Santa Clara County Grand Jury
2022-2023
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
The PDO found it difficult to compile conservatorship data that was requested by the Civil Grand Jury because of the limited tracking of outcomes and other limitations in the case management software used by the PDO. Their system does not track post-adjudication conservatorship cases, which makes it impossible to collect and analyze data, track outcomes, and efficiently monitor the status of older cases.
Related Recommendations (3)
R1:
The Legislature hereby declares that, except as otherwise specifically provided by law, each proposed ward has the right to have an attorney before a guardianship is imposed to ask the court for relief, and each ward has the right to: a. Have an attorney at any time during a guardianship to ask the court for relief. b. Receive notice of all guardianship proceedings and all proceedings relating to a determination of capacity unless the court determines that the ward lacks the capacity to comprehend such a notice. c. Receive a copy of all documents filed in a guardianship proceeding. d. Have a family member, an interested party, a person of natural affection, an advocate for the ward or a medical provider speak or raise any issues of concern on behalf of the ward during a court hearing; either orally or in writing, including, without limitation, issues relating to a conflict with a guardian. As used in this paragraph, “person of natural affection” means a person who is not a family member of the ward but who shares a relationship with the ward that is similar to the relationship between family members. e. Be educated about guardianships and ask questions and express concerns and complaints about a guardian and the actions of a guardian, either orally or in writing. f. Participate in developing a plan for his or her care, including, without limitation, managing his or her assets and personal property and determining his or her residence and the manner in which he or she will receive services. g. Have due consideration given to his or her current and previously stated personal desires, p
R1a:
The PDO should develop a tracking system that is capable of accurate, detailed, and timely data collection. This recommendation should be implemented by March 30, 2023.
R1b:
The PDO should develop data analytics that establish metrics in conservatorship cases and track data on subjects like conservatorships denied or avoided, proceedings that result in protecting the conservator, and cases that are terminated. This recommendation should be implemented by June 30, 2023.
F2:
The PDO indicated that they are the attorney of record for more than 3000 probate conservatees.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The PDO should ascertain which of their conservatorship cases should be terminated due to the conservatee’s death. This recommendation should be implemented by June 30, 2023.
F3:
The PDO does not actively monitor post-adjudicated probate conservatorship cases in the County where an estate is not involved.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3a:
The PDO should review all probate conservatorship cases where they are attorney of record to determine what case management and case monitoring responsibilities are owed to these clients based on changes to various California laws that expressly require zealous advocacy and new standards for establishing and maintaining a probate conservatorship. To be implemented by June 30, 2023.
R3b:
The PDO should adopt a proactive case management model for all cases for which it is attorney of record. This recommendation should be implemented by June 30, 2023.
F4:
The PDO currently has one attorney assigned to handle probate conservatorships. The number of proposed conservatees that will need representation from the PDO is likely to grow because of the mandatory appointment and the gaining population in the County. Under the new legislative guidelines that have recently been enacted (e.g., zealous advocacy, changes to conservatorship standards), it seems infeasible that one attorney can provide sufficient representation for the number of conservatees in the County that will need representation from the PDO.
Related Recommendations (2)
R4a:
The PDO should research and determine the ideal caseload per attorney and the staffing needed to accommodate a proactive style of case management that accounts for recent legislative changes. This recommendation should be implemented by June 30, 2023.
R4b:
The PDO should evaluate its resource needs to best serve the growing needs of conservatees in the County and request appropriate funding from the County. This recommendation should be implemented by June 30, 2023.
F5:
The current PDO attorney is compliant in the required probate conservatorship training. The Civil Grand Jury’s concern is that there is currently just one lawyer in the PDO that is handling probate conservatorships. This leaves little opportunity for cross-training and peer-to-peer collaboration. Further, the supervisor of this division is not required to have probate conservatorship expertise.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The PDO should cross train staff specific to conservatorship law and develop written materials to ensure that institutional knowledge is maintained despite attorney turnover. This recommendation should be implemented by June 30, 2023.
F6:
A cognitively impaired client may struggle to challenge or complain about the quality of their legal representation. The PDO does not have formal performance standards or probate case reviews, and the direct supervisor is not required to have expertise in probate law.
Related Recommendations (3)
R6a:
The PDO should establish detailed performance standards and quality management standards for conservatorship attorneys. These standards should be monitored by a supervisor knowledgeable in conservatorship law and advocacy. This recommendation should be implemented by March 30, 2023.
R6b:
The PDO should randomly select a percentage of cases for quality review for each attorney annually. New attorneys should submit for review all written pleadings to the supervisor in the first year. This recommendation should be implemented by June 30, 2023.
R6c:
The PDO should have regular staff meetings for all staff handling probate conservatorships to discuss policies and cases to ensure uniformity in service and goals. This recommendation should be implemented by March 30, 2023.
F7:
The Nevada Model has a standing order with the court to establish access to clients' records. This saves a significant amount of time and resources.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
The PDO should explore streamlined ways for attorneys to get needed information in preparation for probate conservatorship cases. For example: • Hospital records • Doctors’ office records • Bank records • Family records • Guardian records • Regional center records This recommendation should be implemented by June 30, 2023.
