HomeMy WebLinkAbout25-Council Office
CITY OF SAN BERN:RbINO - REQ.UEST OR COUNCIL ACTION
From: Councilman Ralph Hernandez
Su~ect: Discussion of action to be taken relative
to proposals received for audit of City
Attorney's operation.
Dept: Council
Date: September 30, 1992
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
9/2/92 -- Ways & Means Committee approved 2 - 1 to conduct a sixty day review
period of the six proposals receivec.
9/8/92 -- Mayor and Council voted 3 - 3 to proceed with the audit of the City
Attorney's operation.
Recommended motion:
Discuss and take action relative to the proposals received for audit of the
City Attorney's operation.
7~
Contact person:
Councilman Hernandez
Phone:
5188
Signature
Supporting data attached:
Yes
Ward:
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount:
Source: (Acct. No.1
(Acct. DescriPtion)
Finance:
Council Notes:
,
.."
~
AQenda Item No.~
CITY,OF SAN BERt6;RDINO - REQ~EST lOR COUNCIL ACTION
STAFF REPORT
At the council meeting of September 8, 1992, the management audit
of the city Attorney's office was discussed. A number of reasons
were cited to take immediate action on the audit, rather than
waiting the 60 days for the Ways and Means committee to review the
proposals. These reasons included:
1. The bids for most of the proposals are effective for sixty
days only. If the contract is awarded after the first of the year,
aUditing firms will be into tax season and the cost of the audit
will be much higher.
2. The City Attorney's office has requested an increase of
$600,000 for FY 1992/93. If the audit is performed after the first
of the year, the final report will not be completed until the end
of the fiscal year and the Council will not have adequate
information to make an informed decision on this budget increase.
At the September 8th Council meeting, the full Council was not
present, and the result was a 3-3 vote on whether to proceed with.
the audit. Because the timing of this issue is so important, it is"
requested that the full Council ~econsider this issue.
75-0264
CITY OF SAN BERt&RbINO - REQUEST OR COUNCIL ACTION
.
Fr""':
Richard J. M:)rillo
Subject: ORDINllNCE ADDING SECl'Ia.~ 5.04.623 TO THE
MUUCIPAL CODE REI.ATmG TO roSINESS
REGISl'RATICN u:a'CJ:~'ICATES FOR BUSI!JF'-c;.~.q
SELLING SPRAY PAINT AND WIIE.JI'IP MARKERS
D.
Date:
City Attomey
AiJ;Just 20, 1992
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
Nam
Recommended motion:
AlXPl' ORDINA~CE
R~ \t{~to
~ Signature
,
Contact person: Dennis A. Barlow
Phone:
5355
Supporting data attached:
Proposed Ol:dinance
Ward: Citywide
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount:
Source: (Acct. No.)
(Acct. DescriPtion)
Finance:
c
I Notes: /IU..l;,~/'!j 9-f-"J~..,v 37
~"~tI~'''--~Y 9"#1,,*~ JJ..~y
27
.,
75.0262
Agenda Item NO______
CITY O'F SAN BER~RDINO - REQUEST ~R COUNCIL ACTION
STAFF REPORT
The attached ordinance would impose an additional business
registration certificate fee on businesses selling spray paint or
wide-tip markers in the City. "Wide-tip markers" are defined as
those having a tip one inc~ or more in width. The amount of the
fee would be set by resolution of the Mayor and Common Council.
The proposed ordinance contains findings that the existence of
graffiti in the City defaces public and private property,
discourages normal maintenance and upkeep of property and attracts
and encourages illicit drug sales and gang activity. It further
recites the significant cost to the City of eradicating graffiti
and determines that it is proper for businesses which make the
means of such graffiti available to the public to bear a portion of
this cost.
75.0264
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
o
:>
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADDING.SECTION
5.04.623 TO THE SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO BUSINESS
REGISTRATION CERTIFICATES FOR BUSINESSES SELLING SPRAY PAiNT AND
WIDE-TIP MARKERS.
THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1.
Section 5.04.623 is hereby added to the San
Bernardino Municipal Code to read as follows:
5.04.623 Sales of Spray Paint Cans and Wide-tip Markers
A.
The Mayor and Common Council of the City of San
Bernardino do hereby find and determine that the
existence of graffiti in the City defaces both public
and
private
property,
discourages
the
normal
maintenance and upkeep of property, attracts and
encourages illicit drug sales, gang activity and
resultant
criminal
actions,
all
resulting
in
significant costs to the taxpayers in the City through
cleanup costs,
code enforcement needs and law
enforcement activities. The Mayor and Common Council
further find and declare that it is appropriate that
those who make the means of such graffiti available to
the public should bear at least a portion of these
costs.
B.
For those businesses in the City that sell aerosol
containers of paint capable of defacing property or
that sell markers with a tip of I inch or more in
width, the business registration certificate fee
otherwise imposed pursuant to this Chapter shall be
increased by an amount established by resolution of the
RJM:ms(markers.ord]
1
-
1
2
:3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
o
J
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADDING
SECTION 5.04.623 TO THE SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO
BUSINESS REGISTRATION CERTIFICATES FOR BUSINESSES SELLING SPRAY
PAINT AND WIDE-TIP MARKERS.
Mayor and Common Council.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing ordinance was duly
adopted by the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San
Bernardino at a meeting thereof, held on the
day of , 1992, by the following vote, to wit:
Council Members:
AYES
NAYS
ABSTAIN
ABSENT
ESTRADA
REILLY
HERNANDEZ
MAUDSLEY
MINOR
POPE-LUDLAM
MILLER
City Clerk
The foregoing ordinance is hereby approved this
day
of , 1992.
W. R. Holcomb, Mayor
City of San Bernardino
Approved as to form
and legal content:
JAMES F. PENMAN,
City Attorney
By:
RJM:ms (markers. ord]
2
CITY OF SAN BERNQ.DINO - REQUEST ~ COUNCIL ACTION
. JAMES F. PENMAN
Subject:
GRAND JURY AUDIT
Fro.ll!.:
J..-
CITY ATTORNEY
Date: September 14, 1992
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
Recommended motion:
(........
Discussion and possible action.
