Sacramento County Grand Jury

2004-2005

14 reports

From the annual report
The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.
📑 Year-End Report
View the full annual report (PDF)
The full consolidated volume; individual reports are listed below.
Individual reports (14)
Findings & Recommendations 3 findings
F1: Neither DHHS nor DHA had an effective system for oversight of their many contracts with the Concilio and did not have a system to determine if the Concilio was properly managed and capable of meeting the requirements of the contracts. The County generally lacks an oversight system for the approximately 400 contracts, which total $263 million annually, that it has with non-profit providers of social, mental health, and alcohol and drug treatment services. If the financial problems occur at other nonprofit service providers, it is likely that they would not be detected and addressed before services suffered.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: The County should establish clearly defined procedures to ensure that the financial operations and program performance obligations are met by all non- profit and community-based service providers that have substantial service contracts with the County. As part of this procedure, clear responsibilities need to be established for contract management and coordination of multiple contracts. In the case where a single non-profit service provider is providing multiple services under multiple contracts, a single lead county official should be identified as responsible for overall evaluation of performance and assurance that performance problems are addressed. Performance goals and objectives should be developed, measured, documented and reported.
F2: When DHHS became aware that the Concilio was not providing the level of services called for in the contracts, it was slow to remedy the situation. When it became clear that the Concilio was in a financially untenable situation and could not provide the services called for in its contracts, DHHS proposed, and the County Board of Supervisors approved, a questionable bailout. The County modified the method of payment and essentially forgave the Concilio of the obligation to provide the services called for in the DHHS contracts. This allowed the Concilio to receive a $246,000 payment for expenses it incurred in its unsuccessful attempt to provide services called for in its contracts.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: The County should assure that contract provisions, such as audit requirements, that are essential to ensuring legal and proper use of contract monies are implemented and enforced. In addition, the County should implement requirements for the County’s grant/contract monitors to ensure the grantee/contractor has engaged an auditor at least 30 days prior to the end of the fiscal year.
F3: DHA and DHHS did not ensure annual audits were completed in a timely manner. These agencies did not inquire about the status of the FY 2001-2002 audit until 28 February 2003, seven months after the end of the fiscal year. The FY 2001-2002 audit (along with the FY 2002-2003 audit) was not completed until March 2004. The delay further compromised the ability of these departments to detect the severe financial problems at the Concilio.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: Once a criteria for payment under a contract is established (such as a fee for documented service to individual clients), the County should not modify its approach and utilize a different method of payment (such as reimbursement for expenses incurred) for any payments made for past performance. Response Requirements Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05 require that specific responses to both the
Findings & Recommendations 3 findings
F1: Neither DHHS nor DHA had an effective system for oversight of their many contracts with the Concilio and did not have a system to determine if the Concilio was properly managed and capable of meeting the requirements of the contracts. The County generally lacks an oversight system for the approximately 400 contracts, which total $263 million annually, that it has with non-profit providers of social, mental health, and alcohol and drug treatment services. If the financial problems occur at other nonprofit service providers, it is likely that they would not be detected and addressed before services suffered.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: The County should establish clearly defined procedures to ensure that the financial operations and program performance obligations are met by all non- profit and community-based service providers that have substantial service contracts with the County. As part of this procedure, clear responsibilities need to be established for contract management and coordination of multiple contracts. In the case where a single non-profit service provider is providing multiple services under multiple contracts, a single lead county official should be identified as responsible for overall evaluation of performance and assurance that performance problems are addressed. Performance goals and objectives should be developed, measured, documented and reported.
F2: When DHHS became aware that the Concilio was not providing the level of services called for in the contracts, it was slow to remedy the situation. When it became clear that the Concilio was in a financially untenable situation and could not provide the services called for in its contracts, DHHS proposed, and the County Board of Supervisors approved, a questionable bailout. The County modified the method of payment and essentially forgave the Concilio of the obligation to provide the services called for in the DHHS contracts. This allowed the Concilio to receive a $246,000 payment for expenses it incurred in its unsuccessful attempt to provide services called for in its contracts.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: The County should assure that contract provisions, such as audit requirements, that are essential to ensuring legal and proper use of contract monies are implemented and enforced. In addition, the County should implement requirements for the County’s grant/contract monitors to ensure the grantee/contractor has engaged an auditor at least 30 days prior to the end of the fiscal year.