F8:
The GAP achieved success by developing a plan that tracked conservatorship-related data, created a training program, and implemented best practices for case management, which were all designed to effectuate client-directed services that embodied the ideal of zealous advocacy.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
The PDO should consult with a third party to evaluate its current policies and processes for conservatorship defense and develop a strategic plan for best practices. This should include detailed data collection and analysis, caseloads, outcomes, training, staffing, and quality assurance controls. The strategic plan should be re-evaluated regularly. This recommendation should be implemented by June 30, 2023.
F9:
The Civil Grand Jury found the PDO’s staff to be very helpful and committed to improving the performance of conservatee representation. The dedication of the attorney was evident and appreciated.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
No recommendation.
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
The City has a culture of distrust between the councilmembers and City staff that is creating dysfunction.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The City should develop or acquire a good governance training and development program for both existing and newly elected councilmembers and existing and new staff members to address: (i) their role, responsibilities, and the relevant laws that specify and/or limit their function; (ii) the division of responsibilities between councilmembers and staff as directed by the Cupertino Municipal Code; and (iii) the necessity of morale building to create a stronger, more effective, and respectful relationship between City staff and councilmembers. Recommendation 1 should be implemented by March 31, 2023.
F2:
The dysfunction prevalent between the City Council and City staff has negatively impacted City operations, including the continuing loss of skilled and experienced personnel. The City has a reputation of having a difficult work environment, making recruiting of highly qualified applicants difficult.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The City should hire a consultant to study staff morale and make recommendations to improve retention of employees and quality of the working environment. To the extent legally permissible, the study and recommendations should be published for public review. Recommendation 2 should be implemented by July 31, 2023.
F3:
The City has not taken sufficient steps to improve the City’s financial risk profile as recommended by its retained Internal Auditor.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3a:
The City should implement the work plan identified in the May 2022 Fiscal Policy Inventory and Gap Analysis Report developed by the City’s internal audit firm, Moss Adams LLP, to address policy and procedural gaps and weaknesses. Recommendation 3a should be implemented by July 31, 2023.
R3b:
The City should employ the use of continuing annual internal audits to assess progress in the development and implementation of new or modified policies and procedures to comply with internal audit risk reduction and mitigation recommendations. Recommendation 3b should be implemented by July 31, 2023.
F4:
A comprehensive Code of Ethics not only provides guidance and baseline standards for ethical behavior, it includes sanctions and consequences for deviations from the standard. The City’s Ethics Policy is generic and lacks enforcement provisions and therefore fails to provide a framework to address ramifications for policy violations.
Related Recommendations (4)
R4a:
The City should establish an independent Public Ethics Commission with guidance from experts in applied ethics, such as the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University, to: (i) develop and implement a robust government ethics training program for all councilmembers; and (ii) evaluate a best practices enforceable Code of Ethics and Conduct Policy that governs all councilmembers and appointed officials for consideration by the City Council. This recommendation should be implemented by March 31, 2023.
R4b:
The City should reinstate enforcement procedures to enable the City Council and the public to file complaints and testify at public hearings to help remediate ethics violations. This revision should include a procedure for public admonishment, revocation of special privileges, or censure. This recommendation should be implemented by March 31, 2023.
R4c:
The City Council should engage a conflict resolution professional to help enhance mutual understanding and respect amongst all stakeholders. This recommendation should be implemented by January 31, 2023, and should be repeated at least once per year.
R4d:
The City should publish its current Ethics Policy on the City website by January 31, 2023.
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
The County has not addressed the known inaccuracies of public contract data; neither the public nor the Board of Supervisors can determine, with accuracy, the total value or expiration dates of contracts.
Related Recommendations (4)
R1a:
The County should mandate (1) contract data accuracy protocols, (2) employee contract management training, and (3) implementation and use of contract management modules in SAP. This recommendation should be implemented by March 15, 2023.
R1b:
The County should designate and hold one person (akin to San Francisco’s Chief Data Officer) responsible for contract data accuracy. This recommendation should be implemented by March 15, 2023.
R1c:
The County should fully audit (as opposed to a “spot plan audit”) and correct the contract database to provide accurate data in the current Active Contracts list. This recommendation should be implemented by March 15, 2023.
R1d:
The County should continue quarterly accuracy audits on the contract database, documenting statistical evidence of error reduction, until all decentralized department employees are trained on contract management. This should be implemented following the March 15, 2023, date of
F2:
The Civil Grand Jury (consistent with the findings from the Harvey M. Rose Associates, LLC 2021 Management Audit of the County of Santa Clara Procurement Department report) finds that there is a lack of standardized processes to effectively input and validate contract data; the SAP and Ariba databases contain many errors and omissions, thereby rendering the Active Contracts list unreliable.
Related Recommendations (8)
R2a:
The County should reconcile the Term Contracts list with the Active Contracts list to ensure accuracy and consistency in contract purpose descriptions, before it is distributed and made public. This recommendation should be implemented by March 15, 2023.
R2b:
The County should centralize the initial input of contract data as much as possible in each department or in one centralized department to mitigate input errors and inconsistencies. Once the contract terms are in the database, the decentralized departments should continue to manage their own contracts. There should be one quality assurance function in the Procurement Department that is responsible for the accuracy of all contract data. This recommendation should be implemented by March 15, 2023.
