), the City Council has hired seven individuals to serve as City Manager, Interim City Manager, or Contract City Manager, with some serving in that capacity on a repeat basis. Instability in the relationship of the City Council to the City Manager weakens the effectiveness of City management. This poor and ineffective relationship has allowed some City Councilmembers to routinely address City staff directly, thereby circumventing the authority and expertise of the City Manager. Banning Code of Ordinances expressly states: The city council and its members shall deal with the administrative services of the city only through the city manager, except for the purpose of inquiry; and neither the city council nor any member thereof shall give orders to any subordinate of the city manager.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The City carefully review and revise its hiring and recruitment processes and procedures, to ensure job objectives and responsibilities for the City Manager’s position are clearly defined. The City needs to incorporate and outline expectations and performance measures into the recruitment process for the City Manager. City Councilmembers must comply with City Ordinance 2.08.110 and work with City administrative services exclusively through the City Manager.
F6:
In the 2016 election, two incumbent City Councilmembers were re-elected and a third individual was newly elected to the Council. Training on critical matters such as ethics, harassment, and the Brown Act, was not made available to the Councilmembers in a timely manner. Per California AB 1234, Article 2.4, Ethics Training §53235.1(b) (b) Each local agency official who commences service with a local agency on or after January 1, 2006, shall receive the training required by subdivision (a) of Section 53235 no later than one year from the first day of service with the local agency. Thereafter, each local agency official shall receive the training required by subdivision (a) of Section 53235 at least once every two years. 5
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The City must establish a policy for the training of the new Councilmembers in a timely manner in accordance with AB 1234. Many public and free resources are available for training, including ethics in government, Code of Conduct, proper chain-of-command, transparency in government, and Brown Act obligations. The City Manager should also implement refresher training programs for all City Councilmembers including negotiation skills, civil discourse, and team building.
F7:
Sales tax sharing agreements are commonly used to encourage businesses to locate and develop large sales tax-generating enterprises within a city. While these can be used to retain a business within a city, they are generally used to attract new businesses. Information obtained from interviews of several city managers revealed these agreements are generally for a short term duration of five to seven years and usually employ an equal sharing of sales tax revenues. In Banning, a sales tax sharing agreement between the City and an auto dealership was established by the Redevelopment Agency in 2005. Extension clauses were activated and the agreement was renegotiated in 2012 for an additional five years. When the auto dealership was sold in 2016, a condition of the sale was that the City would accept terms of a new sales tax sharing agreement. This new agreement rebated to the auto dealer 85% of the sales tax due to the City up to a maximum of $3.5 million. These payments will continue for a period not to exceed 15 years or until the auto dealership has received the maximum recoverable amount as defined in the agreement. The City has been sharing sales tax revenue with this tax-generating business for 13 years. The agreement with the new owner would extend this substantial reduction in sales tax revenue to the City for up to an additional 15 years.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
The City should conduct a biennial review and assessment of the financial burden to the City of any tax-sharing agreements which are more than five years old, and report its findings at a regular open City Council meeting. Continuing agreements should be monitored to ensure that future City leaders agree the City is receiving appropriate benefits in return for the forfeiture of a portion of available sales tax revenue. Report Issued: 4/30/2018 Report Public: 5/2/2018 Response Due: 7/30/2018 7
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
14 findings
F1:
The IWF operates as a closed system with little to no independent internal review and limited external review. The following policies listed below show the IWF is administered internally by the Inmate Welfare Fund Committee (IWFC) with an annual expense statement sent to the BOS. IWF Policy 501.13 §2.0 states: The Inmate Welfare Fund (IWF) shall be administered by a committee designated by the Sheriff. The IWF shall be governed by its own bylaws and procedures. The IWF determines how the fund monies are generated, through private contracts, and spent. IWF Policy 501.13 §3.0 states: The Inmate Welfare Fund committee will administer all revenue and expenditures from the IWF. Included are the commissary operations, telephone commissions, inmate welfare operations, and any other contracted services within this area. The IWFC Bylaws and Policies state the IWFC consists of the following entities appointed by the Sheriff: A: Voting Members: • Corrections Division Chief Deputy (Support Services) • Corrections Division Chief Deputy (Operations) • Robert D. Presley Detention Center Commander • Larry D. Smith Correctional Facility Commander • Southwest Detention Center Commander (Facility now known as the Cois Byrd Detention Center) • Indio Jail Commander (Facility now known as the John J. Benoit Detention Center) • Blythe Jail Commander • Coordinated Custody Management Commander • Corrections Division Administrative Manager (SITE-B) • Sheriff’s Finance Director • Citizen member appointed by the Sheriff (at Sheriff’s discretion) 6 Regular Attendees (Non-voting) • Corrections Division Administrative Manager (FINANCE) • Corrections Division Accountant II B. Chairperson/Secretary [18] The chairperson will preside over the IWFC meetings and manage the functional operations of the IWF. The secretary will handle the day-to-day matters concerning the IWF and act as custodian of committee meeting minutes and other pertinent records. The secretary will be responsible for preparing and maintaining a written record of all IWFC meetings and telephone polls. A copy of the minutes will be distributed to the Sheriff and all IWFC members within seven days following the meeting or poll. The IWFC shall vote to approve or amend the minutes at their next scheduled meeting. The minutes shall reflect any recommended changes or vetoes to proposals made by the Sheriff. These records are kept for three years plus the current year. 15DAY RULE IS NOT A POSITIVE INTERNAL CONTROL
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Assistant Sheriff, Corrections, or the Undersheriff (who are not members of the IWFC), should independently review the IWFC’s actions and all reports as often as necessary. This ensures the IWFC is operating efficiently, and the monies allocated, are properly dispersed. The Sheriff’s Department should post the minutes of all of the IWFC’s meetings on the Sheriff’s website to increase and promote full transparency to the public. 15DAY RULE IS NOT A POSITIVE INTERNAL CONTROL
F2:
The IWF Committee Bylaws and Policies, Section V-IWF Expenditures, Subsection B, Specific Guidelines and Expenditures – Fifteen Day Rule,[18] states in part: The release of IWF monies by the Corrections Division Administrative Manager (FINANCE)… will be delayed fifteen (15) days from the time the IWF-C voted to approve the expenditures… This delay allows the Sheriff reasonable time to review any IWF-C actions and to make any amendments or recommendations he/she may choose, or veto an action… The Sheriff may choose to approve IWF-C actions by simply not responding to the IWF Chairperson within the 15-day time frame. In this case, the IWF-C’s
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The 15-day rule should be modified to include the requirement that all funds under this provision be reviewed and approved by the Assistant Sheriff of Corrections, or the Undersheriff, to ensure funds are appropriately authorized within 15 days of the request for disbursement, consistent with department objectives. THE JAIL COMMANDER CAN OVERRIDE THE IWF DECISION 3 Require the Jail Commander to obtain approval for a variance from the IWFC for programs and maintenance of the facility to promote accountability in accordance with IWFC approvals. CURRENT CIVILIAN MEMBER OF THE IWF COMMITTEE LACKS INDEPENDENCE
F3:
The Inmate Welfare Fund Policy 501.13, Section 6.1 – Facilities [8] states: The jail Commander may approve Inmate Welfare Fund expenditures for inmate programs and maintenance of the facility. This process bypasses the IWFC approval as required in the Bylaws. [18] Any funds not needed for the welfare of the inmates may be expended for the maintenance of the County jail facilities, within the guidelines set forth in the Bylaws. CURRENT CIVILIAN MEMBER OF THE IWFC COMMITTEE LACKS INDEPENDENCE
F4:
There was information obtained during a meeting with Sheriff personnel, in addition to a memorandum[15] provided by the Sheriff, which revealed that the civilian member is a voting member nominated by IWFC members and the person selected is appointed by the Sheriff. The current civilian member is a retired Assistant Sheriff from the RCSD, who was appointed several years ago. Currently, no formal training or training manual exists in order to train a civilian who is not a former Sheriff employee. Therefore, there is no true, impartial or neutral citizen representative sitting on this committee. A single “civilian” cannot truly represent the more than three million citizens of the County. True public transparency requires more than one civilian member. FEES CHARGED TO FAMILY AND FRIENDS
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Develop and implement a policy to have one civilian appointed from each County district, for a total of five, to sit on the IWFC to represent a broad cross-section of the County population, to fairly and adequately represent the inmate population. This policy should include a process for public posting, application submission, review and selection of civilian volunteers for IWFC service. The terms of service should be staggered to ensure that no one sits for more than three years at a time to allow for continuity on the IWFC at all times. This process will be fair, provide adequate 17 representation, foster public input, promote advocacy, and enhance transparency. FEES CHARGED TO FAMILY AND FRIENDS
F5:
There are fees charged to the family and friends of County inmates per the Professional Service Agreement for Jail Commissary Services between the County of Riverside and Contractor, dated October 25, 2016, [12] for deposit of funds to trust accounts. No fees for this process will be borne by the County. The County has agreed that the Contractor may charge these fees for deposit services. The Deposit Services Fee Structure is as follows: 8 Cash Fee Structure Gross Amount Deposited Cash at Lobby Kiosk $0.01-$20.00 $1.00 $20.01-$40.00 $2.00 $40.01-$200.00 $3.00 Credit Card Fee Structure Gross Amount Deposited Web Phone $0.01-$19.99 $2.95 $3.95 $20.00-$99.99 $5.95 $6.95 $100.00-$199.99 $7.95 $8.95 Orange, San Bernardino, and San Diego County Inmate Welfare Fund contracts do not charge deposit fees. RETURN OF MONIES TO INMATES
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
All deposit/transaction fees charged for placing money on an inmate’s account should be eliminated. RETURN OF MONIES TO INMATES
F6:
There is an inefficient method used to return funds to inmates who are no longer in custody. Currently, the IWF contract [12] states: …If an inmate has been released, the CONTRACTOR will keep commissary items and advise the COUNTY of the inmate’s invoice status. The COUNTY will make adjustments and attempt to notify the inmate by mail regarding the commissary balance. The COUNTY will hold the inmate’s money for ninety days (90), if unclaimed by the inmate within that time; the money will be deposited to the County General Fund. [sic] Based on the current wording in the contract, there is no proactive and timely process in place for returning monies back to the inmate at the time 9 of his/her release. There is no written notification process in documents researched to notify an inmate on the process of how to obtain any monies retained on his/her account. By the current policy’s own wording, the Sheriff waits until the released inmate contacts the Sheriff to obtain his/her monies. Currently, money is held for up to 90 days waiting for a released inmate to inquire about his/her money. The Grand Jury researched several county detention centers to ascertain how they return monies to released inmates. The following procedure from Placer County seems to be a comprehensive and efficient method used to return such monies: If an inmate is released during normal business hours, the inmate will receive a check or debit card for the funds from their commissary account. If the inmate is released after business hours, the inmate may return to the jail to request their check in person during normal business hours. If the inmate would like their check mailed, he/she must contact the jail accounting office during normal business hours and provide a current mailing address. SUBSIDIZED VENDING MACHINE SNACKS FOR STAFF
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The RCSD and Contractor renegotiate or modify the contract to adopt a similar policy to expedite the process of returning monies to a released inmate in a more timely and efficient manner. A written policy should be implemented and incorporated into the Inmate Orientation Manual, which explains the process to the inmate about how they may retrieve their monies when they are released. This information should also be available for the public, so family and friends will be aware of the process as well. SUBSIDIZED VENDING MACHINE SNACKS FOR STAFF
F7:
The Contractor is providing the vending machine snacks for staff at a reduced price at all of the detention facilities. As referenced within the vendor’s commissary pricing menus submitted in the contract of 2016[12], a Snicker’s bar for an inmate is $1.58 (Exhibit A), while that same candy bar is sold to staff for $.85 cents (Exhibit B). The negotiated contract mentioned provides employee vending machine pricing. There are 50 listed snack and drink items which are provided by the Contractor under the IWF contract. WEIGHTING OF BID SELECTION FOR COMMISSARY CONTRACTOR
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
Any vending machine products intended for staff should be provided by an independent contractor. Contracted products provided to inmates and contracted products available to staff should be completely separate with distinct business contracts. This would eliminate the perception that the IWF is subsidizing the staff. WEIGHTING OF BID SELECTION FOR COMMISSARY CONTRACTOR
F8:
The Sheriff Department’s contract with the Contractor requires the County to assume no cost or risk. County Procurement awards contracts based on competitive pricing by soliciting written bids from available vendors. The purpose of competitive bidding is based on the lowest possible price, for the benefit of the County Inmates. The County Request for Proposal (RFP)[10] requires a commission or service fee to be paid to the RCSD. A first year payment of $1.5 million, and 10 following years (year two up to five years) commission payments equal to 45.3% of the vendor’s gross revenues, prorated based on inmate head count, is a fundamental part of the business requirements in order for the Contractor to be approved and granted the contract. The RCSD deposits the commission from the Contractor to the IWF account. The monies are primarily used for the benefit of the inmates, but can also be used for other expenses as defined in California Penal Code Section 4025(e). The net effect of the commission the Contractor is required to pay is an increase in the cost of goods sold to inmates in the jail commissary, in contrast to the price for the same goods sold to the general public. As a result, the Contractor sells goods and services to County inmates at an inflated price (profits plus commission), and as an exclusive agent of the Sheriff’s Department, passes the contractually required commission to the inmate in the form of higher prices. A review of the Purchasing Department’s Jail Commissary Services Evaluation Scoring Sheet (Exhibit C) with the selection criteria, reflects a weight of forty percent toward the vendor’s ability to satisfy business requirements, which includes the commission, while cost to the inmates was weighted at twenty percent. Under this weighting criteria, the Contractor was awarded the contract because a greater emphasis was placed on the amount of money paid to the County rather than on the lowest price of goods provided to the inmate. A majority of goods charged at the commissary, based on the pricing matrix, have a markup value ranging between 40 and 70 percent over and above standard commercial pricing. INDIGENT KITS PAID FOR BY THE VENDOR
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
The RCSD, through the Purchasing Department should renegotiate the contract at its next anniversary to primarily focus on the lowest cost and/or “best value” to the inmate. INDIGENT KITS PAID FOR BY THE VENDOR
F9:
The commissary Contractor is required by the County, as an inducement to be the sole contractor, to supply 35,000 Indigent Kits to the inmate population free of charge. Per SHARC-96115-003-11/23, Section 11- Indigent Kits of the agreement, [12] states: CONTRACTOR, at its sole cost and expense, will provide a minimum of 35,000 indigent inmate kits to the COUNTY 11 annually. For additional indigent kits beyond this amount, the CONTRACTOR will provide indigent kits to those inmates who qualify for the program at no profit to the CONTRACTOR. [sic] The Counties of Orange, San Bernardino, and San Diego [6] all have stipulations in their contracts and policies that their indigent kits expense will be borne from their General Fund and not through the IWF. Their policies reflect that cleanliness and hygiene are basic functions (like feeding) that must be provided by the County and not through the IWF. The RCSD Contractor supplies the inmate kits at their cost, which is then passed on to the inmate in the form of higher prices for any and all goods and services to recoup their costs. INADEQUATE AUDITS
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
The County provide indigent kits to the inmates paid from the General Fund at the current contract price of $2.30 each. INADEQUATE AUDITS
F10:
Audits are conducted on the IWF with the purpose of increasing transparency. IWF Bylaw Section B-Audits [18] states: The Corrections Division Administrative Manager (FINANCE) will monitor and perform a monthly audit of all IWF expenditures and prepare pertinent management reports for the IWF. A non- County entity or outside accounting firm shall conduct an annual audit of the IWF[sic]] The Corrections Administrative Manager (FINANCE) will initiate and coordinate with the Sheriff’s Contracts Unit a request for quote for audit services in accordance with Riverside County Purchasing guidelines. These entities with the approval and concurrence of the Corrections Chief Deputy for Support Services will select the outside accounting firm to prepare said audit. To avoid exclusivity, the accounting firm will rotate every three years. Part C – Annual Report [18] states: The Corrections Administrative Manager (FINANCE) will be responsible for the preparation of an annual report of all revenue, expenditures, current balance, and transactions of the IWF. An itemized report of expenditures will be included in the public information plan for each facility. Pursuant to 4025(e) of the Penal Code, the itemized expenditure report and a copy of 12 the annual IWF audit will be submitted annually to the County Board of Supervisors. All audits are only distributed within the IWFC and thereby lack independent scrutiny or oversight during the year. The monthly audits are neither reviewed nor monitored by the Assistant Sheriff of Corrections or the Undersheriff or any other neutral party. The independent audits conducted annually focus strictly on accounting of numbers and as such, do not address internal controls. Internal Controls provide guidance for establishing and maintaining an effective system of operations and accounting principles in accordance with the County’s policies. Internal controls refers to the methods and procedures used to provide reasonable assurance regarding the achievement of objectives in the following categories:[4]
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
a) The independent audits should be conducted to include a comprehensive in-depth review of the IWF to include internal controls. b) The Riverside County Auditor-Controller’s office can, and is willing to, conduct its own comprehensive annual audit of the IWF at no cost to the Sheriff’s Department. This review shall be under the Risk Assessment criteria to assess the efficiency and appropriateness of the IWF, the risk of misuse or fraud, the lack of effective internal controls, and to make recommendations to correct deficiencies. This process would enhance transparency and should augment the independent audit requirement. IMPACT ON CITIZENS AND BUSINESSES
F11:
A review of the Minutes of the Board of Supervisors’ Meeting dated October 6, 2016[20] in which the BOS was asked to approve the IWF contract agreement, the Section described as Impact on Citizens and Businesses from Procurement, indicated no impact on citizens or businesses. However, there is an impact on family and friends who place money in the accounts for the inmates and are charged fees for doing so. The family and friends of inmates and the inmates themselves, with few exceptions, are all citizens of the County and are impacted by the contractor agreement. There is an impact on the inmates who must pay the higher prices for the items they purchase. There is an impact on business (Contractor), where the County requires the Contractor to meet the 45.3% of gross sales commission or $1,500,000, whichever is greater. FAILURE TO ADHERE TO IWF AND COMMITTEE BYLAWS AND POLICIES
Related Recommendations (1)
R11:
All information submitted to the BOS regarding the IWF in the section Impact on Citizens and Businesses should be clearly and accurately annotated to reflect there is an impact due to the high fees charged to citizens as reflected in Finding 5, as well as impacting the contractor. FAILURE TO ADHERE TO IWF AND COMMITTEE BYLAWS AND POLICIES
F12:
The current established Bylaws dated September 2, 2015, under Section IV – IWF Committee, Subsection F – Duties and Responsibilities [18], states in part: In addition, the Committee… will oversee the preparation of an Annual Report of the IWF expenditures for the County’s Board. According to the Office of Clerk of the BOS, the last report submitted was for 2014-2015. The reports for 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 have not been received by the Clerk of the Board. The 2014-2015 reports incudes expenditures, but there is no detailed information on operating budget, revenues, etc. This information is needed for the BOS to have a comprehensive understanding of the IWF. CONTRACTOR EMPLOYEE BACKGROUND CHECKS AND SECURITY
Related Recommendations (1)
R12:
The annual report submitted to the BOS should contain full details of the fund revenue, operating expenditures, operating budget, reserve account balance and how the reserve account is to be spent. In addition, all annual reports for 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 are to be provided to the BOS as required by the bylaws and, all subsequent future annual reports be submitted to the BOS in a timely manner. CONTRACTOR EMPLOYEE BACKGROUND CHECKS AND SECURITY
F13:
The current contract between the vendor/contractor and the RCSD [10] stipulates the following requirements for each annotated section listed below: Under Section 7 – Commissary Operations, Subsection G, it states in part: CONTRACTOR shall provide qualified personnel agreed upon by both parties to efficiently distribute store items to the inmates 14 within the confines of the various detentions facilities. These personnel, who will be employed by the CONTRACTOR, must pass a background check administered by the COUNTY. The security clearance acquired upon successful completion of the background check must be maintained in order for the personnel to access the facilities. The CONTRACTOR shall have a minimum of two (2) back-up support personnel who have already passed the COUNTY’s background checks, in the event current staff members need to be easily and expeditiously replaced… Under Section 13, Delivery Requirements, and Subsections C, E, and G, states: C. Commissary items shall be delivered to inmates inside clear plastic bag provided by the Contractor. The clear plastic bags shall be approved by the County. The Contractor is obligated to provide the best quality and best priced products to inmates. [sic] E. CONTRACTOR’s staff shall wear a uniform that identifies the company name and logo clearly visible on their shirts. Shorts may not be worn in the Facility. The COUNTY/Sheriff shall provide identification cards. The COUNTY requires a security clearance of CONTRACTOR’s employees who need access inside a jail facility. The security clearance will be completed by Sheriff’s staff at no charge to the CONTRACTOR. G. Detention staff shall supervise delivery of orders; distribution shall be by the CONTRACTOR’s staff. CONTRACTOR will provide carts and deliver orders to inmates. In the event that the CONTRACTOR distributes commissary items to the wrong inmate, the CONTRACTOR shall be responsible for the cost of items delivered in error. There is no provision for detention staff to inspect IWF items delivered in clear plastic bags to ensure that they do not contain unauthorized items (contraband). This is a safety and security concern. In addition, there is no stipulation or requirement for the Contractor or the RCSD to update background checks on the Contractor’s employees, annually or after an adverse security encounter. There is no language in the policy to stipulate that if a Contractor’s employee has negative contact with law enforcement then that encounter is flagged. RESERVE FUNDS POLICY
Related Recommendations (1)
R13:
a) The RCSD Corrections Staff should inspect all items in the clear plastic bags to ensure that there is no unauthorized contraband entering the facility. b) The RCSD should run annual background checks on vendor’s personnel who have access to the detention facilities to ensure their clearance status has not changed. c) Law enforcement contact is flagged for review by the Sheriff to determine if the issue would result in security issues for the Contractor’s employees and staff. RESERVE FUNDS POLICY
F14:
California Penal Code 4025(3) states: Any funds that are not needed for the welfare of the inmates may be expended for the maintenance of the county jail facilities. There is no written policy explicitly outlining this process. There is no stipulation as to what an acceptable capital improvement project might be, only that a certain amount was earmarked for it. There is no direction as to the use of any additional monies in the reserve account beyond a one-year of ongoing expenses, or any stipulation on the priorities of further spending. 16
Related Recommendations (1)
R14:
a) The IWFC should write a well-defined description to determine how monies are, or are not, to be used for jail facilities. This information should be incorporated in the IWF Bylaws. b) Funds determined to be in excess of those needed for inmate welfare held in the reserve fund shall be clearly defined, prioritized, and designated for specific purposes, with appropriate monitoring. IWF POLICY AND BYLAWS
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R15:
The RCSD IWF Policy 501.13 and IWF Bylaws should have consistent language; therefore, the RCSD should modify Policy 501.13 to reflect IWF Bylaws, Section IV, Subsection B, requirement of accounting firm rotation every three years. Report Issued: 04/04/2018 Report Public: 04/10/2018 Response Due: 07/17/2018 20 RIVERSIDE COUNTY JAIL ATTACHMENT 1 Proposed Commissary Menu - Year 5 Pricing i .;:.;..::: A B C D E F Q H Current Retail Vendor November !Total Cost of | DESCRIPTION Retail Price Manufacturer Item Description Ounce Bid Price Units Sold : Goods Price 1/1/09 1 SlO.OO PHONE CARD 7,546 i$ IGTL """Hone Calls 2 KEEFE PREMIUM COFFEE 4. OZ ; 4 oz 3.75 3.75 $5.23 4,005 $20,932.84 ^Keefe Kitchens Instant Coffee , , 3 RAMEN -CHILI FLAVOR ; 3 oz 0.33 0.33 $1.18 24,670 $29,086.94 Maruchuan j Hyd rated Noodles in brick form iCACTUS ANNIE CHEESE 4 • 2 oz. : 0.60 0.60 $1.22 10,187 $12,382.36 Cactus Annie jSpicy cheese spread JALAPENO ; Spicy Crunchy & Salsa Flavored 5 TACO WORKS SALSA TORT CH IPS ; 2 oz. : 0.46 0.46 $1.22 14,105 $17,144.72 Taco Works Tortilla Chips 6 HOT & SPICY VEGETABLE RAMEN i 3 OZ. \3 0.33 $1.18 18,756 $22,114.09 Maruchuan Hydrated Noodles in brick form 7 RAMEN - TEXAS BEEF FLAVOR 3'OZ. 0.33 0.33 $1.18 18,141 $21,388.98 Maruchuan Hyd rated Noodles in brick form 8 FCCHNKLGHT TUN A/WATER 4'23 1.56 ' 1.56 $2.80 3,853 j$10,771,69 .FreshCatch jPouched Chunk light Tuna in Water oz. ML HOT POTATO CHIP SMALL 9 0.53 i 0.55 • $1.15 9,941 $11,479.18 Moon Lodge iSpicy BBQ Chips BAG L5°2' AMEN - CAJUN SHRIMP 3 02 0.33 0.33 $1.18 15,960 $18,817,50 Maruchuan i Hyd rated Noodlesin brickform TACO WORKS HOT NACHO TORT Spicy Crunchy & Cheese Flavored 11 0.46 0.46 $1.22 15,325 $18,627.63 Taco Works CHIPS Tortilla Chips 1 12 RAMEN -CHICKEN FLAVOR 3 oz. 0.33 0,33 $1.18 13,590 $16,023.17 Maruchuan JHydrated Noodlesin brickform RIVERSIDE CO STAMPED 13 2.60 2.60 $3.40 1,397 $4,749.80 US Post Office iprestarnped Envelopes ENVELOPES KIT 5 Pk' • ML "THE WHOLE SHABANG" 14 0.53 0.55 $1.15 6,461 $7,460.72 Moon Lodge Seasoned Spicy Chips CHIPS L5M- 15 1 BOOK OF Ti N STAMPS 4.20 4,20 $4.90 801 $3,924.90 US Post Office Book of Stamps TROPICAL PUNCH KOOL-A1D 16 $1.88 2,179 $4,096.52 Kool-Aid Instant Tropical Punch Drink (CLEARPACK) ! 6 °Z' L5° ' ^ KF HOT COCOA (CLRPK ! 17 $1.88 2,349 $4,425.60 Keefe Kitchens Instant Hot Chocolate Drink Mix W/Z1PPER) 10°2 L4° -1'40 18 VELVEETA SPICY REFRIED BEANS 4 Oz.. . 1.85 1.95 $2.31 1,604 $3,704.38 Veiveeta Instant Spicy Refried Beans ZIPPY CAKE MONSTER HONEY 19 0.90 0.90 $1.82 3,232 $5,892.77 Zippy Cakes Baker/ Item BUNS 6°Z' 20 SS JALAP PEPPERS ,70Z (SLICES) .7 oz. 0.35 i 0.35 $0.73 7,616 $5,554,38 • Tito's Single Serve Jalapeno Peppers 21 NEXT1 SPORT BAR SOAP | 5 oz 1.13 ; 1.13 L_$L52 1,162 $1,765.52 Crawford [Sports Bar Scented Soap 22 NEXT1 MOISTURIZING BAR SOAP 5 oz 1.35 \5 $1.52 1,894 $2,877.71 Crawford Moisturizing Bar Soap iChewv Nougat w/peanuts Chocolate 23 SNICKERS BAR 1 1,86 oz 0,64 0.64 $1,58 3,885 $6,138.91 ICovered Candy Bar j High Heat Meat Poppers - 24 RR POPPERS HIGH HEAT FL 3 oz 1.70 1.70 Discont 1,857 $0,00 Rvans Ranch D,SCONT|NUED 2C •MAGIC CREAM SHAVE ; 6 oz. 2.69 2.69 $3.65 769 $2,804.17 Soft Sheen | Hair Remover Cream OOL WAVE CLEAR FLUORIDE 1 1 4 02. i 1.67 1.67 $2.13 1,190 $2,531.29 Cool Wave Clear Toothpaste .TPASTE ; r - ML REGULAR POTATO CHIPS- 27 ; 1.50Z i 0.53 0.55 $1.15 3,011 $3,476.89 1 Moon Lodge Plain Potato Chips SMALL BAG ! i j EXHIBIT A (Inmate Pricing) l.'f Riverside County Attachment 2 Employee Vending Machine Pricing Product Price Product Price Snickers Almond 1.76 oz », $0.85 Zippy Cake Strawberry Bar Low Fat 1.3 oz $0.50 Twix Bar Regular 1.79 oz $0.85 Zippy Cake Cupcakes Choc Creme 4 oz $0.80 Nestle Baby Ruth Bar Choc Peanut 2.1 oz $0.85 Zippy Cake Cookies Iced Oatmeal 6 oz $0.90 Starburst Variety 2.07 oz $0.85 Powerade Beverage Fruit Punch 20 oz $2.00 M&M Plain 1.69 oz $0.85 Frito Lay Corn Chips Regular 2 oz $0.65 M&M Peanut 1.74 oz $0.85 Monster Energy Drinkl6 oz $2.25 Skittles Original 2. 17 oz $0.85 Caso De Oro Pork Cracklins Hot & Spicy 2 oz $0.80 Hershey Almond Joy 1.61 oz $0.85 Zippy Cake Soft Cookies Choc Chip 2.75 oz $0.65 Atkinson Chick-O-Stick.7 oz $0.20 Zippy Cake Cookies Oatmeal Raisin 2.75 oz $0.65 Reeses Peanut Butter Cups 1.5 oz $0.85 Hawaiian Punch Juice Fruit Punch 20 oz $1.25 Dr Pepper 20 oz $1,25 Cactus Cooler 20 oz $1.25 Coke Regular 20 oz $1.25 Cheetos Cheese Crunchy 2 oz $0.80 Coke Diet 20 oz $1.25 Cactus Annies Cheese Puffs 2 oz $0.70 Desani Water 20 oz $1.00 Barcelona Mixed Nuts W/Peanuts 2.25 oz $0.85 Snak King Popcorn Cheese 1.5 oz $0.65 Wheat Thins Crackers 1.75 oz $0.75 Doritos Nacho Cheesel,75 oz $0.75 NV Granola Sweet Salty Almond 1.2 oz : $0.60 Kelloggs Crackers/Cheese 1.5 oz $0.65 Twizzlers Strawberry Twists 5 oz ' $1.00 7Up20oz $1.25 ' Snickers 1.86 -oz $6.85 A&W Rootbeer 20 oz $1.25 Milky Way 1. 84 oz $0.85 Sunkist Orange 20 oz $1.25 Kelloggs Pop Tarts Strawberry 2 pk $0,90 Ml Microwave Popcorn Xtra Butter 2,8 oz $0.55 Jolly Rancher Candy Assorted 3,7 oz :;;$j}-85.. . KitKatl.Soz $0.85 Now & Laters 3.25 oz $0.85 $d.85 ..:: Jack Links Beef & Cheese Stick 1.2 oz $0.75 Oreo Cookiesl.8 oz : Moon Lodge Potato Chips Regular 1.5 oz $0.70 Corn Nuts Chile 1.4 oz $0.85 Moon Lodge Potato Chips Bbq 1.5 oz $0,70 Butterfinger 1.9 oz $0.85 EXHIBITS (Staff Pricing) X I ro H n 8 OQ