F3: DHA and DHHS did not ensure annual audits were completed in a timely manner. These agencies did not inquire about the status of the FY 2001-2002 audit until 28 February 2003, seven months after the end of the fiscal year. The FY 2001-2002 audit (along with the FY 2002-2003 audit) was not completed until March 2004. The delay further compromised the ability of these departments to detect the severe financial problems at the Concilio.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: Once a criteria for payment under a contract is established (such as a fee for documented service to individual clients), the County should not modify its approach and utilize a different method of payment (such as reimbursement for expenses incurred) for any payments made for past performance. Response Requirements Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05 require that specific responses to both the
Findings & Recommendations 6 findings
F1: The votes of three of the five commissioners are required to decide an appeal from disciplinary action. Therefore, where only three hear an appeal, all three must vote unanimously to reach a decision. In such a case, there is a significant incentive for each of the three commissioners to reach the same decision. Such an incentive is inconsistent with the duty of each commissioner to exercise his or her individual judgment and consideration.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: A minimum of four commissioners should hear appeals from disciplinary action except in the event of compelling circumstances. In no case should a vote be changed for the sole purpose of reaching a decision.
F2: The Commission affords too much consideration in its determination of proper discipline to historical consistency. This policy is at odds with its duty to determine in each case the discipline which is “appropriate in light of all relevant facts and circumstances” of that case.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: The Commission should determine whether the discipline imposed is appropriate in light of all relevant facts and circumstances of the case under review, and should afford less weight to consistency of the proposed disciplinary action with 13 Nightingale v. State Personnel Board (1972) 7 Cal.3rd 507, 513-514 14 Gov. Code §19572(t) 15 An inference is the result of reasoning from evidence. It does not fall outside the record, but is simply a deduction of fact that may logically and reasonably be drawn from another fact or group of facts established by the evidence. (Evid. Code §600(b); and Cf., 74 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 70, 71n3 (1991)) 7 disciplines imposed in previous cases. The exceptions are cases involving substantial claims of discrimination based on race, sex, religion or national origin.
F3: The Commission’s Rules do not define a formal recusal policy to be followed in the event of an actual, potential, or appearance of, bias in a particular case.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: The Commission should adopt and enforce a recusal policy to be followed in the event of actual, potential, or the appearance of bias. Each commissioner should be independently responsible under the policy for the decision to recuse or not to recuse himself or herself from each particular case.
F4: The Commission, by its own rules, does not allow itself the ability to consider information contained in the full transcript of a disciplinary appeal hearing before a hearing officer. The transcript contains “all relevant facts and circumstances” which the Commission should be able to consider in making a final decision. The hearing officer’s proposed decision may contain only those facts and circumstances deemed pertinent to that officer’s proposed decision, and rarely contains “all” of the relevant facts and circumstances. By limiting the basis for its review only to the material in the hearing officer’s proposed decision, the Commission has limited its ability to make a duly informed final decision.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: The Commission should amend its rules to preserve its option to consider information contained in the full transcript of the case under appeal, and to maintain its option to hear any case with or without a hearing officer, or if previously heard by a hearing officer, to rehear the case with or without a hearing officer.
F5: The Commission, by its own rules, has precluded any argument on appeal from a disciplinary action relating to evidentiary, procedural, or legal issues which were raised or could have been raised before the hearing officer, or to the weight of the evidence, or the credibility of a witness. Thus, the hearing officer’s determinations as to all issues of evidence, procedure, or law, including the weight of the evidence, or the credibility of witnesses, are not subject to review by the Commission. By refusing to consider any such argument, the Commission has ceded too much of its authority and responsibility to exercise its own judgment in making a final decision, to the discretion of the hearing officer.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5: The Commission should amend its rules to allow for argument before the Commission relating to evidentiary, procedural, and legal issues, raised before the hearing officer, including descriptions of evidence, weight of the evidence, and credibility of witnesses.