R2c:
The County should establish protocols that ensure that data related to amended contracts, including the value, expiration date, or terms of the contract, are accurately inputted into the ERP system with the addition of a data field to be used for version control. This recommendation should be implemented by March 15, 2023.
R2d:
The County should add new fields to the contract databases, including a field showing an identifier for the person tasked with verifying the accuracy of public contract data. This recommendation should be implemented by March 15 2023.
R2e:
The County should require that all active contracts are contained on the Active Contracts list and none are hidden from public view. This recommendation should be implemented by March 15, 2023.
R2f:
The County should post an electronic copy of the actual contracts for public view, ensuring transparency and mitigating human input error. This recommendation should be implemented by June 15, 2023.
R2g:
To facilitate Public Records Act inquiries, the County should include both the computer-generated number as well as the County’s original contract number on the Active Contracts list. This recommendation should be implemented by June 15, 2023.
R2h:
The County should include new data fields (BOS Approval Date and ID, Authorizing Agency, Revised Expiration Date, Version, Total Contract Value after Change Orders or Amendments, and Detailed Contract Description), as indicated in this report, so that vendors and members of the public may trace the contracting authority and date of action. This recommendation should be implemented by June 15, 2023.
F3:
The Civil Grand Jury finds that, although the Procurement Department produced training materials, the County does not mandate that employees participate in the training before entering contract data into ERP systems.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The County should require mandatory contract management training for County employees and ensure that satisfactory completion of the training is documented before the employee is allowed to enter contract data into the ERP systems. This recommendation should be implemented by February 28, 2023.
F4:
The County failed to fully implement the contract management module of the SAP system purchased a decade ago for millions of dollars. This lapse has prevented the timely integration of contract data from the Ariba and SAP systems, creating incompatibility issues.
Related Recommendations (2)
R4a:
The County should insist that the current pilot program regarding contract data at the Social Services Agency contain all the necessary elements to ensure a quality evaluation of the material management module before the process is rolled out to other departments. This recommendation should be implemented by June 15, 2023.
R4b:
To fully implement and integrate the contract management ERPs, the County should implement the contract management module within SAP for all departments and agencies. This recommendation should be implemented by June 15, 2023.
Findings & Recommendations
10 findings
F1:
The City of Los Altos is not submitting monthly treasurer’s reports in compliance with California Government Code section 41004.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The City of Los Altos should comply with Government Code section 41004 by submitting monthly treasurer’s reports that include monthly disbursements, receipts, and fund balances and by filing those reports with the city. This recommendation should be implemented by March 15, 2023.
F2:
The City of Los Altos does not produce treasurer’s reports in compliance with California Government Code section 41004. The reason provided for non-compliance was that the City of Los Altos’ financial policy does not require the preparation and submission of treasurer’s reports. It is an erroneous belief that internal policies excuse compliance with Government Code section 41004.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The City of Los Altos should amend its financial policy to require that monthly treasurer’s reports be prepared and submitted in accordance with California Government Code section 41004 by March 15, 2023.
F3:
The Town of Los Altos Hills produces monthly treasurer’s reports but the content of those reports lacks monthly disbursements, receipts, and fund balances required by California Government Code section 41004.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Town of Los Altos Hills should update their existing monthly reports to include monthly disbursements, receipts, and fund balances by March 15, 2023.
F4:
The Town of Los Gatos produced reports that contain the required content but does not produce the treasurer’s reports on a monthly basis as required by California Government Code section 41004.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Town of Los Gatos should produce its reports on a monthly basis to comply with California Government Code section 41004 by March 15, 2023.
F5:
The City of Milpitas does not produce monthly treasurer’s reports as required by California Government Code section 41004.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The Civil Grand Jury recommends that the City of Milpitas comply with California Government Code section 41004 by producing monthly treasurer’s reports that include monthly disbursements, receipts, and fund balances by March 15, 2023.
F6:
The City of Campbell does not produce monthly treasurer’s reports as required by California Government Code section 41004.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The City of Campbell should comply with California Government Code section 41004 by producing monthly treasurer’s reports that include monthly disbursements, receipts, and fund balances by March 15, 2023.
F7:
The City of Monte Sereno does not produce monthly treasurer’s reports as required by California Government Code section 41004.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
The City of Monte Sereno should comply with California Government Code section 41004 by producing monthly treasurer’s reports that include monthly disbursements, receipts, and fund balances by March 15, 2023.
F8:
When the Civil Grand Jury began this investigation, the City of Cupertino was not in compliance with California Government Code section 41004. However, starting in March 2022, the City of Cupertino began producing treasurer’s reports compliant with Section 41004.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
The City of Cupertino should maintain compliance with California Government Code section 41004. Continued compliance is recommended.
F9:
The Civil Grand Jury commends the City of Saratoga for producing monthly treasurer’s reports that include disbursements, receipts, and fund balances. The City of Saratoga is in full compliance with California Government Code section 41004.
F10:
The Civil Grand Jury commends the elected city treasurer for producing monthly treasurer’s reports that include monthly disbursements, receipts, and fund balances. The City of Morgan Hill is in full compliance with California Government Code section 41004.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
No recommendation.