..,,;
Signature
Contact person:
James F. Penman
Phone:
384-5255
1 - 7
Supporting data eUached:
Four pages
Ward:
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount:
Unknown
Source: (ACCT. NO.)
(ACCT. DESCRIPTION)
Flnanca:
l~
~..,..A NDt.S:~_ ~ ~ 9-./ ..,a, ,. ~.!r
6/
Anend. Item Nn~
CITY OF SAN BERNs;ADINO - REQUEST lOR COUNCIL ACTION
<:
('''''
...",
(:
75-0264
STAFF REPORT
Attached, please find a copy of the September 9, 1992 letter from
the Grand Jury, Mayor Holcomb's June 26, 1992 demand that I provide
him with a copy of my June 19, 1992 letter to the Grand Jury and a
copy of my response dated June 26, 1992.
I need to respond to the Grand Jury's offer to select the audit
firm to do the requested reviews of the change orders, City
Attorney's office and the Executive Department.
I respectfully request that the Council have the Grand Jury conduct
all three audits.
o
o
GRAND JURY
--
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
~':~'i::)f1J~:~~:~~~;;~~2-~~lf$l~?Jff~ .~. -'__~.:~; .~!?i;:.:~~ ~,.. ';x_~
r~orth' Arrowhnd Avenue. ROOIII 307. Courthouse
,___~n.'dino. CA 92415-0243 . (71413B7,3820
" ,~1{r
September 9, 1992
Mr. James F. panman
City Attorney
City of San Bernardino
300 North "0" Street
San Bernardino, California 92418-0001
Dear Mr. Penman:
The Administrative Committee of the San Bernardino County
Grand Jury has reviewed the concerns set forth in your June 19,
1992 letter.
( ',""
,"";
In light of the City Attorney releasing the above referenced
letter to the public on June 26, 1992, the Grand Jury concludes a
confidential examination of both the Executive and City Attorney
offices would be difficult. In addition, because of the public
debate, the complaint has become a highly politicized issue.
For these reasons, the Grand Jury will not participate in an
investigation of this complaint.
If the City of San Bernardino wishes to conduct an audit of
those complaints raised in items I, II and III, the Grand Jury
would select an independent audit firm to conduct the investi-
gation. It would then be the responsibility of the City to
establish the focus of the audit, to negotiate the cost of the
audit, and to pay for the audit. The Executive and City Attorney
offices can be assured of complete impartiality in the selection
of an independent audit firm. The Grand Jury would review the
audit report in order to determine if further action would be
required.
Because of the public awareness of the controversy
existing between the Executive and City Attorney offices, the
Grand Jury recommends the City of San Bernardino commit to the
aforementioned examination at the earliest date possible.
Sincerely,
J .
. /
;' t A. ~.,
/ ~~.....' Lt.v ~L i tL
(-
,.-'
JOHN E. DUCKWORTH
Foreman
1992-93 Grand Jury
JED:ss
~
( -"
,-
(~
.-
(:
o
o
..
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
TO:
James F. Penman, City Attorney
FROM:
W. R. "Bob" Holcomb, Mayor
SUBJECT:
LETTER - GRAND JURY AUDIT
DATE:
June 26, 1992
COPIES:
File
I attach hereto, photocopy of the news article dated June 23, 1992.
As the Chief Executive Officer and pursuant to the powers given me
by the City Charter, I request that you immediately provide me with
a copy of the letter referred in the article. If I do not receive
the requested document by noon, this date, I will accept said
action as refusal ~nd I will act accordingly.
,
//;'
. / /
.I '
,,/~
w. R.
/ ..--".-
"Bobn'HOlcomb; Mayor
WRH:mv
Mayor's bid
di ives
questioned
POLITICS
,
.
r
'-"
(~
..-'
('-
.."
. The county grand jury is
asked by the San Bernardino
city attorney to look into how
costs went up on two
construction projects.
By REBECCA FAIRLEY RANEY
Sun Staff Writer J tiN Z 3 139Z
SAN BEHNAHDINO - City
Attornev James Penman asked
the COUllty grand jury Monday to
invcstig:ate \\,hcthcr Mayor Bob
1I0lcomb's directives violated
bidding requirements on city con-
struction projects.
The letter outlined two cases
in which projects went to bid
without specification:,;.
Then. after low bids were ac-
cepted, specifications were added
at highercost.l'enmansaid,
"The intent of the letter is to
see that public funds are being
spent wisely and efficiently,"
Penman said.
"I'm not accusin~ any individ-
lIal urany crlme."
1I0lcomb was at a mayors'
('nnlbrence in Houston on Mon.
day and couldn't be reached,
Penman said the grand jury is
being asked to investigate the
hidding process because requests
for expensive changes happen so
frequently.
In one ease. the original con-
tract fhr' storm drains and' a rc-
tl'ntion basin at l\1ccchum Can-
ynn ealled for concrete and rip-
I"ap at t he base.
An mncnded contract took out
I hose spt'eifieat ions,
But aller the contraet was
HWHrrtt'cI to Riverside Construc-
tion, the council received a re-
quest to add the conc..'rete ~nd rip-
rap at an additional eost or
$20,000.
('-
,-,
.~)
'-
The letter alluded to Sl'H'nil
situations in which requC'sts 1'01'
Ilc..'W work came from oul 01' thl'
hlue.
"We're 1I0t at the puint wllt.'r<:
wC" ean say with certaint\' that
thif: is a problem," Penman sai(l.
"We dOIl't know if the lo\\' bid
requirements are being l'i n'u 11I-
vented or not."
The letter WjIS !att.'st \'ollt,.... ill
a nurry of disagreements ~lInollg
the mayor, coull('i1 mCl1Iht.,l's and
Penman.
Em'lier this month, voters ap-
provcd a measure that gi\.'l~S
l'ouncil members the power to
ovcrride Holcomb's ex:e<:utivt' ell"
dsiuns.
Penman's of'lice drufled thl'
ordinance.
In a meeting last week, Pen-
man suggested the mayor ('Quid
retaliate by innucncing an up-
coming audit or the <.'ity attnr-
ney's oOice.