F6: Improper interpretations as to the elements of proof were applied in one or more of the cases reviewed related to the following causes for disciplinary action: (a) “Failure of good behavior . . . which is of such a nature that it causes discredit to [the employee’s] agency or employment”, and 8 (b) “Conviction of a misdemeanor which is of such a nature as to adversely affect the employee’s ability to perform the duties and responsibilities of his position.”
Related Recommendations (1)
R6: The Commission: (a) should not require proof of actual discredit to the employee’s agency, when deciding whether there was a “Failure of good behavior . . . which is of such a nature that it causes discredit to the [employee’s] agency or employment”, and (b) should not require proof of an actual adverse affect upon the employee’s ability to perform the duties of his position, when deciding whether there was a “Conviction of a misdemeanor which is of such a nature as to adversely affect the employee’s ability to perform the duties and responsibilities of his position.” Response Requirements Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05 require that specific responses to both the
Findings & Recommendations 2 findings
F1: Student safety is in jeopardy because there is not a completed pedestrian pathway along Natomas Boulevard from North Bend to New Market on the west side.
F2: The City has plans and the appropriate finances in the 2005-2006 budget to complete the pedestrian pathways sometime during the 2005-2006 fiscal year, but that may not occur until June 2006.
Additional Recommendations 2

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: In the interest of student safety, paved access in these areas needs to be completed.
R2: The City needs to ensure the completion of these areas to be used by students is done by the start of the school year, August 22, 2005. Response Requirements Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05 require that specific responses to both the
Findings & Recommendations 3 findings
F1: While the Grand Jury did not evaluate the effectiveness of these programs, we believe Sacramento County and the Department of Health and Human Services are making a good effort to design and support supplementary programs to improve outcomes for children in foster care. County statistics and anecdotal evidence indicate positive effects from many of these new efforts. Program information provided by Sacramento County DHHS, Child Protective Services 51
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: The County should continue to encourage and support these new programs.
F2: It appears that many Group Home providers lack knowledge of and are even unaware of the existence of some of these programs. Most respondents to the survey were completely unaware of the Making Memories program, The Parent and Staff Shared Leadership Task Force and the Citizens Academy. Over half were unaware of the Drug Dependency Court.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: The County and the Department of Health and Human Services need to improve awareness of these programs with their providers of care and with the community in general. The County must develop a method of disseminating information on these programs to all of its providers. Providers may be better able to utilize services for their children if they are more knowledgeable about the options available. Community support for programs that have successes is essential.
F3: The Department does not maintain a current mailing list of its Group Home providers; the returned mail indicates an inattention to updating addresses for providers.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: The Department of Health and Human Services needs to maintain an up-to-date list of providers. The Department must verify that all Group Homes on its list are valid entities and are at the addresses listed on the county’s official mailing list. Response Requirements Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05 require that specific responses to both the
Findings & Recommendations 3 findings
F1: While the Grand Jury did not evaluate the effectiveness of these programs, we believe Sacramento County and the Department of Health and Human Services are making a good effort to design and support supplementary programs to improve outcomes for children in foster care. County statistics and anecdotal evidence indicate positive effects from many of these new efforts. Program information provided by Sacramento County DHHS, Child Protective Services 51
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: The County should continue to encourage and support these new programs.
F2: It appears that many Group Home providers lack knowledge of and are even unaware of the existence of some of these programs. Most respondents to the survey were completely unaware of the Making Memories program, The Parent and Staff Shared Leadership Task Force and the Citizens Academy. Over half were unaware of the Drug Dependency Court.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: The County and the Department of Health and Human Services need to improve awareness of these programs with their providers of care and with the community in general. The County must develop a method of disseminating information on these programs to all of its providers. Providers may be better able to utilize services for their children if they are more knowledgeable about the options available. Community support for programs that have successes is essential.