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F3:
Partially agree/partially disagree. The City of Palo Alto disagrees that the Palo Alto City Council has not taken a leadership role in developing support for AH planning initiatives and projects once they are identified. Specifically, each of the last two years, the Palo Alto City Council adopted “Housing for Social and Economic Balance” as one of its four city “Priorities.” The City of Palo Alto agrees that there can be more Palo Alto City Council advocacy to initiate and solicit AH projects.
F4:
The Palo Alto City Council disagrees with this finding in that the Palo Alto City Council does play an active role in engaging the community on AH policies and projects, and data shows there is already widespread community support and acceptance of below market rate housing.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
This recommendation will be implemented upon completion of the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP) process; however, the recommended timeline of June 2022 is premature.
F6:
Partially agree/partially disagree. The City of Palo Alto agrees that it does have a multiplicity of planning processes, which may benefit from further rationalization. It is not, clear, however, if those plans are a primary planning tool to achieve more below market rate housing.
Related Recommendations (2)
R6a:
This recommendation has been implemented.
R6b:
This recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted.
F8:
Partially agree/partially disagree. Combining reports places all relevant information in one place and provides clarity to residents and decision makers, as the Housing Element is a component of the General Plan. The reports are consistent with state reporting requirements. However, it is agreed that the reports can be made more readable and summarize pertinent information to support broader public understanding of the City of Palo Alto’s progress.
F9:
Partially agree/partially disagree. The City of Palo Alto’s review processing times are not anticipated to be significantly greater than other jurisdictions and typically only require review by the City of Palo Alto’s Architectural Review Board.
F10:
The City of Palo Alto agrees a designated individual coordinating all AH-related activities would be helpful.
Related Recommendations (2)
R10a:
The District posted to the Measure X website the required updated Financial and Performance Audits to the Oversight Committee by April 30, 2022.
R10b:
The District posted the independent financial audits and milestones by April 30, 2022. Milestones include expected dates for delivery of timely financial data to the Oversight committee posted to the Measure X website. MEASURE A EARNS AN A: GOOD MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT SUPPORTS PROGRESS Summary of 2021 Report In 2016, voters of Santa Clara County (County) passed Measure A, which allowed the County to borrow up to $950 million by issuing general obligation bonds. Bond proceeds can only be used to acquire or improve real property to provide Affordable Housing (AH) and related support and services for vulnerable populations. Less than five years into the Measure’s 11-year cycle, 289 units were built. Acting on a public complaint, the 2021 Civil Grand Jury began an investigation into the pace of AH construction being developed using Measure A funds. The investigation aimed to understand the County’s performance on Measure A, including why the number of units completed to date was low. After a thorough review, the slow pace of additional AH units was evident. The County utilizes the bond proceeds to partner with cities and others to address the AH needs of the target population. The County’s Office of Supportive Housing (OSH) is mainly responsible for administering the funding available from the bond proceeds for these AH projects. OSH is only one player. Developing AH is a complex and lengthy process from project inception to construction units ready to be leased by qualified occupants. That process includes land acquisition, project design, zoning and permit approval, financing, construction, and leasing. Multiple entities are involved, and all project stages take time. The funding purpose specified in Measure A was addressed – the County is funding the proper categories of AH in a timely manner. Many factors in the AH development process are beyond the control of OSH and the County. The 2021 Civil Grand Jury commends the County Board of Supervisors and the members of the Measure A Independent Citizens’ Oversight Committee for providing robust and transparent oversight to Measure A implementation. Key Findings 1. To date, the review indicates that the expenditures and activity of Measure A’s stated responsibility to fund the development of multi-family rental housing for the community’s most vulnerable populations are on target. 2. Measure A funding of Affordable Housing projects is at pace with the eleven-year cycle specified in the Program Guidelines. 3. The Rapid Re-Housing target population needs may not be met because unit completion is lagging in that Category. 4. Measure A required a Measure A Independent Citizens’ Bond Oversight Committee (Oversight Committee). The County Board of Supervisors selected several knowledgeable members to serve on this committee. 5. The mix of relevant skills of the Measure A Oversight Committee members has enabled the committee to play an effective oversight role. Key Recommendations 3a. To address this Rapid Re-Housing lag, the County should aggressively pursue Homekey funding where consistent with Measure A Goals and Guidelines. The County should develop a plan to address this recommendation by June 30, 2022. 3b. If Rapid Re-Housing development continues to lag, the County should consider redistributing unit goals to support the core homeless and disabled vulnerable populations. The County should develop a plan to address this recommendation by June 30, 2022. 5. The 2021 Civil Grand Jury recommends that the County evaluate whether this selection model can be extended to other advisory boards and commissions. This evaluation should be completed by June 30, 2022. Response - Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors 3a. The County agrees with the recommendation. The County is aggressively pursuing Homekey Program funding either directly or by partnering with local jurisdictions also seeking these funds. For example, on January 3, 2022, the County received a Homekey Program Round 2 award notification for $22,143,341 to support the acquisition and operation of an interim housing program at Bella Villa Inn in Santa Clara. Through this award, the County can utilize state grant funds to acquire the property and further leverage Housing Bonds proceeds. The County has also submitted a second application for the conversion of the Crestview Hotel in Mountain View, which will include a certain number of Rapid Re-Housing units. Furthermore, on February 8, 2022, the County Board of Supervisors approved providing up to $5,000,000 for the Residence Inn acquisition and conversion by the Santa Clara County Housing Authority as part of an application Homekey Program Round 2 funding. 