\Vhell Penman told l'ounei I
members about the letter MOil-
day, the notion of political mo-
tives came up immediately.
Sixth Weud Councihvoman
Valerie Pope-Ludlam said:
"Isn't all this a result of ,Jim
asking for nil iner'case in his bud-
get and us asking for an audit?"
Penman replied:
"It has nothing lo do with 1I1~.
hudget."
The le((er cloes request I "at
the grand jury eonduct nn indt,.
pendent audit or tilt' C'ily atlor
nl'Y'~ oflke. Penman :mid.
.., would express C'OIlCl'I'U O\'l'!'
whether a munng-crnent stud~' of'
the city attorney's offic'c ('011-
ducted by the mayor's ofTi,'"
would be lair."
.J~.~ ~..J 1.;j)L
,
l
(-
.--
<.:
(-
-.
.
c)
,
o
C I T Y 0 F SAN B ERN A R DIN 0
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO:
W.R. Holcomb, Mayor
FROM:
James F. Penman, City Attorney
DATE:
June 26, 1992
By memorandum of this date, you have demanded a copy of the
June 19 letter that I sent to the Grand Jury. Complaints to the
Grand Jury are confidential; and, inasmuch as this letter contains
information of an ongoing investigation involving your office, I
believe it is improper for you to make the demand that you have
made. I have conveyed this information to your secretary, Sophie,
and she advised me that despite this information you still demand
the letter. Consequently, in deference to your authority as Chief
Executive Officer of the City, I am providing you with this letter
under protest. Your insistence on obtaining this letter is
coercion in the worst extreme and will be reported.
The media has already requested a copy of this letter, which
I have refused to provide. By delivering a copy to your office,
the letter is no longer confidential and is a public record.
Consequently, there are no longer any grounds to deny the request
of the media for a copy.
~ %:~--''';/~
S . ENMAN
ity Attorney
JFP/bg [Mayor.Mem]
SJ ERNST & YOUNG
o
o
. Orange County Qiiicp
Suite 800
18400 Von Karman Avenue
. Phone: 1~ 2 2 300
Fa\: 142 2 379
142 2 442
August 14, 1992
/t
[/<-
- I'"~
Mr. David C. Kennedy, Treasurer ~ I ~ 1-1/ 1i' fY'l t
City of San Bernardino /) ;yJJ~_1 (OIL I P. i /- u?l
300 Nonh "D" Street (--r ' -) '/
San Bernardino, CA 92418 ..7 tI p ;.;
IkM"'. Ken."" 1 ~~ 1J. r /Jr
Ernst & Young is pleased to submit this proposal to conduct a management aUd~f the ,D ~l I J~ 'I
San Bernardino City Attorney's Office. We understand that such reviews are pan of a r'l \
process of continuous improvement of city operations. Our firm views this request as an , ,J ~
opponunity to identify both current strengths and improvement opponunities. ~~' ~ ~~
The major focus of this study will be to evaluate the Office's organizational structure, I. )i \
operating practices and interaction with overall City operations. The evaluation will ~
focus on management systems and controls, human resources, operational efficiency and J I
effectiveness, mission and role fulfillment. We will address specific issues in such areas 1\
as: /
I
o Spans of control and reponing relationships
o Use of outside counsel
o W orIdoad
o Use of management information systems and case management technology
o Internal communications
o Customer services to city operations and depanments.
Ernst & Young has developed a methodology for organization improvement studies,
This methodology is geared towards providing customer-focused performance
improvements in quality, time and cost. We consider this study a diagnostic review of
the Office's operations. We will make findings and recommendations using our
methodology, but implementation assistance is not included in our quoted fee. For
example, we might recommend use of additional automation in the Office. The design,
specifications or selection of that automation would be a separate project which the City
would need to authorize before we could expand the scope of our assistance.
Our workplan, qualifications, staffing and fees are presented in the following sections.
?~
..
o
o
i!I ERNST & YOUNG
.
Mr. Kennedy
Page 2
August 14, 1992
W orkplan
Task 1 . Initiate and Manage Project
This task covers the time to refine the workplan with the City and conduct periodic
progress briefings. We will not proceed with the study until we have a clear
understanding with the City regarding the project objectives, scope and deliverables.
Task 2 - Collect Baseline Data
This task will involve the collection and review of documents which will prepare us to
understand the charter, policies and practices of the City Attorney's Office. These
background materials include:
o City Charter and relevant ordinances
o Organization charts and position descriptions
o Budget and expenditure data
o Office policies and procedures
o Management reports including workload data.
Task 3 - Conduct Management Interviews
This task includes interviews with City officials to understand their perceptions of the
Attorney Office, working relationships, satisfaction with services, turnaround time,
responsiveness and ideas for improved operations. The interviewees will include:
o Mayor and each Council member
o City Manager
o Five department heads.
A major intent of these steps is to identify issues that may warrant inclusion in Task 4.
Task 4 . Review Office Operations
Each of the following areas, and other significant issues identified through interviews,
will be studied using additional interviews, analyses and observations to identify
problems and solutions:
Organizational Structure
We will examine the organizational structure to detennine reporting requirements, spans
of control, use of classifications, and the extent to which the Office structure helps or
hinders its defined mission. We will compare the Office's structure to comparable
..
o
o
i!/ ERNST & YOUNG
Mr. Kennedy
Page 3
August 14, 1992
attorney offices through a survey of ten municipalities in California (in addition to the
City of Riverside).
Workload Volume, Assignment and Monitoring
We will review the process of assigning work, workload volumes in each major area, and
the mechanics for monitoring the progress of work. We will use workload statistics to
review the current attorney staffing.
Automation
We will review the current use of automation to assist attorneys and clerical staff.
Support to Departments
We will evaluate the legal service needs of user departments and their perceptions
regarding the services they receive from the City Attorney's Office, This includes
attorney support of non-general fund clients and general fund departments with external
funding sources.
Systems of Communication
We will review the fonnal and informal networks used by the City Attorney to
communicate with staff, the City Manager, the Council, and City departments. We will
look at the frequency and content of staff meetings, internal memoranda, and policies
distributed to departments, We will also review the performance evaluation practices of
the Office and its relationship to staff compensation, promotion and counseling.
