Sacramento County Grand Jury
2011-2012
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 (3)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
10 findings
F1:
The City Council failed to seek competitive bids for the transfer and disposal of residential solid waste for a period of 34 years (1998-2032). This failure ignored the intent of City Code Section 3.60.110, which will likely contribute to the City paying higher than fair market value for its services.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The City must comply with the requirements and the intent of the Competitive Bidding Code. Additionally, the City needs to develop specific compelling criteria for exceptions to competitive bidding code section 3.60.170 D to define what is, “...in the best interests of the City”.
F2:
The City Council failed to seek competitive bids for the sorting and selling of residential recyclables for a period of 25 years (2007-2032). The intent of City Code Section 3.60.110 was ignored. Justification for the exemption from competitive bidding required by City Code Section 3.60.170 was lacking. The City will likely receive less than fair market value for its residential recyclables.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The City must comply with the requirements and the intent of the Competitive Bidding Code. Additionally, the City needs to develop specific compelling criteria for exceptions to competitive bidding code section 3.60.170 D to define what is, “...in the best interests of the City”.
F3:
The City Council voted on multi-million dollar solid waste and recyclables contracts without sufficient financial analysis. These contracts would seem to require additional scrutiny given the exemption from the competitive bidding process.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Staff and City Council need to provide transparency in review of the financial options in large contracts and utilize independent financial analysis, particularly regarding buy out clauses.
F4:
City staff failed to perform adequate due diligence in providing financial analysis on the solid waste disposal and recycling contracts. There was too much reliance on a single source of financial analysis. There was no independent review or oversight. These three factors appear to have contributed to inadequate understanding of financial risks by City Council.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Staff and City Council need to provide transparency in review of the financial options in large contracts and utilize independent financial analysis, particularly regarding buy out clauses.
F5:
When BLT came to the City in 2008 to amend the Service Agreement to incorporate increased fuel costs, the City missed an opportunity to address the redirection of waste to a local landfill.
F6:
Costs to the City delineated in the buyout clauses of BLT’s 1998 and 2010 contracts were higher than fair market value. In conjunction with the length of the contracts, they hampered the City’s ability to make reasonable changes to the contracts.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Staff and City Council need to provide transparency in review of the financial options in large contracts and utilize independent financial analysis, particularly regarding buy out clauses.
F7:
There was inadequate provision for public review and comment throughout the twenty-nine month period that the Amended Service Agreements for Municipal Solid Waste and Recyclables were negotiated.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
The City should provide a comprehensive report to the public by December 31, 2012 documenting the financial, operational and environmental justifications for the 2010 Amended Services Contracts, including both the solid waste and the recycling contracts. 44 egaP Furthermore, an annual report on the Amended Service Agreements should be provided to the City ratepayers outlining costs based on the contracts.
R4:
The City should provide more extensive public notification on any matter where competitive bidding is exempted per City Code 3.60.170D.
F8:
Lobbying by immediate past city managers was problematic for some City staff.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The City Council should consider a prohibition precluding former City employees from lobbying, consulting or advising on City contracts for a period of 1-5 years after separation from city employment. 54 egaP Reports issued by the Civil Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code Section 929 requires that reports of the Grand Jury not contain the name of any person or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to the Civil Grand Jury. Response Requirements Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05 required that specific responses to indicated findings and recommendations contained in this report be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Sacramento County Superior Court by September 28, 2012 from: Sacramento City Manager: Findings F1 – F10, Recommendations R1, R3-R6 John F. Shirey 915 I Street, 5th Floor Sacramento, CA 95614 The governing bodies indicated above should be aware that the comment or response of the governing body must be conducted subject to the notice, agenda and open meeting requirements of the Brown Act. Mail or hand-deliver a hard copy of the response to: Hon. Laurie Earl, Presiding Judge Sacramento County Superior Court 720 9th Street, Department 47 Sacramento, CA 96814 In addition, email the response to Rebecca Castaneda, Grand Jury Coordinator, at castanb@saccourt.com
F9:
It appears that BLT was in compliance with the City’s Living Wage Ordinance.
F10:
Given the evidence the Grand Jury was able to obtain, no fraud or illegal activity by either the City or BLT was identified relative to the contracts in question. Recommendations:
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R2:
The 2012-2013 Grand Jury should consider a follow up review of the City of Sacramento’s contracted solid waste and recycling services.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
The Grand Jury finds that the decision by the District Attorney to discontinue the independent review of officer-involved shootings has negatively affected the perception of law enforcement accountability in the county and public confidence in the review process. The Grand Jury further finds the independent 28 review of deputy-involved shooting cases should be conducted by the OIG or the District Attorney.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends the Board of Supervisors provide sufficient funds to support the comprehensive, objective review and analysis of officer-involved shootings by either the OIG or the District Attorney, or both, as the Board determines is appropriate and necessary.
F2:
The Grand Jury finds the Sheriff’s Department and the OIG do not conduct an analysis of deputy-involved shooting incidents to identify the behavior, policy, or tactical issues that are present. The Grand Jury further finds the Sheriff’s Department does not routinely review shooting cases to identify “lessons learned” that can be incorporated in training.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff consider restoring the use-of-force review process in the Department with a specific focus on the identification of behavior, policy, and tactical issues, and “lessons learned.” The Grand Jury further recommends the review panel include both tactical and training staff.
F3:
The Grand Jury finds that there is insufficient communication between the Office of the Inspector General and the administration of the Sheriff’s Department concerning the “lessons learned” from the shooting cases.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Inspector General adopt a more proactive review of deputy-involved shooting incidents, beyond simply reviewing the findings of the Department’s internal investigation. Rather, the Inspector General should review each incident with the goal of communicating “lessons learned” to the Department.
F4:
The Grand Jury finds the policies and orders of the SSD concerning use-of-force and deadly force are relatively generic and not comprehensive.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff initiate a review of the orders and policies concerning the use-of-force and deadly force, and revise those orders as appropriate and legally competent to specifically address topics that are not addressed in the current policies (e.g., shooting at a moving vehicle). The Grand Jury further recommends the Sheriff consider the inclusion of use-of-force policy in tactical and firearms training courses developed and presented in the Department. 29
Findings & Recommendations
1 findings
F5:
The District currently has no policy regarding contracts being awarded to employees who have recently separated from the District. Recommendations
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The District Ethics Policy should be distributed, read, and signed by every District employee on an annual basis. Reviews of guidelines and principles should be conducted with staff periodically. Each incident of review should be documented, signed by the reviewer, and placed in the employee's personnel file. If not now assigned, the District needs to have an ethics officer assigned to monitor this effort on an ongoing basis. Additionally, the District needs to submit an Annual Ethics Report to the District Board.
R2:
The District should enact provisions to prohibit the awarding of District contract(s) to any past employee for a period of one year subsequent to their date of separation from the District, eliminating the potential for unfair competition.
R3:
The District contracting officer must be more involved in monitoring contract procedures, performance and compliance, particularly for professional services contracts.