3b. The County partially disagrees with the recommendation. The County believes that more time is needed to realize and analyze the impact of program changes before modifications to goals should be made. Specifically, on November 16, 2021 (Item No. 22), the County Board of Supervisors approved a recommendation to update the County’s development guidelines to further incentivize the production of Rapid Re-Housing Units. Furthermore, on February 8, 2022 (Item No. 46), the County Administration updated the County’s Housing Development pipeline accommodating the remaining supportive housing units. The County will analyze the impact of the recent program change noted above before considering any other changes to unit goals. The County anticipates this to be completed in June 2022. 5. The County generally agrees with Finding 5. The County will consider whether this selection model can extend to other advisory boards and commissions. Follow-up The 2022 Civil Grand Jury reached out to the County on September 6, 2022, requesting follow-up on Recommendations 3b and 5 (both with a completion date of June 30, 2022). To date, no response has been submitted. PROPERTY TAX BILLS: MORE THAN MEETS THE EYE Summary of 2021 Report Acting on a public complaint, the 2021 Civil Grand Jury began an investigation into whether there was sufficient detail in secured property tax bills. The issue was not that the taxes were incorrect but that the property tax bill gave too little information about how dollar amounts were derived and represented. After a thorough review of the 2020 property tax bills in the County, the following was identified: dollar amounts for bonds and levy line items were not shown; insufficient details were provided regarding line items that group multiple bonds; and on the WhereDoTaxesGo website, the secured property value was not stated and the calculated tax amounts were not shown. Some field values were truncated with no explanation, bills included a rounding adjustment without clarifying its use, and the Santa Clara County Department of Tax and Collections (DTAC) survey focused on website interaction rather than obtaining substantive feedback. Key Findings 1. The Annual Property Tax Bill and the Supplemental Property Tax Bill did not show the computed amounts of the tax bonds and levies. It did not show the value for the “TOTAL ASSESSED VALUE TAXES” and “TOTAL LAND & IMPROVEMENT TAXES” in the “DETAIL OF TAXES” section. A taxpayer wanting to verify these calculations was faced with a lack of transparency. 2. In the “DETAIL OF TAXES” section of the Annual Property Tax Bill and the Supplemental Property Tax Bill, line items ending in “S” show a tax rate for a group of bonds, not individual bond tax rates. 3. The WhereDoTaxesGo.org website does not provide details of calculated values so that the taxpayer can understand the dollar amounts that correspond to percentages in the One-percent Tax Distribution Table or the Debt Levy Rate Table. 4. The Annual Property Tax Bill and the Supplemental Property Tax Bill do not explain that cents are truncated and do not explain the rounding adjustment. 5. DTAC collects customer feedback via an online survey available only in English that addresses website interaction but gives little opportunity for customer input regarding other concerns. Key Recommendations 1. No recommendation. 2. DTAC should provide the taxpayer with a solution that explains the expanded detail of taxes calculated for each item in a group of bonds, including the assessed property value, tax rate, and computed amount. To be implemented by June 30, 2022. 3. DTAC should include on their Tax Distribution website the ability to show the secured property’s net assessed dollar value and the calculated dollar amount of each tax represented in the One-percent Tax Distribution Table and Debt Levy Rate Table. 4. DTAC should provide the taxpayer with an explanation for the truncation and rounding adjustment. This should be implemented in the next annual property tax bill. 5. The County should create a way to capture concerns from taxpayers in multiple languages, independent of an online communication channel, such as surveys included with the paper property tax bill, focus groups, and advisory boards. Response - Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors The County agrees with findings 1-4. 5. The County partially agrees with this finding, specifically where it states that the customer has little opportunity to provide input regarding other concerns. Follow-up Beginning this tax year FY 2022-2023, the County will modify all relevant tax bills to include a message informing the taxpayer how the bill detail can be accessed online or obtained in hard copy upon request. The Detail of Taxes section will include language stating: "Taxpayers can request a copy of the full details of each bond on their bill by calling (408) 808-7900 or visiting our website to view or print a copy at https://payments.sccgov.org/propertytax.” Additionally, the payment portal will make a convenient one-stop hub for taxpayers looking for information about tax charges and distributions for their bills and add two explanatory statements to the Detail of Taxes section of the tax bill. This change will explain the rounding adjustment for property owners. The online survey will be translated and offered in Spanish, Vietnamese, and Chinese, and a link for the survey will be provided on the property tax bill. These changes will be effective for tax year FY 2022-2023. The County will conduct market research for feasibility and cost implications surrounding a telephone survey, available in multiple languages, for taxpayers to provide feedback. This effort will begin during tax year FY 2023-2024. TECHNOLOGY SERVICES AND SOLUTIONS: HAVE LESSONS BEEN LEARNED? Summary of 2021 Report In 2018, after almost two years of planning and development, the County launched a customized electronic health record (EHR) system for clinics in the Behavioral Health Services Department (Behavioral Health). Development of this system was overseen by Technology Services and Solution (TSS), the County’s information technology