Use of Outside Attorneys
We will review the volume, nature and management procedures for use of private
attorneys. This review will focus on measures of consistency, effectiveness and
efficiency.
Task 5 - Report to City
This task includes:
o Briefing city management on our findings
o Conducting an exit meeting with the City Attorney
o Preparing a written report to the City.
..
".....,
v
o
i!J ERNST & YOUNG
Mr, Kennedy
Page 4
August 14, 1992
Our report will include findings, conclusions and recommendations, Each
recommendation will be defined in terms of:
o Required action
o Importance of action
o Suggested schedule for implementation
o Suggested assignment of responsibility for implementation,
We will present our findings as an Action Plan for the City Attorney's Office.
Delivery of our report will constitute completion of the project. We will, of course, be
available to the City if further implementation assistance is warranted and the City
requests the additional assistance.
Firm Qualifications
The following recent projects demonstrate our experience in municipal legal operations
and local government activities:
o City of Torrance
Ernst & Young conducted a diagnostic management audit of the City Attorney's Office
for the City of Torrance. The scope of this study included evaluation of the Office's
organizational structure, operating practices and interaction with overall City operations.
The study's focus was on reporting relationships, internal communications, contract
attorneys, workload technology, office automation and customer service. As part of this
study, we conducted in-depth interviews with appropriate City management and legal
staff and developed an inventory of staff assignments, in-house and contract cases,
outside contract expenditures and workload levels. Other cities were surveyed to identify
options for the Office's organization structure and strategic plan.
As a result of our study, we suggested a modification of the organization structure,
development of stronger management controls of outside contracts, increased utilization
of in-house attorneys, creation of a time accounting and case assignment system for
attorneys, and increasing internal staff communications.
o City of Santa Ana
Our management review of the City of Santa Ana's Attorney Office focused on
organization and staffing, workload volume and assignment, use of outside counsel,
planning, and operating support, policies and procedures. We reviewed the City Charter
and operational documents, conducted interviews with City staff, and surveyed other city
attorney offices to identify opportunities to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of
.-
o
o
i!I ERNST & YOUNG
Mr. ~ennedy
Page 5
August 14, 1992
Santa Ana's Office. We recommended a reorganization, a time tracking system, holding
regular staff meetings, establishing performance standards and conducting annual
performance evaluations. We also recommended development of a long-range plan that
identifies anticipated City-wide goals and objectives, and outlines a statement of
strategies and actions steps. Other suggestions included a cost benefit analysis of using
outside counsel, assessment of internal capacity to do claims work, and adoption of a
formal policy for contracting outside counsel.
o Orange County Counsel Office
As part of our work for the 1988-9 Orange County Grand Jury we conducted a review of
the County Counsel Office in Orange County. Our study focused on the use of outside
attorney contracts and the management of those contracts. We also evaluated the
turnover of employees within the office and the supervision of staff.
Our study recommended increasing controls in soliciting for, selecting and managing
outside attorney contracts.
We have performed many other management audits and organization reviews for
government clients such as the City of Orange, Riverside County, Manhattan Beach
School District, the Orange County Environmental Management Agency, and the
Riverside County General Services Agency.
Project Organization
The Project Director will be Larry Seigel, the partner for State and Local Government
Service in the Western Region. Larry will be responsible for assigning staff, reviewing
key deliverables and maintaining client relations. He will also participate in key
interviews and meetings. The Project Team will be staffed by Carola de Leede, Christina
Altmayer, Carlo Porcelli, and Ken Smart. A brief description of related project
experience follows below.
Larry Seigel
Larry has 23 years of consulting experience, 15 years conducting public sector studies as
a management consultant and 8 years as a manager for the United States General
Accounting Office (GAO). He specializes in organization and management studies,
systems efficiency and business process improvement analyses,
Larry has been manager of over twenty management audits and systems studies of public
sector departments. He was Project Director of grand jury audits for San Bernardino, Los
Angeles, Orange, Riverside, Santa Barbara, Kern and Ventura counties. Larry was also
Project Director of performance audits for numerous government entities including the
o
o
aJ ERNST & YOUNG
Mr. Kennedy
Page 6
August 14, 1992
Orange County Transportation Authority. Larry directed a state-wide management audit
of the State of Arizona governmental operations in which $250 million of cost savings
and revenue opportunities were identified. Among his other projects include a City-wide
management audit of all municipal operations for the City of Orange, an office
automation needs study for the Orange County Social Services Agency, and a study to
develop workload guidelines for the Orange County Mental Health Services Agency.
Larry directed the management audits for the City of Torrance, City of Santa Ana, and
the Orange County Counsel Office. He also managed a management audit of the Los
Angeles County Counsel's Office.
Carola de Leede
Carola de Leede is a Manager in Ernst & Young's Public Sector Consulting group for
Southern California. Her experience includes eight years consulting for the public sector
encompassing a variety of management assessments and personnel evaluations. Carola
worked on the management audit of the City of Santa Ana Clerk of Council and
Attorney's Office to review organizational structure, management reporting and
operational efficiency. Carola has conducted organizational and management studies for
other government entities including the Orange County Environmental Management
Agency's Housing and Redevelopment division, Manhattan Beach City School District,
and the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission's new Freeway Service Patrol
program. She is currently completing a management audit of the City of Long Beach
Housing Authority, which is focused on client service needs, process efficiencies,
information technology requirements, and organization and staffing needs. She
participated in a consolidation study of the General Services Agency for the County of
Riverside, and provided technical assistance on a staffing and productivity study of the
City of Charlotte Police Department in North Carolina.
Christina Altmayer
Christina Altmayer is a Senior Consultant with Ernst & Young. Her experience has
focused on local government process improvement, planning and finance issues.
Christina served as the Project Manager for the management audits of the City of
Encinitas and Riverside County. She participated in the management audit of the
Riverside County Health Department, in which she analyzed personnel, fiscal and budget
impacts on operations. Christina was the lead consultant on an engagement to develop a
performance measurement system for the County of San Diego Community Planning
Division, and served as a consultant on a compensation study and a process improvement
study for the South Coast Air Quality Management District.