F3: The Department does not maintain a current mailing list of its Group Home providers; the returned mail indicates an inattention to updating addresses for providers.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: The Department of Health and Human Services needs to maintain an up-to-date list of providers. The Department must verify that all Group Homes on its list are valid entities and are at the addresses listed on the county’s official mailing list. Response Requirements Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05 require that specific responses to both the
Findings & Recommendations 3 findings
F1: The staff of the Main Jail was negligent in allowing inmate mail drops to remain unsecured and at risk of being accessed by other inmates. The Grand Jury was advised that a total of 16 mail drops needed to be made secure.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: Unsecured mail drops should be repaired promptly as promised by the Main Jail authorities.
F2: Jail floor officers did not notify maintenance personnel of defective slots so repairs could be made in a timely manner.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: Main Jail staff should develop a procedure to ensure that mail- related deficiencies as noted in this report are promptly reported and repaired.
F3: Jail staff, in responding to inmate complaints of mail not received or delayed mail delivery, instructed inmates to review the rules regarding correspondence in the Inmate Handbook.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: Main Jail staff should post next to the mailbox in each pod a sample envelope addressed per the rules in the Inmate Handbook. Response Requirements Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05 require that specific responses to both the
Findings & Recommendations 3 findings
F1: The staff of the Main Jail was negligent in allowing inmate mail drops to remain unsecured and at risk of being accessed by other inmates. The Grand Jury was advised that a total of 16 mail drops needed to be made secure.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: Unsecured mail drops should be repaired promptly as promised by the Main Jail authorities.
F2: Jail floor officers did not notify maintenance personnel of defective slots so repairs could be made in a timely manner.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: Main Jail staff should develop a procedure to ensure that mail- related deficiencies as noted in this report are promptly reported and repaired.
F3: Jail staff, in responding to inmate complaints of mail not received or delayed mail delivery, instructed inmates to review the rules regarding correspondence in the Inmate Handbook.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: Main Jail staff should post next to the mailbox in each pod a sample envelope addressed per the rules in the Inmate Handbook. Response Requirements Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05 require that specific responses to both the
Findings & Recommendations 4 findings
F1: Councilman Leary’s comments in open session of a meeting of the EGCC on April 27, 2005 were inconsistent with the proper role of the legislative body of a local agency, in that the threat to deny funding was intended, designed and clearly perceived as a means of limiting political dissent with respect to the council’s policies, procedures, programs or services.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: Councilman Leary’s comments and communications, which are the subject of this report, should be censured by the entire city council in open session.
F2: With one exception, council members failed to disassociate from Councilman Leary’s intimidating comments about council funding. Mayor Briggs’ suggestion that boards carefully select board members confirms his agreement with Councilman Leary’s threats.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: Individual council members must clearly disassociate themselves from intimidating and unacceptable comments made, and behaviors expressed, by other members which are the subject of this report.
F3: While the city council adopted a Code of Ethics, they did not put in place any enforcement procedures or consequences.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: The city council should adopt procedures and policies related to the enforcement of the Code of Ethics.