department, which is responsible for managing the County’s computer hardware, software, and network infrastructure. The EHR system was intended to modernize clinical record-keeping, patient billing, and reporting for State and County oversight. However, once the system became operational, the County detected numerous errors in the pending behavioral health Medi-Cal claims. The County had to halt the billing component of the new system and faced the crisis of potentially losing millions in reimbursements. By late 2018, the County decided to redesign the EHR system. The 2021 Civil Grand Jury investigated the history of this multiyear project and identified several areas as the root causes of the troubles encountered. Key Findings 1. TSS failed to recognize warning signs, from staff and CalEQRO reports, when linking two systems from separate vendors. That hindered the processing of Medi-Cal claims, caused billing delays and unanticipated additional work for County staff, and required an ultimate redesign of the system. 2. TSS did not follow project management best practices. There was no requirement that project managers need project management experience. Multiple managers were used, none of whom had overall responsibility, which complicated coordination and decision making. 3. TSS lacked a process to prove the new (EHR) system would work prior to its deployment. TSS did not adequately test the integration of the HealthLink and Netsmart system before releasing it to Behavioral Health clinics. Emphasis was on meeting the schedule, rather than on having a gradual system rollout. This led to halting the submission of Medi-Cal claims, which threatened the loss of tens of millions of dollars. 4. TSS and Behavioral Health were insufficiently engaged in contract negotiations with Netsmart for a May 2019 agreement, as they lacked detailed input on resources and scheduling for analysis and training, which contributed to delays and required the subsequent negotiation of three additional agreements to address shortcomings. 5. TSS underestimates the amount of future work to integrate contract providers’ EHRs with the County’s Netsmart system. Inadequate staffing will cause further delays and work disruptions. Key Recommendations 1. When undertaking a new project, the County should add a requirement for a high-level feasibility analysis during the initial planning phase. 2a. The County should develop a plan to require anyone serving in a project management role to have sufficient experience and/or certification for the nature of the project. 2b. The County should develop a plan to require that each project have a single overall manager, who is experienced and/or certified. 2c. If a project requires additional managers, the County should require a clear organizational structure that facilitates coordination and decision making. 2d. The County should verify that project managers follow best practices defined by the Project Management Center for Excellence, then monitor and verify that required items listed in the Governance Gates Checklist are completed and approved by the responsible executive. 3a. The County should develop a plan to require documenting user acceptance testing criteria at the start of a project. 3b. The County should develop a plan for situations where the user acceptance testing cannot be done in the user’s work environment. 4a. To assure Procurement is prepared to negotiate with vendors, the County should develop a plan to require analysis of the technical staff needed to complete and deploy the project. Escalation procedures should be included when Procurement is not provided the data it needs. 4b. When the County intends to train its staff and colleagues for using any new system, the staff should be made available for such training. 4c. The County should investigate the feasibility of negotiating vendor contracts that include a bonus for on-time and successful completion of IT projects. 5a. The County should conduct a risk assessment to identify threats to the objectives of ongoing projects. Potential responses to those risks should be captured in a risk management plan for this project. 5b. The County should develop a plan to ensure that vendors are informed as decisions are made about what work needs to be done by vendors, or by the County, who will pay for it and when will the work be scheduled. Response - Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors 1. The County agreed with this finding and this recommendation has been implemented. 2. The County partially disagrees with this finding. 2a. This recommendation is in place. TSS requires that Project Managers meet the requirements outlined in the IT Project Manager job specifications. 2b. This recommendation is in place. TSS projects are staffed with a single project manager. 2c. This recommendation has been implemented. 2d. This recommendation will be implemented by June 30, 2022. 3a. The County agrees with the finding, and this recommendation has been implemented. 3b. The County agrees with the finding, and this recommendation has been implemented. 4a. The County agrees with the finding, and this recommendation will be implemented by June 30, 2022. The Procurement Director will coordinate this collaboration. 4b. The County agrees with the finding, and this recommendation will be implemented by June 30, 2022. 4c. The County agrees with the finding and will investigate the feasibility of negotiating vendor contracts that include a bonus for on-time and successful completion of all parts of an IT project. 5a. The County agrees with the finding, and this recommendation has been implemented. 5b. The County agrees with the finding, and this recommendation has been implemented. Follow-up All of the above recommendations have an implementation date of June 30, 2022. Many of the recommendations that the County agreed with were implemented within the 90-day response requirement. The 2022 Civil Grand Jury followed up with the County and received confirmation that the three items still outstanding in March 2022 were addressed by June 30, 2022. CONTINUITY REPORT APPENDIX A – SUMMARY OF RESPONSES TO THE 2021 REPORTS Clara Clara CONTINUITY REPORT This report was ADOPTED by the Santa Clara County 2022 Civil Grand Jury on this 17th day of November, 2022. Ms. Karen Enzensperger Foreperson
F12:
Disagree. The City of Palo Alto alleges the 2021 Civil Grand Jury was simply mistaken here; the City of Palo Alto has had such an Affordable Housing Fund for many years.
Related Recommendations (2)
R12a:
This recommendation has been implemented and is scheduled to receive further refinement later this year with a possible business tax ballot initiative.