Carlo Porcelli
Carlo Porcelli is a Consultant in Ernst & Young's Southern California Public Sector
Consulting group. Carlo has experience in management audit work, financial and budget
o
o
gu ERNST & YOUNG
Mr. Kennedy
Page 7
August 14, 1992
analysis, and performance improvement studies, He is currently completing work on a
process improvement study for the Orange County Transponation Authority. Carlo also
conducted fiscal impact studies for the El Prado area in San Bernardino County and the
City of San Marino. His other projects include the Triennial Performance Audit of the
Orange County Transponation Authority, and a user fee analysis for the City of Yucaipa.
Ken Smart
Ken Sman, the managing panner at Rourke & Woodruff, will act as Technical Advisor to
our team. He has worked with numerous public sector clients including our management
audit of the City Attorney's Office of the City of Santa Ana, Ken, nor we, will assess or
provide legal services. Ken will provide background on the environment in which the
City Attorney's Office operates, and will offer insight of innovations in legal office
efficiency.
Project Cost
We have conducted reviews of city attorney, public defender and county counsel offices
for other clients. Depending on the scope of the project and the size of the office, the
fees have varied from $20,000 to $150,000, We understand the City wants to take a
conservative approach and invest in a diagnostically oriented review uany detailed
analyses of specific areas such as technology planning would only be considered by the
City if this project showed demonstrable need and benefit. If that situation occurs, we
will define the scope and cost of such assistance at that time.
Based on the scope defined in this letter, we propose to conduct the study for a fixed fee
of $25,000, including expenses. We will bill the City, in arrears, each month for work
completed that month. Payment is expected in 30 days. We anticipate completing this
project in 60 to 90 days depending on the availability of City personnel to be interviewed.
Please contact Larry Seigel at (714) 252-2402 if you have any inquiries. We look
forward to the opponunity to assist the City,
Sincerely,
~Th
--
-
C I T Y 0 F SAN B ERN A R DIN 0
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S OFFICE
DATE:
October 16, 1992
TO:
The Honorable Mayor and Common council
FROM:
Shauna Clark, city Administrator
SUBJECT:
city Attorney Audit
COPIES:
gave Kennedy, City Treasurer; Jim Penman, city Attorney;
vRachel Clark, city Clerk
------------------------------------------------------------------
Attached is backup information for Agenda Item #25, the City
Attorney's management audit. The selection has been narrowed down
to two firms. Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation and Ernst and
Young have submitted their proposals for the San Bernardino City
Attorney management audit as well as two management studies each
firm previously conducted on Attorney operations.
Both firms will have representatives at the Council Meeting and
will make a short presentation regarding their qualifications and
scope of work. They will also be available to answer any questions
you may have regarding the audit.
~K~x'7~~'e/
City Administrator
SCjmd
#- J-j-
o
o
go ERNST & YOUNG
. Ordng.E' (ountv Oiiiu'
Suite BOO
18400 Von Kdrm,m AvenuE'
Irvine, Clli~nrni(l 9271 j
. Phone: 1-1
Fd\: 14
1.
HJO
Ji9
442
October 6, 1992
VIA FAX: 714/384-5461
Mayor W. R. Holcomb
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
300 North 'D' Street
San Bernardino CA 92418
rnm&~Dwm[ID
orT 9 tQQ?,
RE: ERNST & YOUNG
SAN BERNARDINO CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
MANAGEMENT AUDIT
OFIIICI OF tHE MA VOR
TIME:
Dear Mayor Holcomb:
Pursuant to your request, the estimated hours for completion of the Management Audit of
the San Bernardino City Attorney's Office would be approximately 220 hours.
After presentation to the City Council next Monday, October 12, we look forward to your
decision on the award of this study.
Should you have any further questions regarding our Proposal, please do not hesitate to
contact me at 714/252-2402.
Very truly yours,
~m.#
Larry i"I. Seigel. Partner
Ernst & Young
LS:040:92
ffJ.-S
o
o
,
GRAND JURY
._Jil:___._.
COUNTY OF SAN BERNAROINO
::'4:t~'-~~'::~t;;;.:;~;~/~,-c.
,~ "
~~!.:::~:
351 North Arrowhead Avenue. Room 307. Courthouse
San Bernardino. CA 92415-0243 . (714) 3B7-3B20
?'!...,.~.
.'t _ J'-'
. .;':t
October 13, 1992
oom@rnOBllilID
Oel 1 ii L:l;:'
The Honorable W.R. "Bob" Holcomb
Mayor, City of San Bernardino
300 North "D" Street
San Bernardino, California 92418
OFFICE OF THe MA'I'()fI
TIME:
Dear Mayor Holcomb:
This will confirm our telephone conversation this date
regarding the use of the Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corpora-
tion.
You will recall that I advised you the San Bernardino
County Grand Jury has used the Harvey M. Rose Accountancy
Corporation on several occasions in the past and have always
found their services to be very satisfactory.
;;j:::':dvJA~1 r.
SUSAN L. SHUEY
Executive Secretary
County Grand Jury
sls
o
o
1988.89 ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY
A
Study of the
County Counsel's Office
April 1989
L:l6~
Arthur Young
A MEMBER OF ARTHUR 'lOUNG INTERNATIONAL
~ -
o
o
TABLE DE' CONTENTS
Page Number
I.
PURPOSE
1
II.
BACKGROUND
1
III.
METHOD OF INVESTIGATION
2
IV.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
3
USE OF OUTSIDE COUNSEL 3
SELECTION AND NEGOTIATION PROCESS 6
MANAGEMENT OF CONTRACTS 7
EFFECT OF STAFFING PA'ITERNS ON THE
USE OF OUTSIDE COUNSEL 9
V,
LONG RANGE STRATEGIC PLAN
11
APPENDIX
12
EXHIBITS
o
o
LIST OF ExHIBITS
EXHmIT NUMBER
1 1988 ORGANIZATIONAL CHART OF COUNTY COUNSEL'S OFFICE
2 FLOW CHART OF PROCESS FOR GENERAL LITIGATION SUITS
3 FLOW CHART PROCESSING CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES
4 COUNTY COUNSEL OUTSIDE CONTRACTS
5 COUNTY COUNSEL OUTSIDE CONTRACTS NON-LITIGATION
6 ATTORNEYS LEAVING OFFICE OF COUNTY COUNSEL
o
o
1
L PURPOSE
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of the procedures
and management practices in the County Counsel's Office with regard to
attorney assignments and workload; and to evaluate the County's use of
outside counsel. .