F4: Councilman Leary made threats through official law enforcement related electronic channels of communication to expose to the public a constituent’s past.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: Councilman Leary should refrain from using any official law- enforcement channel of communication to engage in any non law-enforcement related activity. Response Requirements Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05 require that specific responses to both the finding and recommendations contained in this report be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Sacramento Superior Court by October 1, 2006: (cid:131) The Elk Grove City Council. (1, 2, 3) The Grand Jury believes the public interest would be best served by, and residents of the City of Elk Grove deserve, a full and forthright response from Councilman Michael P. Leary to the Presiding Judge of the Sacramento Superior Court, and to the residents of Elk Grove. • Councilman Leary (1, 4) 12
Findings & Recommendations 4 findings
F1: Determine if a conflict of interest requirement might apply to any Council member for any item before the Council
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: Determine if a conflict of interest requirement might apply to any Council member for any item before the Council
F2: Explicitly advise the affected Council member and all other members of the potential conflict
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: Explicitly advise the affected Council member and all other members of the potential conflict
F3: Explicitly document the determination that a conflict of interest restriction applies or does not apply, and
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: Explicitly document the determination that a conflict of interest restriction applies or does not apply, and
F4: Report on the record during each Council meeting on the actions being taken to ensure that all conflict of interest requirements are met Finding B-2: The City Attorney is commended for the actions that he took to repeatedly advise Mr. Cooper and Mr. Leary on conflict of interest issues in the face of their abusive and intimidating behavior. The City Attorney provided both Mr. Cooper and Mr. Leary with substantial, compelling and repeated written legal opinions, as well as verbal guidance, regarding how conflict of interest laws limited their actions relative to voting on, influencing, or participating in the making of any agreement between the City and the Sheriff’s Department. The City Attorney met his responsibility to convey the legal requirements of the conflict of interest statutes; however, he ultimately failed in his duty to protect the City and to ensure that the contract for law enforcement services with the Sheriff’s Department was legally executed. The City Attorney did not provide clear and consistent procedures to identify, deal with and document each potential conflict of interest situation, and, at times, may have failed to adequately identify potential conflicts.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: Report on the record during each Council meeting on the actions being taken to ensure that all conflict of interest requirements are met
Findings & Recommendations 4 findings
F1: Determine if a conflict of interest requirement might apply to any Council member for any item before the Council
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: Determine if a conflict of interest requirement might apply to any Council member for any item before the Council
F2: Explicitly advise the affected Council member and all other members of the potential conflict
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: Explicitly advise the affected Council member and all other members of the potential conflict
F3: Explicitly document the determination that a conflict of interest restriction applies or does not apply, and
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: Explicitly document the determination that a conflict of interest restriction applies or does not apply, and
F4: Report on the record during each Council meeting on the actions being taken to ensure that all conflict of interest requirements are met Finding B-2: The City Attorney is commended for the actions that he took to repeatedly advise Mr. Cooper and Mr. Leary on conflict of interest issues in the face of their abusive and intimidating behavior. The City Attorney provided both Mr. Cooper and Mr. Leary with substantial, compelling and repeated written legal opinions, as well as verbal guidance, regarding how conflict of interest laws limited their actions relative to voting on, influencing, or participating in the making of any agreement between the City and the Sheriff’s Department. The City Attorney met his responsibility to convey the legal requirements of the conflict of interest statutes; however, he ultimately failed in his duty to protect the City and to ensure that the contract for law enforcement services with the Sheriff’s Department was legally executed. The City Attorney did not provide clear and consistent procedures to identify, deal with and document each potential conflict of interest situation, and, at times, may have failed to adequately identify potential conflicts.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: Report on the record during each Council meeting on the actions being taken to ensure that all conflict of interest requirements are met
Findings & Recommendations 6 findings
F1: There is currently a shortage of pharmacists employed by Sacramento County. Without action on the county's part, it is likely that the recruitment and retention problems will increase. This will prove extremely costly and is likely to compromise medical services.
F2: The DHHS and the county purchasing department did not properly review the RFP for the CMMS. They further did not monitor compliance of the selected vendor as to the RFP requirements.
F3: The vendor (PCSI) did not fulfill its contractual obligations. The outpatient system is not fully operational and the inpatient system has never worked.
F4: The Commission, by its own rules, does not allow itself the ability to consider information contained in the full transcript of a disciplinary appeal hearing before a hearing officer. The transcript contains “all relevant facts and circumstances” which the Commission should be able to consider in making a final decision. The hearing officer’s proposed decision may contain only those facts and circumstances deemed pertinent to that officer’s proposed decision, and rarely contains “all” of the relevant facts and circumstances. By limiting the basis for its review only to the material in the hearing officer’s proposed decision, the Commission has limited its ability to make a duly informed final decision.