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
14 findings
F1:
The IWF operates as a closed system with little to no independent internal review and limited external review. The following policies listed below show the IWF is administered internally by the Inmate Welfare Fund Committee (IWFC) with an annual expense statement sent to the BOS. IWF Policy 501.13 §2.0 states: The Inmate Welfare Fund (IWF) shall be administered by a committee designated by the Sheriff. The IWF shall be governed by its own bylaws and procedures. The IWF determines how the fund monies are generated, through private contracts, and spent. IWF Policy 501.13 §3.0 states: The Inmate Welfare Fund committee will administer all revenue and expenditures from the IWF. Included are the commissary operations, telephone commissions, inmate welfare operations, and any other contracted services within this area. The IWFC Bylaws and Policies state the IWFC consists of the following entities appointed by the Sheriff: A: Voting Members: • Corrections Division Chief Deputy (Support Services) • Corrections Division Chief Deputy (Operations) • Robert D. Presley Detention Center Commander • Larry D. Smith Correctional Facility Commander • Southwest Detention Center Commander (Facility now known as the Cois Byrd Detention Center) • Indio Jail Commander (Facility now known as the John J. Benoit Detention Center) • Blythe Jail Commander • Coordinated Custody Management Commander • Corrections Division Administrative Manager (SITE-B) • Sheriff’s Finance Director • Citizen member appointed by the Sheriff (at Sheriff’s discretion) 6 Regular Attendees (Non-voting) • Corrections Division Administrative Manager (FINANCE) • Corrections Division Accountant II B. Chairperson/Secretary [18] The chairperson will preside over the IWFC meetings and manage the functional operations of the IWF. The secretary will handle the day-to-day matters concerning the IWF and act as custodian of committee meeting minutes and other pertinent records. The secretary will be responsible for preparing and maintaining a written record of all IWFC meetings and telephone polls. A copy of the minutes will be distributed to the Sheriff and all IWFC members within seven days following the meeting or poll. The IWFC shall vote to approve or amend the minutes at their next scheduled meeting. The minutes shall reflect any recommended changes or vetoes to proposals made by the Sheriff. These records are kept for three years plus the current year. 15DAY RULE IS NOT A POSITIVE INTERNAL CONTROL
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Assistant Sheriff, Corrections, or the Undersheriff (who are not members of the IWFC), should independently review the IWFC’s actions and all reports as often as necessary. This ensures the IWFC is operating efficiently, and the monies allocated, are properly dispersed. The Sheriff’s Department should post the minutes of all of the IWFC’s meetings on the Sheriff’s website to increase and promote full transparency to the public. 15DAY RULE IS NOT A POSITIVE INTERNAL CONTROL
F2:
The IWF Committee Bylaws and Policies, Section V-IWF Expenditures, Subsection B, Specific Guidelines and Expenditures – Fifteen Day Rule,[18] states in part: The release of IWF monies by the Corrections Division Administrative Manager (FINANCE)… will be delayed fifteen (15) days from the time the IWF-C voted to approve the expenditures… This delay allows the Sheriff reasonable time to review any IWF-C actions and to make any amendments or recommendations he/she may choose, or veto an action… The Sheriff may choose to approve IWF-C actions by simply not responding to the IWF Chairperson within the 15-day time frame. In this case, the IWF-C’s
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The 15-day rule should be modified to include the requirement that all funds under this provision be reviewed and approved by the Assistant Sheriff of Corrections, or the Undersheriff, to ensure funds are appropriately authorized within 15 days of the request for disbursement, consistent with department objectives. THE JAIL COMMANDER CAN OVERRIDE THE IWF DECISION 3 Require the Jail Commander to obtain approval for a variance from the IWFC for programs and maintenance of the facility to promote accountability in accordance with IWFC approvals. CURRENT CIVILIAN MEMBER OF THE IWF COMMITTEE LACKS INDEPENDENCE
F3:
The Inmate Welfare Fund Policy 501.13, Section 6.1 – Facilities [8] states: The jail Commander may approve Inmate Welfare Fund expenditures for inmate programs and maintenance of the facility. This process bypasses the IWFC approval as required in the Bylaws. [18] Any funds not needed for the welfare of the inmates may be expended for the maintenance of the County jail facilities, within the guidelines set forth in the Bylaws. CURRENT CIVILIAN MEMBER OF THE IWFC COMMITTEE LACKS INDEPENDENCE
F4:
There was information obtained during a meeting with Sheriff personnel, in addition to a memorandum[15] provided by the Sheriff, which revealed that the civilian member is a voting member nominated by IWFC members and the person selected is appointed by the Sheriff. The current civilian member is a retired Assistant Sheriff from the RCSD, who was appointed several years ago. Currently, no formal training or training manual exists in order to train a civilian who is not a former Sheriff employee. Therefore, there is no true, impartial or neutral citizen representative sitting on this committee. A single “civilian” cannot truly represent the more than three million citizens of the County. True public transparency requires more than one civilian member. FEES CHARGED TO FAMILY AND FRIENDS
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Develop and implement a policy to have one civilian appointed from each County district, for a total of five, to sit on the IWFC to represent a broad cross-section of the County population, to fairly and adequately represent the inmate population. This policy should include a process for public posting, application submission, review and selection of civilian volunteers for IWFC service. The terms of service should be staggered to ensure that no one sits for more than three years at a time to allow for continuity on the IWFC at all times. This process will be fair, provide adequate 17 representation, foster public input, promote advocacy, and enhance transparency. FEES CHARGED TO FAMILY AND FRIENDS
F5:
There are fees charged to the family and friends of County inmates per the Professional Service Agreement for Jail Commissary Services between the County of Riverside and Contractor, dated October 25, 2016, [12] for deposit of funds to trust accounts. No fees for this process will be borne by the County. The County has agreed that the Contractor may charge these fees for deposit services. The Deposit Services Fee Structure is as follows: 8 Cash Fee Structure Gross Amount Deposited Cash at Lobby Kiosk $0.01-$20.00 $1.00 $20.01-$40.00 $2.00 $40.01-$200.00 $3.00 Credit Card Fee Structure Gross Amount Deposited Web Phone $0.01-$19.99 $2.95 $3.95 $20.00-$99.99 $5.95 $6.95 $100.00-$199.99 $7.95 $8.95 Orange, San Bernardino, and San Diego County Inmate Welfare Fund contracts do not charge deposit fees. RETURN OF MONIES TO INMATES
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
All deposit/transaction fees charged for placing money on an inmate’s account should be eliminated. RETURN OF MONIES TO INMATES
F6:
There is an inefficient method used to return funds to inmates who are no longer in custody. Currently, the IWF contract [12] states: …If an inmate has been released, the CONTRACTOR will keep commissary items and advise the COUNTY of the inmate’s invoice status. The COUNTY will make adjustments and attempt to notify the inmate by mail regarding the commissary balance. The COUNTY will hold the inmate’s money for ninety days (90), if unclaimed by the inmate within that time; the money will be deposited to the County General Fund. [sic] Based on the current wording in the contract, there is no proactive and timely process in place for returning monies back to the inmate at the time 9 of his/her release. There is no written notification process in documents researched to notify an inmate on the process of how to obtain any monies retained on his/her account. By the current policy’s own wording, the Sheriff waits until the released inmate contacts the Sheriff to obtain his/her monies. Currently, money is held for up to 90 days waiting for a released inmate to inquire about his/her money. The Grand Jury researched several county detention centers to ascertain how they return monies to released inmates. The following procedure from Placer County seems to be a comprehensive and efficient method used to return such monies: If an inmate is released during normal business hours, the inmate will receive a check or debit card for the funds from their commissary account. If the inmate is released after business hours, the inmate may return to the jail to request their check in person during normal business hours. If the inmate would like their check mailed, he/she must contact the jail accounting office during normal business hours and provide a current mailing address. SUBSIDIZED VENDING MACHINE SNACKS FOR STAFF
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The RCSD and Contractor renegotiate or modify the contract to adopt a similar policy to expedite the process of returning monies to a released inmate in a more timely and efficient manner. A written policy should be implemented and incorporated into the Inmate Orientation Manual, which explains the process to the inmate about how they may retrieve their monies when they are released. This information should also be available for the public, so family and friends will be aware of the process as well. SUBSIDIZED VENDING MACHINE SNACKS FOR STAFF
F7:
The Contractor is providing the vending machine snacks for staff at a reduced price at all of the detention facilities. As referenced within the vendor’s commissary pricing menus submitted in the contract of 2016[12], a Snicker’s bar for an inmate is $1.58 (Exhibit A), while that same candy bar is sold to staff for $.85 cents (Exhibit B). The negotiated contract mentioned provides employee vending machine pricing. There are 50 listed snack and drink items which are provided by the Contractor under the IWF contract. WEIGHTING OF BID SELECTION FOR COMMISSARY CONTRACTOR
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
Any vending machine products intended for staff should be provided by an independent contractor. Contracted products provided to inmates and contracted products available to staff should be completely separate with distinct business contracts. This would eliminate the perception that the IWF is subsidizing the staff. WEIGHTING OF BID SELECTION FOR COMMISSARY CONTRACTOR
F8:
The Sheriff Department’s contract with the Contractor requires the County to assume no cost or risk. County Procurement awards contracts based on competitive pricing by soliciting written bids from available vendors. The purpose of competitive bidding is based on the lowest possible price, for the benefit of the County Inmates. The County Request for Proposal (RFP)[10] requires a commission or service fee to be paid to the RCSD. A first year payment of $1.5 million, and 10 following years (year two up to five years) commission payments equal to 45.3% of the vendor’s gross revenues, prorated based on inmate head count, is a fundamental part of the business requirements in order for the Contractor to be approved and granted the contract. The RCSD deposits the commission from the Contractor to the IWF account. The monies are primarily used for the benefit of the inmates, but can also be used for other expenses as defined in California Penal Code Section 4025(e). The net effect of the commission the Contractor is required to pay is an increase in the cost of goods sold to inmates in the jail commissary, in contrast to the price for the same goods sold to the general public. As a result, the Contractor sells goods and services to County inmates at an inflated price (profits plus commission), and as an exclusive agent of the Sheriff’s Department, passes the contractually required commission to the inmate in the form of higher prices. A review of the Purchasing Department’s Jail Commissary Services Evaluation Scoring Sheet (Exhibit C) with the selection criteria, reflects a weight of forty percent toward the vendor’s ability to satisfy business requirements, which includes the commission, while cost to the inmates was weighted at twenty percent. Under this weighting criteria, the Contractor was awarded the contract because a greater emphasis was placed on the amount of money paid to the County rather than on the lowest price of goods provided to the inmate. A majority of goods charged at the commissary, based on the pricing matrix, have a markup value ranging between 40 and 70 percent over and above standard commercial pricing. INDIGENT KITS PAID FOR BY THE VENDOR
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
The RCSD, through the Purchasing Department should renegotiate the contract at its next anniversary to primarily focus on the lowest cost and/or “best value” to the inmate. INDIGENT KITS PAID FOR BY THE VENDOR
F9:
The commissary Contractor is required by the County, as an inducement to be the sole contractor, to supply 35,000 Indigent Kits to the inmate population free of charge. Per SHARC-96115-003-11/23, Section 11- Indigent Kits of the agreement, [12] states: CONTRACTOR, at its sole cost and expense, will provide a minimum of 35,000 indigent inmate kits to the COUNTY 11 annually. For additional indigent kits beyond this amount, the CONTRACTOR will provide indigent kits to those inmates who qualify for the program at no profit to the CONTRACTOR. [sic] The Counties of Orange, San Bernardino, and San Diego [6] all have stipulations in their contracts and policies that their indigent kits expense will be borne from their General Fund and not through the IWF. Their policies reflect that cleanliness and hygiene are basic functions (like feeding) that must be provided by the County and not through the IWF. The RCSD Contractor supplies the inmate kits at their cost, which is then passed on to the inmate in the form of higher prices for any and all goods and services to recoup their costs. INADEQUATE AUDITS
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
The County provide indigent kits to the inmates paid from the General Fund at the current contract price of $2.30 each. INADEQUATE AUDITS
F10:
Audits are conducted on the IWF with the purpose of increasing transparency. IWF Bylaw Section B-Audits [18] states: The Corrections Division Administrative Manager (FINANCE) will monitor and perform a monthly audit of all IWF expenditures and prepare pertinent management reports for the IWF. A non- County entity or outside accounting firm shall conduct an annual audit of the IWF[sic]] The Corrections Administrative Manager (FINANCE) will initiate and coordinate with the Sheriff’s Contracts Unit a request for quote for audit services in accordance with Riverside County Purchasing guidelines. These entities with the approval and concurrence of the Corrections Chief Deputy for Support Services will select the outside accounting firm to prepare said audit. To avoid exclusivity, the accounting firm will rotate every three years. Part C – Annual Report [18] states: The Corrections Administrative Manager (FINANCE) will be responsible for the preparation of an annual report of all revenue, expenditures, current balance, and transactions of the IWF. An itemized report of expenditures will be included in the public information plan for each facility. Pursuant to 4025(e) of the Penal Code, the itemized expenditure report and a copy of 12 the annual IWF audit will be submitted annually to the County Board of Supervisors. All audits are only distributed within the IWFC and thereby lack independent scrutiny or oversight during the year. The monthly audits are neither reviewed nor monitored by the Assistant Sheriff of Corrections or the Undersheriff or any other neutral party. The independent audits conducted annually focus strictly on accounting of numbers and as such, do not address internal controls. Internal Controls provide guidance for establishing and maintaining an effective system of operations and accounting principles in accordance with the County’s policies. Internal controls refers to the methods and procedures used to provide reasonable assurance regarding the achievement of objectives in the following categories:[4]
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
a) The independent audits should be conducted to include a comprehensive in-depth review of the IWF to include internal controls. b) The Riverside County Auditor-Controller’s office can, and is willing to, conduct its own comprehensive annual audit of the IWF at no cost to the Sheriff’s Department. This review shall be under the Risk Assessment criteria to assess the efficiency and appropriateness of the IWF, the risk of misuse or fraud, the lack of effective internal controls, and to make recommendations to correct deficiencies. This process would enhance transparency and should augment the independent audit requirement. IMPACT ON CITIZENS AND BUSINESSES
F11:
A review of the Minutes of the Board of Supervisors’ Meeting dated October 6, 2016[20] in which the BOS was asked to approve the IWF contract agreement, the Section described as Impact on Citizens and Businesses from Procurement, indicated no impact on citizens or businesses. However, there is an impact on family and friends who place money in the accounts for the inmates and are charged fees for doing so. The family and friends of inmates and the inmates themselves, with few exceptions, are all citizens of the County and are impacted by the contractor agreement. There is an impact on the inmates who must pay the higher prices for the items they purchase. There is an impact on business (Contractor), where the County requires the Contractor to meet the 45.3% of gross sales commission or $1,500,000, whichever is greater. FAILURE TO ADHERE TO IWF AND COMMITTEE BYLAWS AND POLICIES
Related Recommendations (1)
R11:
All information submitted to the BOS regarding the IWF in the section Impact on Citizens and Businesses should be clearly and accurately annotated to reflect there is an impact due to the high fees charged to citizens as reflected in Finding 5, as well as impacting the contractor. FAILURE TO ADHERE TO IWF AND COMMITTEE BYLAWS AND POLICIES
F12:
The current established Bylaws dated September 2, 2015, under Section IV – IWF Committee, Subsection F – Duties and Responsibilities [18], states in part: In addition, the Committee… will oversee the preparation of an Annual Report of the IWF expenditures for the County’s Board. According to the Office of Clerk of the BOS, the last report submitted was for 2014-2015. The reports for 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 have not been received by the Clerk of the Board. The 2014-2015 reports incudes expenditures, but there is no detailed information on operating budget, revenues, etc. This information is needed for the BOS to have a comprehensive understanding of the IWF. CONTRACTOR EMPLOYEE BACKGROUND CHECKS AND SECURITY
Related Recommendations (1)
R12:
The annual report submitted to the BOS should contain full details of the fund revenue, operating expenditures, operating budget, reserve account balance and how the reserve account is to be spent. In addition, all annual reports for 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 are to be provided to the BOS as required by the bylaws and, all subsequent future annual reports be submitted to the BOS in a timely manner. CONTRACTOR EMPLOYEE BACKGROUND CHECKS AND SECURITY
F13:
The current contract between the vendor/contractor and the RCSD [10] stipulates the following requirements for each annotated section listed below: Under Section 7 – Commissary Operations, Subsection G, it states in part: CONTRACTOR shall provide qualified personnel agreed upon by both parties to efficiently distribute store items to the inmates 14 within the confines of the various detentions facilities. These personnel, who will be employed by the CONTRACTOR, must pass a background check administered by the COUNTY. The security clearance acquired upon successful completion of the background check must be maintained in order for the personnel to access the facilities. The CONTRACTOR shall have a minimum of two (2) back-up support personnel who have already passed the COUNTY’s background checks, in the event current staff members need to be easily and expeditiously replaced… Under Section 13, Delivery Requirements, and Subsections C, E, and G, states: C. Commissary items shall be delivered to inmates inside clear plastic bag provided by the Contractor. The clear plastic bags shall be approved by the County. The Contractor is obligated to provide the best quality and best priced products to inmates. [sic] E. CONTRACTOR’s staff shall wear a uniform that identifies the company name and logo clearly visible on their shirts. Shorts may not be worn in the Facility. The COUNTY/Sheriff shall provide identification cards. The COUNTY requires a security clearance of CONTRACTOR’s employees who need access inside a jail facility. The security clearance will be completed by Sheriff’s staff at no charge to the CONTRACTOR. G. Detention staff shall supervise delivery of orders; distribution shall be by the CONTRACTOR’s staff. CONTRACTOR will provide carts and deliver orders to inmates. In the event that the CONTRACTOR distributes commissary items to the wrong inmate, the CONTRACTOR shall be responsible for the cost of items delivered in error. There is no provision for detention staff to inspect IWF items delivered in clear plastic bags to ensure that they do not contain unauthorized items (contraband). This is a safety and security concern. In addition, there is no stipulation or requirement for the Contractor or the RCSD to update background checks on the Contractor’s employees, annually or after an adverse security encounter. There is no language in the policy to stipulate that if a Contractor’s employee has negative contact with law enforcement then that encounter is flagged. RESERVE FUNDS POLICY
Related Recommendations (1)
R13:
a) The RCSD Corrections Staff should inspect all items in the clear plastic bags to ensure that there is no unauthorized contraband entering the facility. b) The RCSD should run annual background checks on vendor’s personnel who have access to the detention facilities to ensure their clearance status has not changed. c) Law enforcement contact is flagged for review by the Sheriff to determine if the issue would result in security issues for the Contractor’s employees and staff. RESERVE FUNDS POLICY
F14:
California Penal Code 4025(3) states: Any funds that are not needed for the welfare of the inmates may be expended for the maintenance of the county jail facilities. There is no written policy explicitly outlining this process. There is no stipulation as to what an acceptable capital improvement project might be, only that a certain amount was earmarked for it. There is no direction as to the use of any additional monies in the reserve account beyond a one-year of ongoing expenses, or any stipulation on the priorities of further spending. 16
Related Recommendations (1)
R14:
a) The IWFC should write a well-defined description to determine how monies are, or are not, to be used for jail facilities. This information should be incorporated in the IWF Bylaws. b) Funds determined to be in excess of those needed for inmate welfare held in the reserve fund shall be clearly defined, prioritized, and designated for specific purposes, with appropriate monitoring. IWF POLICY AND BYLAWS
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R15:
The RCSD IWF Policy 501.13 and IWF Bylaws should have consistent language; therefore, the RCSD should modify Policy 501.13 to reflect IWF Bylaws, Section IV, Subsection B, requirement of accounting firm rotation every three years. Report Issued: 04/04/2018 Report Public: 04/10/2018 Response Due: 07/17/2018 20 RIVERSIDE COUNTY JAIL ATTACHMENT 1 Proposed Commissary Menu - Year 5 Pricing i .;:.;..::: A B C D E F Q H Current Retail Vendor November !Total Cost of | DESCRIPTION Retail Price Manufacturer Item Description Ounce Bid Price Units Sold : Goods Price 1/1/09 1 SlO.OO PHONE CARD 7,546 i$ IGTL """Hone Calls 2 KEEFE PREMIUM COFFEE 4. OZ ; 4 oz 3.75 3.75 $5.23 4,005 $20,932.84 ^Keefe Kitchens Instant Coffee , , 3 RAMEN -CHILI FLAVOR ; 3 oz 0.33 0.33 $1.18 24,670 $29,086.94 Maruchuan j Hyd rated Noodles in brick form iCACTUS ANNIE CHEESE 4 • 2 oz. : 0.60 0.60 $1.22 10,187 $12,382.36 Cactus Annie jSpicy cheese spread JALAPENO ; Spicy Crunchy & Salsa Flavored 5 TACO WORKS SALSA TORT CH IPS ; 2 oz. : 0.46 0.46 $1.22 14,105 $17,144.72 Taco Works Tortilla Chips 6 HOT & SPICY VEGETABLE RAMEN i 3 OZ. \3 0.33 $1.18 18,756 $22,114.09 Maruchuan Hydrated Noodles in brick form 7 RAMEN - TEXAS BEEF FLAVOR 3'OZ. 0.33 0.33 $1.18 18,141 $21,388.98 Maruchuan Hyd rated Noodles in brick form 8 FCCHNKLGHT TUN A/WATER 4'23 1.56 ' 1.56 $2.80 3,853 j$10,771,69 .FreshCatch jPouched Chunk light Tuna in Water oz. ML HOT POTATO CHIP SMALL 9 0.53 i 0.55 • $1.15 9,941 $11,479.18 Moon Lodge iSpicy BBQ Chips BAG L5°2' AMEN - CAJUN SHRIMP 3 02 0.33 0.33 $1.18 15,960 $18,817,50 Maruchuan i Hyd rated Noodlesin brickform TACO WORKS HOT NACHO TORT Spicy Crunchy & Cheese Flavored 11 0.46 0.46 $1.22 15,325 $18,627.63 Taco Works CHIPS Tortilla Chips 1 12 RAMEN -CHICKEN FLAVOR 3 oz. 0.33 0,33 $1.18 13,590 $16,023.17 Maruchuan JHydrated Noodlesin brickform RIVERSIDE CO STAMPED 13 2.60 2.60 $3.40 1,397 $4,749.80 US Post Office iprestarnped Envelopes ENVELOPES KIT 5 Pk' • ML "THE WHOLE SHABANG" 14 0.53 0.55 $1.15 6,461 $7,460.72 Moon Lodge Seasoned Spicy Chips CHIPS L5M- 15 1 BOOK OF Ti N STAMPS 4.20 4,20 $4.90 801 $3,924.90 US Post Office Book of Stamps TROPICAL PUNCH KOOL-A1D 16 $1.88 2,179 $4,096.52 Kool-Aid Instant Tropical Punch Drink (CLEARPACK) ! 6 °Z' L5° ' ^ KF HOT COCOA (CLRPK ! 17 $1.88 2,349 $4,425.60 Keefe Kitchens Instant Hot Chocolate Drink Mix W/Z1PPER) 10°2 L4° -1'40 18 VELVEETA SPICY REFRIED BEANS 4 Oz.. . 1.85 1.95 $2.31 1,604 $3,704.38 Veiveeta Instant Spicy Refried Beans ZIPPY CAKE MONSTER HONEY 19 0.90 0.90 $1.82 3,232 $5,892.77 Zippy Cakes Baker/ Item BUNS 6°Z' 20 SS JALAP PEPPERS ,70Z (SLICES) .7 oz. 0.35 i 0.35 $0.73 7,616 $5,554,38 • Tito's Single Serve Jalapeno Peppers 21 NEXT1 SPORT BAR SOAP | 5 oz 1.13 ; 1.13 L_$L52 1,162 $1,765.52 Crawford [Sports Bar Scented Soap 22 NEXT1 MOISTURIZING BAR SOAP 5 oz 1.35 \5 $1.52 1,894 $2,877.71 Crawford Moisturizing Bar Soap iChewv Nougat w/peanuts Chocolate 23 SNICKERS BAR 1 1,86 oz 0,64 0.64 $1,58 3,885 $6,138.91 ICovered Candy Bar j High Heat Meat Poppers - 24 RR POPPERS HIGH HEAT FL 3 oz 1.70 1.70 Discont 1,857 $0,00 Rvans Ranch D,SCONT|NUED 2C •MAGIC CREAM SHAVE ; 6 oz. 2.69 2.69 $3.65 769 $2,804.17 Soft Sheen | Hair Remover Cream OOL WAVE CLEAR FLUORIDE 1 1 4 02. i 1.67 1.67 $2.13 1,190 $2,531.29 Cool Wave Clear Toothpaste .TPASTE ; r - ML REGULAR POTATO CHIPS- 27 ; 1.50Z i 0.53 0.55 $1.15 3,011 $3,476.89 1 Moon Lodge Plain Potato Chips SMALL BAG ! i j EXHIBIT A (Inmate Pricing) l.'f Riverside County Attachment 2 Employee Vending Machine Pricing Product Price Product Price Snickers Almond 1.76 oz », $0.85 Zippy Cake Strawberry Bar Low Fat 1.3 oz $0.50 Twix Bar Regular 1.79 oz $0.85 Zippy Cake Cupcakes Choc Creme 4 oz $0.80 Nestle Baby Ruth Bar Choc Peanut 2.1 oz $0.85 Zippy Cake Cookies Iced Oatmeal 6 oz $0.90 Starburst Variety 2.07 oz $0.85 Powerade Beverage Fruit Punch 20 oz $2.00 M&M Plain 1.69 oz $0.85 Frito Lay Corn Chips Regular 2 oz $0.65 M&M Peanut 1.74 oz $0.85 Monster Energy Drinkl6 oz $2.25 Skittles Original 2. 17 oz $0.85 Caso De Oro Pork Cracklins Hot & Spicy 2 oz $0.80 Hershey Almond Joy 1.61 oz $0.85 Zippy Cake Soft Cookies Choc Chip 2.75 oz $0.65 Atkinson Chick-O-Stick.7 oz $0.20 Zippy Cake Cookies Oatmeal Raisin 2.75 oz $0.65 Reeses Peanut Butter Cups 1.5 oz $0.85 Hawaiian Punch Juice Fruit Punch 20 oz $1.25 Dr Pepper 20 oz $1,25 Cactus Cooler 20 oz $1.25 Coke Regular 20 oz $1.25 Cheetos Cheese Crunchy 2 oz $0.80 Coke Diet 20 oz $1.25 Cactus Annies Cheese Puffs 2 oz $0.70 Desani Water 20 oz $1.00 Barcelona Mixed Nuts W/Peanuts 2.25 oz $0.85 Snak King Popcorn Cheese 1.5 oz $0.65 Wheat Thins Crackers 1.75 oz $0.75 Doritos Nacho Cheesel,75 oz $0.75 NV Granola Sweet Salty Almond 1.2 oz : $0.60 Kelloggs Crackers/Cheese 1.5 oz $0.65 Twizzlers Strawberry Twists 5 oz ' $1.00 7Up20oz $1.25 ' Snickers 1.86 -oz $6.85 A&W Rootbeer 20 oz $1.25 Milky Way 1. 84 oz $0.85 Sunkist Orange 20 oz $1.25 Kelloggs Pop Tarts Strawberry 2 pk $0,90 Ml Microwave Popcorn Xtra Butter 2,8 oz $0.55 Jolly Rancher Candy Assorted 3,7 oz :;;$j}-85.. . KitKatl.Soz $0.85 Now & Laters 3.25 oz $0.85 $d.85 ..:: Jack Links Beef & Cheese Stick 1.2 oz $0.75 Oreo Cookiesl.8 oz : Moon Lodge Potato Chips Regular 1.5 oz $0.70 Corn Nuts Chile 1.4 oz $0.85 Moon Lodge Potato Chips Bbq 1.5 oz $0,70 Butterfinger 1.9 oz $0.85 EXHIBITS (Staff Pricing) X I ro H n 8 OQ
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
The grievance procedure is a method designed to allow an inmate/detainee to document a complaint regarding a variety of issues within the detention facility or department. The grievance process can also address alleged employee misconduct, e.g., use of force; lack of (or improper) medical care, dental or mental health care; and failure to protect a person’s human or Constitutional rights. The grievance process is an important tool to rectify and mitigate problems brought to the attention of detention staff. Grievance forms may be used as evidence in court. The grievance forms are readily available and accessible to all inmates/detainees. They are collected and reviewed by a supervisor who assigns the complaints to a staff member who will attempt to resolve issues. Information obtained is entered into the computer system for tracking and accountability. All grievance forms require a written response from assigned staff. This response will state how the issue was resolved and the inmate/detainee is required to sign the form indicating whether he/she agrees with the finding or wants to pursue the issue further. The 2017-2018 Riverside County Grand Jury (Grand Jury) reviewed a randomly-selected number of grievance forms from several Riverside County detention facilities. Several responses to the grievance forms completed by custody staff appeared to be more suited to a clinical issue rather than a custody issue. Most of the responses were more of a recommendation/solution to the complaint. These complaints pertained to the hunger strike of 2017. In many staff responses, there were no policy numbers written as the reference in making the determination for the response.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
a). All grievance responses should be written in a professional manner and be reviewed by a supervisor ensuring that the responses are professional. If the lieutenant finds a complaint is sustained, then it should be forwarded to the captain level for the appropriate disposition; b). Policies and procedures should be modified to reflect this process; c). All staff should receive appropriate annual training on properly and professionally responding to a grievance; d).Grievance responses should include the policy/procedure number(s) as the reference correlating to the response for either granting or denying the grievance.