II. BACKGROUND
The County Counsel's Office was originally a part of the District Attorney's
Office. A statute in October, 1941 directed the Board of Supervisors to create
a separate Department to focus on civil law complaints only, thus creating
the County Counsel's Office.
The County Counsel's Office currently serves as the legal advisor to the
Board of Supervisors and County Departments. The main functions of the
Office are advisory and litigation services. They provide internal advice to
most Departments. In addition, the County Counsel serves as co-counsel to
Risk Management's outside attorneys.
The County Counsel's Office is administered by a County Counsel
appointed for a four year term. Internally, the organization is divided into
two divisions, advisory and litigation. The current organization of the
County Counsel's office is illustrated in Exhibit 1.
In fiscal year 1988-89, the County Counsel's budget was $4,1 million. This
represents a 10% increase from fiscal year 1987-88. The Office has 74
employees, including 5 part-time law clerks, and 39 attorneys. The County
Counsel's Office also retains private attorneys on behalf of the County to
assist in litigation or to provide advice as needed.
o
o
2
III. METHOD OF INVESTIGATION
In conducting the review of the County Counsel's Office, we performed the
following activities:
. Reviewed background materials on policies,
personnel organization structure, contracts with
outside attorneys for the last five years, and a survey
conducted by the Los Angeles County Counsel's
Office of other counties use of outside attorneys.
. Conducted interviews with several County officials
including representatives from County Counsel,
County Administrative Office (CAO), Risk
Management, and the Personnel Department.
. Developed flow charts on the process of legal services
and contracting out for both the County Counsel and
Risk Management operations,
. Developed an inventory of outside contracts for the
last five years, documenting the case, law firm,
purpose, contract date, Board action or approval of
extension, attorney rates, and dollars spent.
. Observed a demonstration of County Counsel's
automated Case Management Tracking System,
. Conducted an inventory of County Counsel staff
assignments, recruiting, hiring and training
procedures, as well as, turnover and workload.
A detailed listing of all persons interviewed are provided in the APPENDIX
section of this report,
o
o
3
IV. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
USE OF OursmE COUNSEL
Utilization
Currently, the County uses outside attorneys in a structured and formal
process for Risk Management cases and in an ad. hoc basis for cases which
do not involve monetary damages. In addition to the County Counsel, Risk
Management, Personnel, Environmental Management Agency (EMA), and
the County Airport utilize outside counsel for legal services. There is no set
policy or procedure issued by the Board with regard to when and why
outside counsel should be used. The County currently retains outside
attorneys for the following reasons:
. Cases where County Counsel has a conflict of interest
· Lack of in-house expertise
. Manpower shortage or case will consume a great amount of
concentrated hours
. Case being tried somewhere else (for example, bankruptcy cases
in other states)
. All cases handled by Risk Management. (These are cases which
claim monetary damages against the County)
. Cases where the affected Department or County client
recommends going outside for other reasons. An eX3mple of this
would be the cases involving developer agreements.
The use of outside attorneys has been consistent with the resources
available and the role the County Counsel has traditionally played.
Process
As part of the review, a flow chart was prepared showing the current
process of how a claim comes into the office, how it is handled, and when
outside counsel is recommended, Exhibits 2 and 3 outline those
procedures. In most instances, there is an appropriate involvement of
County Counsel, and proper use of the committee of departments for the
o
o
4
settlement of cases. There is a procedure for distributing and handling
cases which involves the assigned personnel, however, it does not include a
cost-analysis element, and there is also an absence of policy direction in
non-routine cases.
One of the problems that arises from contracting legal outside services on
an ad-hoc basis is the process of deciding who should provide legal advice to
the County. Instances were noted where the CAO did not solicit advice
from County Counsel staff as to whether the Office could provide the legal
services in-house. There are other instances where Departments seek
outside counsel, the Board of Supervisors approves the request, but County
Counsel has no input. An example of this situation is the case involving
the Irvine Company Assessment. Inadequate coordination between private
attorneys and departments could adversely affect County operations unless
County Counsel is involved.
Inventory of Outside Counsel Contracts
It was found that there is no central inventory of outside contracts kept with
either the County Counsel's, County Administrator's, or Auditor's Offices.
Currently, cases where outside legal services have been contracted are filed
by case title or subject matter along with the other 400 to 500 open cases.
Since the inception of this study, County Counsel's Office has consolidated
all outside contract cases in one central file, and directed the Assistant
County Counsel to be responsible for the consolidation of all litigation and
non-litigation cases involving an outside firm. Exhibits 4 and 5 are
inventories of litigation and non-litigation outside contracts for the last five
years.
Dollars spent on outside counsel have increased substantially in the past
several years with the developing trend of going outside more often. The
County Auditor's Office estimates that the County of Orange spent
approximately $4.5 million dollars on outside attorneys last year. Thp total
costs of outside contracts are difficult to find since they are spread over
many departments' budgets. This budgeting system has made identifying
costs for outside attorneys difficult because there is no central account or
line item.
Advantages of In-House and Private Attorneys
When County attorneys are effectively being utilized, then the use of in-
house attorneys can keep costs down and improve the interface of legal
issues and ongoing County policies. The advantages of in-house attorneys
include:
o
o
5
. Perfecting specialities tailored to County
laws, ordinances, personnel, procedures,
and experience
. Being available without concerns of
extraordinary costs
. Practicing preventative law
. Being free from the conflict of interest
questions posed more and more frequently by
the larger private firms
. Having an incentive to close the case,
It is necessary in some situations to hire outside counsel. The County has
valid reasons, as previously discussed, for going outside. In addition, the
advantages of private counsel include:
. The availability of devoting more than one
attorney to large cases
. Providing the necessary expertise
. Being able to easily terminate the contract
with the attorney or firm.