F5: The Commission, by its own rules, has precluded any argument on appeal from a disciplinary action relating to evidentiary, procedural, or legal issues which were raised or could have been raised before the hearing officer, or to the weight of the evidence, or the credibility of a witness. Thus, the hearing officer’s determinations as to all issues of evidence, procedure, or law, including the weight of the evidence, or the credibility of witnesses, are not subject to review by the Commission. By refusing to consider any such argument, the Commission has ceded too much of its authority and responsibility to exercise its own judgment in making a final decision, to the discretion of the hearing officer.
F6: Improper interpretations as to the elements of proof were applied in one or more of the cases reviewed related to the following causes for disciplinary action: (a) “Failure of good behavior . . . which is of such a nature that it causes discredit to [the employee’s] agency or employment”, and Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2005 9 (b) “Conviction of a misdemeanor which is of such a nature as to adversely affect the employee’s ability to perform the duties and responsibilities of his position.”
Additional Recommendations 6

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: The DHHS needs to restructure the salary scale for county pharmacists to make it competitive in today's market.
R2: DHHS must be certain that awarded contracts fulfill all requirements mandated by the RFP on any purchases made by the department.
R3: The DHHS needs to assure that the county has a functional CMMS as soon as possible. Within the provisions of the contract with PCSI, the county should seek restitution for any services paid for and not provided. Response Requirements Penal Code sections 933 and 933.5 require that specific responses to both the findings and recommendations contained in this report be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Sacramento Superior Court by October 1, 2007, from: • Sacramento County Board of Supervisors
R4: The Commission should amend its rules to preserve its option to consider information contained in the full transcript of the case under appeal, and to maintain its option to hear any case with or without a hearing officer, or if previously heard by a hearing officer, to rehear the case with or without a hearing officer.
R5: The Commission should amend its rules to allow for argument before the Commission relating to evidentiary, procedural, and legal issues, raised before the hearing officer, including descriptions of evidence, weight of the evidence, and credibility of witnesses.
R6: The Commission: (a) should not require proof of actual discredit to the employee’s agency, when deciding whether there was a “Failure of good behavior . . . which is of such a nature that it causes discredit to the [employee’s] agency or employment”, and (b) should not require proof of an actual adverse affect upon the employee’s ability to perform the duties of his position, when deciding whether there was a “Conviction of a misdemeanor which is of such a nature as to adversely affect the employee’s ability to perform the duties and responsibilities of his position.”
Findings & Recommendations 1 findings
F1: The City of Folsom is in compliance with existing laws when the L&L District uses its assessment authority. When a surplus occurs, credits are applied to the tax rolls generated from the County Auditor. The credit is not specifically noted on the tax bill, and as such, is not necessarily clear to property owners.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: The City of Folsom should explain to property owners how assessments are made and why credits are given rather than lowering assessments. The L&L District and the City Council should continue their efforts to keep property owners informed about the assessment and billing process. Response Requirements Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05 require that specific responses to both the
Findings & Recommendations 4 findings
F1: It could find no evidence that relatives were hired by SITOA, or of discrimination based on religious, national or racial issues.
F2: There was no evidence that SITOA was initially handling applications inappropriately.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: Airport staff should ensure that taxi contractors follow the procedures, protocols and requirements agreed to by it and the Sacramento County Counsel’s Office. 14
F3: The County Airports Office failed to provide oversight of SITOA’s hiring procedures prior to the complaints by applicants. However, the County Counsel now has the assignment to ensure compliance of the rules and to research future contracts.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: County Counsel should continue to oversee the County contract between taxi contractors and the Airport.
F4: The Airport had no way of ensuring that the appropriate fees were being paid to the Airport. The Airport indicates that transponders have now been installed in all of the cabs to record each trip. This will provide a way to track the fees due to the Airport by the drivers.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: The Airport should continue to have an assigned employee oversee all taxicab issues, provide periodic public reports on the taxicab services of the airport, and act on problems in a timely manner. Response Requirements Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05 require that specific responses to both the