R12b:
This recommendation requires further analysis.
F13:
Partially agree/partially disagree. In general, the City of Palo Alto will support as many 100% AH projects as can be funded.
Related Recommendations (1)
R13:
This recommendation has been and is being implemented.
F14:
Agree. Using the American Community Survey 5-year jobs data and the Adjusted Keyser- Marston model, the cities of Palo Alto and Mountain View together created demand for 4,000 AH units from 2015-2019 --- 3,400 more than the 596 units the City of Mountain View and the City of Palo Alto actually permitted.
Related Recommendations (1)
R14:
This recommendation has been and is being implemented as it relates to the City of Palo Alto’s Planned Home Zone application process. GAVILAN COLLEGE MEASURE X BOND PROGRAM: OVERSIGHT SHORTCHANGED Summary of 2021 Report The 2021 Civil Grand Jury studied the creation, management, and execution of voter-approved educational construction bond measures. Educational bonds are an essential mechanism that community college districts use to improve aging infrastructure or expand their campuses to support students. Bonds finance major construction projects that last for generations but would be nearly impossible for the institution to afford with operating funds. In return for voters passing an educational bond, the Gavilan Joint Community College District (District) commits to provide the public with assurances, oversight, and deliverables written into the ballot measure and prescribed by California law. An Independent Citizens’ Bond Oversight Committee (Oversight Committee) is a fundamental accountability mechanism. While each member brings expertise and life experience, they may lack relevant skills that would be valuable and could be developed or augmented with additional training. More importantly, when Oversight Committee membership falls below the minimum requirement, it is the taxpayer who may not be represented by an essential and independent voice. It is also in the best interest of the district to ensure the Oversight Committee is equipped with the technical and administrative support required for it to be effective and maintain the public’s trust. Key Findings 1. The District did not fulfill its responsibility to provide technical support to the Oversight Committee regarding conflict of interest requirements. Although the bylaws reference the Oversight Committee’s ethical responsibilities, the requirements are written in legal terminology. The District did not adopt a Conflict of Interest Policy for the Oversight Committee as suggested by referencing Attachment A in the adopted bylaws, and Attachment A is not included in the link to the bylaws on the Measure X website: https://gavilanmeasurex.org/committee-bylaws, linked here. 2. Current Oversight Committee membership falls below the minimum required by law. Failing to maintain members in the necessary affiliation category can create vacancies where vital constituencies’ voices may not be heard or adequately represented. 3. The District-approved Oversight Committee bylaws contain inconsistent and incomplete term limit provisions specified in the California Education Code. The District included a bylaw authorizing members to serve beyond the expiration of their third term while waiting for a replacement to be appointed. The District did not comply with the additional term limit provisions associated with the member serving in the student affiliation category. The student member may only serve six months after graduation with the specific approval of the Board of Trustees. 4. There are areas in which the Oversight Committee might be perceived as having its independence questioned or compromised about the administrative and technical support it receives through the District’s contractor. 5. The “Measure X Bond Newsletter” has been dormant despite the District inviting members of the public to sign up for program updates. The newsletter service is identified in a contract agreement but has not been posted since the September 2019 issue reflected on the Measure X website. 6. The District does not provide Oversight Committee members with a clear, direct, or transparent way of receiving electronic communications from the public. There is a standing agenda item for this type of direct communication, but an effective accompanying tool still does not exist for Oversight Committee members to receive and respond to this type of communication. 7. The District did not follow established norms and protocols for posting meeting notifications and announcements associated with canceled meetings. Additionally, the District has inhibited the public’s ability to access agendas and meeting materials because the link to the agenda is unclear and the multiple steps required to navigate to the meeting materials are unduly complicated. 8. District orientation provided to the Oversight Committee does not adequately prepare members to carry out their roles and responsibilities effectively. The District offers a general overview using reference materials. More in-depth and specialized training is needed to ensure committee members are equipped to fulfill their oversight responsibilities. 9. The District did not provide the Oversight Committee with any information about initiatives to maximize bond revenues through cost-saving measures such as joint-use facilities. As a result, the Oversight Committee could not communicate those initiatives to the public, which led to the mistaken impression that none were considered. 10. The District did not provide the Oversight Committee with timely, certified final financial and performance audits to review. The District’s 10-month drawn-out process put the Oversight Committee in the position of issuing an annual report with a constitutionally mandated compliance statement using draft audits. Those draft audit reports remain on the Measure X website. The draft audits lack a date and auditor’s signature and therefore are not certified, despite final versions being provided to the Board of Trustees Budget and Audit Planning Committee. Key Recommendations 1a. The District should create a plan to provide a conflict of interest policy to Oversight Committee members and incorporate the subject matter into the Oversight Committee’s training and orientation. This recommendation should be implemented no later than April 30, 2022. 1b. The District should create a process for Oversight Committee members to evaluate and disclose conflicts of interests and incompatible activities. This recommendation should be implemented no later than April 30, 2022. 2. The Board of Trustees should appoint sufficient Oversight Committee members to meet or exceed the minimum number required by law. This recommendation should be implemented no later than April 30, 2022. 3a. The District should develop a plan to update the Oversight Committee bylaws to rescope the term limit bylaw addressing replacement holdovers as well as incorporate the additional student term limit provisions outlined in the Education Code. This recommendation should be implemented by April 30, 2022. 