Despite previous requests, the County Counsel has been unable to have an
analysis conducted to evaluate the cost effectiveness of bringing more work
in-house. On November 2, 1987, the County Counsel sent a memo to the
CAO expressing concern of rising outside legal services costs (particularly
for Risk Management services). He requested that a cost study be
conducted to evaluate and compare County Counsel costs on an hourly rate,
as well as on a total cost basis; including enlarging County Counsel in
order to bring more work in-house. To date, the CAO has not begun such a
study or responded to the County Counsel's request.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. THE GRAND JURY RECOMMENDS THAT COUNTY COUNSEL
DEVELOP A POLICY STATEMENf AND PROCEDURE FOR SEEKING
OursIDE COUNSEL.
2. THE GRAND JURY RECOMMENDS THAT THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS COMPLETE THE COST-BENEFIT STUDY OF
EXPANDING COUNTY COUNSEL STAFF TO HANDLE ALL CASES
o
o
6
WHICH INVOLVE COUNTY ACTIONSIPOLICIES OTHER THAN
ROUTINE INSURANCE.TYPE CASES. THE FIRST PRIORITY FOR
REVIEW SHOULD INVOLVE CASES IN PERSONNEL ACTIONS, SCOPE.
OF-DurY CASES, AND ENVIRNOMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS.
SELECl'ION AND NEGOTIATION PROCESS
Selection
Once the decision to use outside counsel occurs, findings suggest there is
no established process for the selection of a firm or the negotiation of the
contracts. In only two situations has the Board requested to see a list of
potential firms. The County does not seek bids, does not require an
estimated cost, and often selects firms with which they are familiar,
Rate Variations
While Risk Management has set fixed prices for the firms on the panel,
County Counsel pays their rates on a case by case basis. Findings showed
significant disparities in outside attorney's hourly rates. It was identified
from the list of outside contracts, that attorney hourly rates can be
anywhere from $110 an hour to $250 an hour. This compares with the
following County Counsel hourly rates: Attorney V's at $93.00 an hour,
Attorney IV's at $85.00 an hour, and Attorney Ill's at $70.00 an hour.
These relative rates should be taken into consideration when evaluating
cost savings to be achieved in bringing new areas in-house.
Conflict of Interest Policy
The County has no policy with regard to retaining recently departed County
Counsel employees as outside attorneys. This situation could periodically
lead to a perceived or real conflict of interest, and has the potential to create
poor morale in the Office. We recognize the need to retain former
employees in isolated instances. Several cases were found where it mak-es
economic sense to retain a former employee. In those instances, County
Counsel should bring the matter to the Board's attention for approval.
The County has a Conflict of Interest Policy governing the retention of
private attorneys which is intended to eliminate those firms whose other
clients might have a conflict with County interests. Because of a growing
concern of possible conflict, the Board has gone fro~ its former practice of
o
o
7
waiving the Conflict of Interest policy without much scrutiny to more
closely examining a firm's potential conflicts.
RECOMMENDATIONS
3. THE GRAND JURY RECOMMENDS THAT COUNTY COUNSEL
DEVELOP A ONE YEAR NO.CONTRACT POLICY FOR FORMER
EMPLOYEES UNLESS SPECIFICALLY WAIVED BY THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS.
4. THE GRAND JURY RECOMMENDS THAT THE CAO AND
COUNfY COUNSEL DEVELOP POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR THE
SELECTION OF OUTSIDE COUNSEL AND THE DECISION OF WHEN 1'0
001'0 BID.
5. THE GRAND JURY RECOMMENDS THAT THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS RIGOROUSLY ADHERE TO AND IMPLEMENT THE
CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICY.
MANAGEMENT OF CONTRACTS
Outside Counsel Case Management
Currently, outside counsel cases are not being adequately managed by the
County Counsel. While outside cases are assigned to a lead attorney, that
case does not appear on the list of open cases by attorney, nor is it listed or
maintained on the automated case tracking system. It is difficult to
ascertain the cost effectiveness of bringing more work in-house if there is
no data base. In many instances, there is minimal flow of information
from the outside attorney to the County Counsel's Office, and County
Counsel's staff does not allocate the time to closely track the case.
Monitoring of Outside Contracts
The bills for attorney charges come into County Counsel for approval;
however, while the bills may be reviewed they are not necessarily
scrutinized. There have been instances where charges have been
questioned by other County personnel. County Counsel does not keep track
of expenditures during the course of a contract. This has the potential for
poor case management and budget overrun.
The costs of outside legal services are not itemized in any particular
Department's budget. As stated earlier, unless the costs of outside
o
o
8
contracts are centralized, it is difficult to identify the total cost to the County
for outside legal services.
Open.ended Contracts
We have found contracts that are open-ended and do not have a maximum
limit on total fees. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that the County
does not negotiate specified work, milestones, or have a process for
evaluating the progress and effectiveness of the contract with the outside
attorney. This signifies the need for increased management overview of
outside contracts.
The contract with the firm of Wickwire, Gavin, Gibbs is an example of a
contract where no maximum limit was established by the Board of
Supervisors. While the County Counsel's Office estimated the cost to be
$75,000 a year, the contract with the firm was open-ended and eventually
cost the County over $652,000. In this case the Board regularly appropriated
money, but this demonstrates the importance of reconciling preliminary
estimates, contract limits, budget amounts and actual expenditures.
RECOMMENDATIONS
6. THE GRAND JURY RECOMMENDS THAT THE COSTS OF ALL
OUTSIDE LEGAL SERVICES OTHER THAN RISK MANAGEMENT
CASES, BE TRANSFERRED TO A SUB.ACCOUNT OF THE COUNTY
COUNSEL'S BUDGET; AND THE MANAGEMENT AND BILLING
CLEARLY BECOME THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE COUNTY
COUNSEL'S OFFICE.
7. THE GRAND JURY RECOMMENDS THAT COUNTY COUNSEL
DEVELOP AN INVENTORY OF OUTSIDE CONTRACTS TO BE
MONITORED AND REVIEWED BY THE LEAD ATrORNEYS.
8. THE GRAND JURY RECOMMENDS THAT COUNTY COUNSEL
PUT ALL OUTSIDE CONTRACT CASES ON THE AUTOMATED CASE
TRACKING SYSTEM.