F2:
The RCSD Classification Policy 504.02, 1.0, Wristbands, as well as the Inmate Orientation Manual, stipulate that all inmates must continuously wear their particular wristbands which identify them and their custody level for safety and security purposes. The wristbands are to remain on the inmate/detainee’s wrists until they leave the custody of the detention facility. On several tours of the various detention centers, the Grand Jury repeatedly observed inmates not wearing their wristbands as required. Wearing of wristbands is mandatory and non-compliance violates the safety and security protocols for the inmate and the institution. The issue was brought to the attention of facility deputies on duty. The deputies directed the inmates to put their wristbands back on. Deputies informed the Grand Jury that this issue is a constant problem. Although they try to stay diligent on this issue and do impose disciplinary actions, the situation still persists and is an ongoing problem. When inmates remove their wristbands, it is a significant safety risk for identification purposes. Staff did inform the Grand Jury that more tamper-resistant wristbands were ordered to solve this issue. However, the Grand Jury had the opportunity to observe the new wristbands, and were informed by several correctional deputies and supervisors, at the various detention centers that the new wristbands are also ineffective. Inmate/detainees are capable of rubbing the 3 steel fastener off, providing the inmate with a small bit of metal which could be used or made into a weapon. Correctional staff advised that the old wristbands were a solid color that easily identified the inmate/detainee risk level, but the new wristbands are clear with the color contained only on the name tag. This makes it extremely difficult for staff to easily identify an inmate’s/detainee’s risk level from a distance. Staff must get close to the inmate to read the wristband to identify the risk level which poses a greater risk to the safety and security of the detention facility.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The RCSD Classification Policy 504.02, 1.0, Wristbands, as well as the Inmate Orientation Manual, stipulate that all inmates must continuously wear their particular wristbands which identify them and their custody level for safety and security purposes. The wristbands are to remain on the inmate/detainee’s wrists until they leave the custody of the detention facility. On several tours of the various detention centers, the Grand Jury repeatedly observed inmates not wearing their wristbands as required. Wearing of wristbands is mandatory and non-compliance violates the safety and security protocols for the inmate and the institution. The issue was brought to the attention of facility deputies on duty. The deputies directed the inmates to put their wristbands back on. Deputies informed the Grand Jury that this issue is a constant problem. Although they try to stay diligent on this issue and do impose disciplinary actions, the situation still persists and is an ongoing problem. When inmates remove their wristbands, it is a significant safety risk for identification purposes. Staff did inform the Grand Jury that more tamper-resistant wristbands were ordered to solve this issue. However, the Grand Jury had the opportunity to observe the new wristbands, and were informed by several correctional deputies and supervisors, at the various detention centers that the new wristbands are also ineffective. Inmate/detainees are capable of rubbing the 3 steel fastener off, providing the inmate with a small bit of metal which could be used or made into a weapon. Correctional staff advised that the old wristbands were a solid color that easily identified the inmate/detainee risk level, but the new wristbands are clear with the color contained only on the name tag. This makes it extremely difficult for staff to easily identify an inmate’s/detainee’s risk level from a distance. Staff must get close to the inmate to read the wristband to identify the risk level which poses a greater risk to the safety and security of the detention facility. RECOMMENDATION Wristband Enforcement
F3:
The current system for clothing and laundry exchange follows the basic minimum requirements established through the Board of State and Community Corrections Standards (BSCC). This basic minimum requirement as stipulated per the BSCC Manual, Article 14-Bedding and Linen, describes the following: The standard issue of clean suitable bedding and linens, for each inmate entering a living area that is expected to remain overnight, shall include but not limited to: (a) one serviceable mattress… (b) one mattress cover or one sheet, (c) one towel, and (d) one blanket or more depending on climatic conditions…washable items such as sheets, mattress covers, and towels shall be exchanged for clean replacement at least once each week… §507.06-Clothing exchange applies to inmate clothing. This section states in part: 4 …Unless work, climatic conditions, illness, or California Retail Food Code necessitates more frequent exchange, outer garments… shall be exchanged at least once per week. Undergarments and socks shall be exchanged twice each week. The key words here in the above sections are: but not limited to…, at least once each week…, climatic conditions. Although the BSCC Manual states the bare basic requirements, it does not prohibit conducting exchanges more frequently. The issues arise under the climatic conditions wording and common sense on basic hygiene cleanliness as it pertains to issuing only one towel and one jumpsuit each week and exchanging such towel and jumpsuit each week. Under climatic conditions, due to the ambient temperature in the detention facilities, using the same towel for the entire week for showering does not allow the towel to sufficiently dry out before the towel is reused. This creates a situation where the inmates are constantly using a damp towel for a week before they can exchange it for a clean dry towel. Using a damp towel for a week to dry the body before it can be exchanged for another towel diminishes and compromises good hygiene because the damp towel is a breeding ground for bacteria and mildew spores. The same principle applies to allowing only one jumpsuit to be worn before it is exchanged each week. Not exchanging a jumpsuit more frequently allows for bacteria and odors to accumulate and goes against the policies of the Sheriff to provide for a sanitary and hygienic living environment at all levels. In comparing the clothing and laundry exchange policies of the counties adjacent to Riverside, Orange, San Diego and San Bernardino, all exchange their inmate towels and clothing twice a week for a better hygienic environment in their detention facilities.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The current system for clothing and laundry exchange follows the basic minimum requirements established through the Board of State and Community Corrections Standards (BSCC). This basic minimum requirement as stipulated per the BSCC Manual, Article 14-Bedding and Linen, describes the following: The standard issue of clean suitable bedding and linens, for each inmate entering a living area that is expected to remain overnight, shall include but not limited to: (a) one serviceable mattress… (b) one mattress cover or one sheet, (c) one towel, and (d) one blanket or more depending on climatic conditions…washable items such as sheets, mattress covers, and towels shall be exchanged for clean replacement at least once each week… §507.06-Clothing exchange applies to inmate clothing. This section states in part: 4 …Unless work, climatic conditions, illness, or California Retail Food Code necessitates more frequent exchange, outer garments… shall be exchanged at least once per week. Undergarments and socks shall be exchanged twice each week. The key words here in the above sections are: but not limited to…, at least once each week…, climatic conditions. Although the BSCC Manual states the bare basic requirements, it does not prohibit conducting exchanges more frequently. The issues arise under the climatic conditions wording and common sense on basic hygiene cleanliness as it pertains to issuing only one towel and one jumpsuit each week and exchanging such towel and jumpsuit each week. Under climatic conditions, due to the ambient temperature in the detention facilities, using the same towel for the entire week for showering does not allow the towel to sufficiently dry out before the towel is reused. This creates a situation where the inmates are constantly using a damp towel for a week before they can exchange it for a clean dry towel. Using a damp towel for a week to dry the body before it can be exchanged for another towel diminishes and compromises good hygiene because the damp towel is a breeding ground for bacteria and mildew spores. The same principle applies to allowing only one jumpsuit to be worn before it is exchanged each week. Not exchanging a jumpsuit more frequently allows for bacteria and odors to accumulate and goes against the policies of the Sheriff to provide for a sanitary and hygienic living environment at all levels. In comparing the clothing and laundry exchange policies of the counties adjacent to Riverside, Orange, San Diego and San Bernardino, all exchange their inmate towels and clothing twice a week for a better hygienic environment in their detention facilities. RECOMMENDATION Clothing and Laundry Exchange
F4:
California Government Code §26202.6(a)(c) with respect to video recordings requires that they be available for review for one year after the date of the original recording. Video recordings requested by the Grand Jury for events that occurred in April 2017 at the Presley Detention Center in Riverside were not provided because they had been reported lost due to a failure of the recording device. There was no backup recording system or plan in place, therefore, valuable evidence to either prove or disprove an allegation has been lost.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
California Government Code §26202.6(a)(c) with respect to video recordings requires that they be available for review for one year after the date of the original recording. Video recordings requested by the Grand Jury for events that occurred in April 2017 at the Presley Detention Center in Riverside were not provided because they had been reported lost due to a failure of the recording device. There was no backup recording system or plan in place, therefore, valuable evidence to either prove or disprove an allegation has been lost. RECOMMENDATION Video Monitoring and Backup Storage
F5:
The implementation of AB 109 in October 2011 changed the fundamental dynamics and operations of the local jails from short-term incarceration of up to one year to long-term incarceration exceeding 20 years. This monumental change has transformed local jails into de facto state prisons. AB 109 has a profound impact on the jail population due to longer terms and more violence prone inmates. The types of services provided to meet the needs of longer term inmates and the policies to effectively implement them are not available. Current policies follow the guidelines of the BSCC Manual which sets minimum standards and parameters for local jails to operate. In addition, the RCSD detention facilities also set basic standards based on short term stays. This worked well prior to the implementation of AB 109 when the local jails only incarcerated short term inmates. However, AB 109 is now the law and with the added responsibilities of housing and caring for long-term inmates, the basic minimum standard model currently in place is inadequate in meeting and sustaining the current and growing needs of the jail population. Additionally, the jails are not equipped to accommodate longer visiting hours, or have larger rooms or areas, either inside or outside on detention grounds, to accommodate larger groups of visitors/families. Jail visiting rooms are small, usually behind glass, and may only accommodate three people at a time. Such restrictive visiting accommodations make it difficult to foster family bonding and interaction because no personal contact is allowed. The BSCC’s latest version of their guidelines, in conjunction with the current rules and regulations administered by the RCSD jail system, do not reflect and address the current reality the RCSD detention staff must face under the implementation of AB 109. The basic minimum standards are only a guide to provide basic services and it does not prevent the RCSD from implementing a better model to counterbalance the reality of AB 109.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The implementation of AB 109 in October 2011 changed the fundamental dynamics and operations of the local jails from short-term incarceration of up to one year to long-term incarceration exceeding 20 years. This monumental change has transformed local jails into de facto state prisons. AB 109 has a profound impact on the jail population due to longer terms and more violence prone inmates. The types of services provided to meet the needs of longer term inmates and the policies to effectively implement them are not available. Current policies follow the guidelines of the BSCC Manual which sets minimum standards and parameters for local jails to operate. In addition, the RCSD detention facilities also set basic standards based on short term stays. This worked well prior to the implementation of AB 109 when the local jails only incarcerated short term inmates. However, AB 109 is now the law and with the added responsibilities of housing and caring for long-term inmates, the basic minimum standard model currently in place is inadequate in meeting and sustaining the current and growing needs of the jail population. Additionally, the jails are not equipped to accommodate longer visiting hours, or have larger rooms or areas, either inside or outside on detention grounds, to accommodate larger groups of visitors/families. Jail visiting rooms are small, usually behind glass, and may only accommodate three people at a time. Such restrictive visiting accommodations make it difficult to foster family bonding and interaction because no personal contact is allowed. The BSCC’s latest version of their guidelines, in conjunction with the current rules and regulations administered by the RCSD jail system, do not reflect and address the current reality the RCSD detention staff must face under the implementation of AB 109. The basic minimum standards are only a guide to provide basic services and it does not prevent the RCSD from implementing a better model to counterbalance the reality of AB 109. RECOMMENDATION Proactive Modification Procedures
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
While the CSA 126 management has a policy of openness and transparency, it has not effectively communicated changes and agreements. Previous efforts by Riverside County officials to inform CSA 126 residents through public meetings have proved to be inadequate. Citizens don’t understand how CSA agreements were designed to work and how the funds are managed. For complete record access, a citizen would need to inquire at the Jurupa Valley Sheriff Station, the EDA, the landscaping contractor, a County Supervisor, Tax Collector, Assessor, and occasionally state records. CSA 126 SERVICES PROVIDED
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
CSA 126 management provide a one-time public notice clarifying exactly how the CSA 126 funds are distributed. This notice should include the number of assessed parcels, the amount per parcel for different housing areas, and any current agreements and contracts in effect. At least once every two years, CSA management should make a summary report available online and at a public meeting open to all interested Highgrove residents. This effort is appropriate and necessary since there is no current forum to discuss such issues in the Highgrove Community. Part of the summary of contracts and agreements should explain the effective date and cost of the current chain of agreements between CSA 126 management and the Jurupa Valley Sheriff Station for focused law enforcement coverage. CSA 126 SERVICES PROVIDED
F2:
An inspection of the other services that the CSA 126 funds are drawn upon to provide, revealed that the park, park maintenance, lighting and median landscaping are in excellent condition. Interviews of random citizens using the park and community center resulted in nothing but praise and some of them came from quite a distance to use the facilities.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
CSA 126 management should continue to seek and employ the best qualified contractors to maintain CSA 126 services at the highest possible level and lowest cost. 4
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
The original Federal District Court Quit Claim Deed Covenant Restriction issued on June 13, 2002, has never been legally modified, amended, or rescinded. Norco recognized that they were restricted from building this commercial venture and filed a motion in Federal Court for interpretation, modification and/or elimination of the restrictive covenant. The motion was unequivocally denied on November 2, 2004, in the following: …The receiver in this action sold the property at issue on the condition that the deed contain a covenant running with the land restricting the use of the property to park in open space purposes, which was intended for the benefit of the public. The covenant clearly precludes the mixed use project proposed by the City of Norco. Thus, the Court will not construe the covenant as permitting the mixed-use project. Given that the beneficiaries of the covenant include members of the public, the Court will not eliminate the covenant. [sic]
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
a. Riverside County District Attorney’s office investigate the Norco City officials (past and present) for purposefully accepting a bid from a Developer whose intent was to construct a commercial endeavor contrary to the restrictions of a Federal Court order. b. Riverside County District Attorney investigate the Norco City officials (past and present) for presenting misleading documents to the Riverside County Superior Court, thereby obtaining favorable judicial approval for a commercial sports park rather than a genuine public park.
F2:
The SilverLakes Equestrian and Sports Complex is not a public park as presented in the 2002 Quit Claim Deed including the Covenant Restriction. The concept plans submitted in 2012 to Riverside County Superior Court for validation gave the impression that there would be limited 5 commercial or money making activities at this property. However, the plans were substantially different from what was actually constructed. The extent of commercial development in the plans submitted to Riverside Superior Court was minimized. For example, the exhibit plans had no reference to constructing a full service commercial restaurant and bar.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
a. Norco and/or the Developer adds to the SilverLakes actual recreational assets and amenities such as shade trees, picnic areas, family play areas, park benches, barbeque grills, basketball courts, tennis courts, bike trails, etc. as intended in the original Quit Claim Deed Covenant definition of a public park. The Developer maintain the Park facilities at no cost to Norco. b. Desist in charging entry fees to Norco residents for entering and using what should be a public park facility.
F3:
After reviewing official correspondence, sworn testimony and memos, the Grand Jury discovered that pursuant to the Council’s prior authorization, approximately $1.8 million had been provided to the Developer for water and sewer improvements. However, no loan documentation or legal contracts to support this transfer of funds have been found or provided to the Grand Jury despite subpoenaed requests. The money for the loan was drawn from an existing $39 million Enterprise Revenue Refunding Bond. Although the Bond was not designated for this specific instance, there is a clause in its description which allows Norco to finance up to $6 million for improvements to the City’s Water and Sewer Systems.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Norco publicly disclose a full financial accounting history of monies truly expended for this project. The financial disclosure should 6 include the initial purchase of the property and all loan documentation from 2002 through the current fiscal year. Report Issued: 05/16/2018 Report Public: 05/18/2018 Report Response: 08/18/2018 7 8
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
The original Federal District Court Quit Claim Deed Covenant Restriction issued on June 13, 2002, has never been legally modified, amended, or rescinded. Norco recognized that they were restricted from building this commercial venture and filed a motion in Federal Court for interpretation, modification and/or elimination of the restrictive covenant. The motion was unequivocally denied on November 2, 2004, in the following: …The receiver in this action sold the property at issue on the condition that the deed contain a covenant running with the land restricting the use of the property to park in open space purposes, which was intended for the benefit of the public. The covenant clearly precludes the mixed use project proposed by the City of Norco. Thus, the Court will not construe the covenant as permitting the mixed-use project. Given that the beneficiaries of the covenant include members of the public, the Court will not eliminate the covenant. [sic]
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
a. Riverside County District Attorney’s office investigate the Norco City officials (past and present) for purposefully accepting a bid from a Developer whose intent was to construct a commercial endeavor contrary to the restrictions of a Federal Court order. b. Riverside County District Attorney investigate the Norco City officials (past and present) for presenting misleading documents to the Riverside County Superior Court, thereby obtaining favorable judicial approval for a commercial sports park rather than a genuine public park.
F2:
The SilverLakes Equestrian and Sports Complex is not a public park as presented in the 2002 Quit Claim Deed including the Covenant Restriction. The concept plans submitted in 2012 to Riverside County Superior Court for validation gave the impression that there would be limited 5 commercial or money making activities at this property. However, the plans were substantially different from what was actually constructed. The extent of commercial development in the plans submitted to Riverside Superior Court was minimized. For example, the exhibit plans had no reference to constructing a full service commercial restaurant and bar.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
a. Norco and/or the Developer adds to the SilverLakes actual recreational assets and amenities such as shade trees, picnic areas, family play areas, park benches, barbeque grills, basketball courts, tennis courts, bike trails, etc. as intended in the original Quit Claim Deed Covenant definition of a public park. The Developer maintain the Park facilities at no cost to Norco. b. Desist in charging entry fees to Norco residents for entering and using what should be a public park facility.
F3:
After reviewing official correspondence, sworn testimony and memos, the Grand Jury discovered that pursuant to the Council’s prior authorization, approximately $1.8 million had been provided to the Developer for water and sewer improvements. However, no loan documentation or legal contracts to support this transfer of funds have been found or provided to the Grand Jury despite subpoenaed requests. The money for the loan was drawn from an existing $39 million Enterprise Revenue Refunding Bond. Although the Bond was not designated for this specific instance, there is a clause in its description which allows Norco to finance up to $6 million for improvements to the City’s Water and Sewer Systems.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Norco publicly disclose a full financial accounting history of monies truly expended for this project. The financial disclosure should 6 include the initial purchase of the property and all loan documentation from 2002 through the current fiscal year. Report Issued: 05/16/2018 Report Public: 05/18/2018 Report Response: 08/18/2018 7 8