3b. The District should develop a plan to ensure that it abides by the term limit provisions required by law for its student affiliation category. The program should also address the student’s term limit provision on the Committee Member Term Chart provided by the District. This recommendation should be implemented by April 30, 2022. 4. The District should identify and communicate to both the Oversight Committee and the public the relationship the District’s contractor has with the Oversight Committee regarding the Measure X program. The District should clarify the level of authority and independence the Oversight Committee has to request services from its contractor, AKG. This recommendation should be implemented by April 30, 2022. 5. The District should develop a plan to provide the necessary resources to revive the “Measure X Bond Newsletter.” This recommendation should be implemented no later than April 30, 2022. 6. The District should develop a plan to institute an electronic communication tool to contact the Oversight Committee directly. The District needs to provide an appropriate communication tool to foster public engagement, correspondence, and feedback. This recommendation should be implemented no later than April 30, 2022. 7a. The District should create a plan to update meeting announcements published on the Measure X homepage to identify the webpage links to access the meeting agenda. This recommendation should be implemented no later than April 30, 2022. 7b. The District should review the structure and navigation of meeting agendas and create a plan that addresses the public’s need for efficient access to agendas and meeting materials. This recommendation should be implemented no later than April 30, 2022. 8. The District should provide detailed and targeted training to members of the Oversight Committee. A training plan should be developed with input from the Oversight Committee. This recommendation should be implemented no later than June 30, 2022. 9. The District should develop a plan to communicate how the District has identified or enacted cost-saving measures to the Oversight Committee. This recommendation should be implemented no later than April 30, 2022. 10a. The District should provide the dated and certified 2020 Financial and Performance Audits to the Oversight Committee. The audits should also be posted to the Measure X website for public disclosure. This recommendation should be implemented no later than April 30, 2022. 10b. The District should create a plan with appropriate milestones to ensure the timely completion of annual, independent financial and performance audits. Milestones should include when audits are expected to be available for the Oversight Committee to receive and review, the District’s responses to the audits for Oversight Committee review, and when the final signed and dated audits are to be posted to the Measure X website. This recommendation should be implemented no later than April 30, 2022. Response - Gavilan Joint Community College District 1. The District disagrees with this finding. 1a. The District will implement part of the recommendation. The District agrees that as membership changes on the Oversight Committee, periodic training sessions summarizing the roles and responsibilities of Oversight Committee members should be conducted. The District disagrees that there is a need for a conflict of interest policy. 1b. The District will not implement this recommendation. 2. The District disagrees with this finding and will not implement this recommendation. 3. The District disagrees with this finding. 3a. The District will implement part of the recommendation. For clarification, the District agrees that the application form for membership on the Oversight Committee can be amended to include a specific reference to Section 15282(a)(4) of the Education Code. 3b. The District will implement part of the recommendation. The District agrees to update the Committee Membership Term Chart to clarify that once a student member of the Committee has no longer been a student at Gavilan College for six months, the student will resign, and the remaining period of the student's term will be filled by another student. 4. The District disagrees with this finding. The District will not implement this recommendation. 5. The District will not implement this recommendation. 6. The District will not implement this recommendation. 7. The District will implement this recommendation. 7a. The District will implement this recommendation. 7b. The District will not implement this recommendation. 8. The District disagrees with this finding. The District will not implement this recommendation. 9. The District will not implement this recommendation. 10a. The District will implement this recommendation. 10b. The District will implement this recommendation. Follow-up
Findings & Recommendations
1 findings
F1:
The Civil Grand Jury finds that in the current environment, which is unregulated at the local level, it is easy for the author of a ballot measure question to write the question in a way that is confusing or misleading to voters.
Related Recommendations (6)
R1a:
The Board of Supervisors should ask the County Counsel to review all ballot questions submitted to it pursuant to Recommendation 1b.
R1b:
Governing entities2 within Santa Clara County should voluntarily submit their ballot questions to the County Counsel for review prior to submission to the Registrar of Voters, unless and until
R1c:
Governing entities3 within Santa Clara County should, by March 31, 2023, adopt their own resolution or ordinance to require submission of their ballot questions to the County Counsel for review prior to submission to the Registrar of Voters, unless and until Recommendations 1d and 1e are implemented.
R1d:
The County should create an independent, citizen-led oversight commission like the recommended Good Governance in Ballots Commission as described in the “Solutions” section of this report. The Commission should be implemented by August 1, 2024. There are approximately 50 governing entities within Santa Clara County. The Civil Grand Jury has elected to address these recommendations to the County, cities, and a select number of special districts and school districts that have historically the most measures on the ballot for response. The Civil Grand Jury encourages all governing entities to adopt these recommendations. Id.
R1e:
Governing entities4 within Santa Clara County should submit their ballot questions for review by the Good Governance in Ballots Commission pursuant to Recommendation 1d.
R1f:
The County should, by March 31, 2023, take appropriate action to request that the state legislature consider amending current law to require the County Counsel to review and approve local ballot measure questions before they are voted on. Id.