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 (4)
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 [email protected]
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.
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
The SASD acted swiftly and responsibly upon learning of allegations of employee misconduct. Further, the District Board adopted a comprehensive District Ethics Policy recommended by SASD.
Related Recommendations (1)
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.
F2:
The District proactively initiated a series of professionally facilitated mediations between SASD and commercial plumbing business owners who had concerns about the contract bidding process. The first such meeting, conducted by the Center for Collaborative Policy at Sacramento State University, took place on July 7, 2011.
Related Recommendations (1)
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.
F3:
The District has, since 2009, appropriately asserted more direct oversight on matters related to BIS claims.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The District contracting officer must be more involved in monitoring contract procedures, performance and compliance, particularly for professional services contracts. 23 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. Request for Requirements Penal Code section 933.05(f) require that specific responses to indicated finding and recommendations contained in this report be submitted to the presiding Judge of the Sacramento County Superior Court by August 28, 2012. From: Stan Dean, SASD District Engineer 10060 Goethe Road Sacramento, CA 95827 CC: Sacramento Area Sanitation District Board of Directors 300 H St., Room 2450] Sacramento, CA 95814 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 [email protected]
F4:
Review of the District contracting process for professional services such as “Rodding” 13 egaP and “Cleaning” of sewer lines indicates a need for better oversight of approved contracts by the District contracting officer. In this case multiple contracts for a single RFP (in one instance as many as eight contractors with eight similar contracts) creates confusion and inefficiency. The practice of breaking a contract into segments to spread the work among several contractors, depending on their location in the district, basically ignores the rule of awarding work to the lowest qualified bidder. Similarly, the contracting officer does not receive regular informational reports relative to the contractors’ compliance with the terms of the contract.
F5:
The District currently has no policy regarding contracts being awarded to employees who have recently separated from the District. Recommendations
Findings & Recommendations
1 findings
F1:
1 The Director of Classified Personnel issued a reprimand which strongly suggested an employee attend EAP, a strictly voluntary program. The reprimand stated: “Failure to follow these directives will result in further disciplinary action up to and including dismissal.” 88 egaP STUDENT SERVICES The Attorney General’s office said state law does not allow student background checks. The Grand Jury received documentation that potentially implicates the Student Services Department of the Twin Rivers Unified School District for running over five hundred criminal checks on students. It appears as though these checks were run through CLETS, the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System and NCIC, a computerized FBI index of criminal justice information (i.e., criminal record history information, fugitives, stolen properties, missing persons). It is available to Federal, State and local law enforcement and other criminal justice agencies. According to witness testimony, it was common practice for the Director and Coordinators of Student Services to direct certain members of Twin Rivers Police Department to conduct criminal background checks on students as young as twelve years of age. The Grand jury learned that the Director of Student Services ordered a Student Services Technician to turn over a “Probation Notification List” that detailed a student’s criminal record over a one year period to a consultant. The Technician told the Director that we’re not supposed to have that information. The Director ordered the Technician to “give him everything he wanted.” When the Technician asked if that included the Probationary Notification List, the Director said “yes.” This civil Grand Jury has turned the above information over to the local authorities for criminal investigation. Findings F.1 It appears to be common practice for the Director of Student Services to order illegal background checks on students.
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.