9. THE GRAND JURY RECOMMENDS THAT THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS PROHmrr OPEN.ENDED CONfRACTS AND INSTITUl'E
A DFrAILED CONTRACT CONTROL MECHANISM.
o
o
9
EFFECT OF STAFFING PATTERNS ON THE USE OF OUTSIDE
COUNSEL
County Counsel Attrition
It was evaluated whether the County Counsel was using outside attorneys
because they were experiencing disruptive employee turnover, Findings
showed limited turnover. Most people left for positive reasons. Only a few
left who were constrained by promotion opportunities, see Exhibit 6.
Time Accounting System
The County Counsel's Office has no method for tracking attorneys' time
spent on cases and respective caseloads including advisory services. The
attorneys do keep track of time spent on departments, but that does not
provide sufficient management information to adequately plan workload
flow. The Case Tracking System was reviewed to see ifit could be used as a
management tool for workload planning. The system was designed for
case maintenance and would need additional applications to make it an
effective management tool.
Staff Size
The current size of the County Counsel's Office may limit the ability to
bring more work in-house. County Counsel currently has 39 attorneys
organized in two divisions: advisory and litigation. In order to bring in-
house such areas as Personnel, Risk Management, environmental law,
construction contracts, and jails, the litigation staff would need to be
enlarged.
Recruiting and Hiring Policies
A review of personnel policies, found that County Counsel has no
internship or clerk program to relieve attorneys of some of their routine
work. There also is no training officer or training program. Hiring is
infrequent and targeted at generalists. If a vacancy occurs, it is open for
anyone interested within the office. In addition, once an attorney reaches
the Attorney III classification, promotion can only be achieved if a vacancy
in the class IV category occurs. The employee evaluation system is not
thorough, and sometimes not followed in a timely manner,
o
o
10
RECOMMENDATIONS
10. THE GRAND JURY RECOMMENDS THAT THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS DmECT THE CAO TO COMPLETE THE COsr.SAVINGS
STUDY OF BRINGING MORE WORK IN. HOUSE INCLUDING A
REVIEW OF COUNTY COUNSEL'S ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE
AND CLASSIFICATION SERIES.
11. THE GRAND JURY RECOMMENDS THAT COUNTY COUNSEL
DEVELOP AN INTERNSHIP PROGRAM.
12. THE GRAND JURY RECOMMENDS THAT COUNTY COUNSEL
BEGIN RECRUITING AND TRAINING ATIORNEYS TO PROVIDE THE
NEEDED EXPERTISE OUfLINED IN THE LONG RANGE STRATEGIC
PLAN DESCRIBED IN SECTION V.
13. THE GRAND JURY RECOMMENDS THAT COUNTY COUNSEL
DEVELOP A TIME ACCOUNTING SYSTEM FOR BOTH LITIGATION
AND ADVISORY ATIORNEYS.
14. THE GRAND JURY RECOMMENDS THAT THE COUNTY COUNSEL
REVIEW AND COMPLETE THE EMPLOYEE EVALUATION SYSTEM.
o
o
11
V. LONG RANGE STRATEGIC PLAN
The growing complexity of the County's legal environment and the volume
of litigation it faces requires a re-evaluation of the role County Counsel
plays. The way the Office is organized, the type of employees recruited, the
training they receive, the management of their time, and the management
of outside attorney contracts all depend on the explicit duties of the Office.
It is essential that the role of the County Counsel's Office be evaluated as
part of a long-range strategic plan for meeting the total legal needs of the
County. The County needs to identify future anticipated demands for legal
services and develop a plan to address those needs. This plan should be
consistent with other plans and strategies the County has for dealing with
future issues.
As an example, we feel that the County must decide whether they want to
centralize all attorney services under a single department. If they do, then
that Office needs to be responsible for deciding how to handle the total
caseload of litigation. Their efforts would focus on internal case
management and budget management of outside attorneys. Attorney time
accounting would be more important, as would the development of contract
management skills.
RECOMMENDATIONS
15. THE GRAND JURY RECOMMENDS THAT THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS DEVELOP A LONG-RANGE STRATEGIC PLAN FOR THE
PROVISION OF LEGAL SERVICES. THE PLANNING PROCESS
SHOULD INVOLVE THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, COUNTY
COUNSEL, AND OPERATING DEPARTMENI'S.
o
APPENDIX A
PERSONS INTERVIEWED
Countv Counsel
Adrian Kuyper, County Counsel
William McCourt, Chief Assistant
Arthur Wahlstadt, Assistant County Counsel
Lawrence Watson, Assistant County Counsel
Carol Sojka, Office Manager
Countv Administrative Office
John Sibley, Chief Budget Officer
Doug Woodyard, Budget Analyst
Office of the Auditor
Gary Leach
Ray Stevens
Personnel Denartment
Russ Patton, Personnel Director
Dave Carlay, Employee Relations Director
Risk Manallement
Maria Bastenchury, Risk Manager
o
12
o
o
13
APPENDIX B
DOCUMENTS REVIEWED
County Counsel's 1988 Organization Chart
Staff Attorney Assignment List
County of Los Angeles's Survey of other Counties use of outside contracts.
Conflict of Interest Policy (9/24/85)
Agenda Item Transmittal from County Counsel to Board of Supervisors -
conflict of interest regarding the law firm of Siemon, Larsen & Marsh.
(2/14/89 )
County Counsel Report on increased workload and disposition of school
attorney positions. (2/25/82)
County Counsel Report on open cases by attorney. (3/6/89)
Budget Hearing minutes (1983.1984)
Internal Memorandums:
From County Counsel to CAO (8/4/83) regarding response to Management
Audit.
From County Counsel to CAO (11/2/87) requesting a cost study of legal
services.
From Auditor's Office to County Counsel (7/28/88) regarding attorney
hourly rates for 1988-89.
From Assistant County Counsel (2/17/89) listing outside contracts fro)ll
1984 to present.
From Assistant County Counsel (1/12/89) listing non-litigated outside
contracts from 1984 to present.
From Assistant County Counsel to Chief Budget Officer (1/19/88) regarding
outside counsel cases.
From Assistant County Counsel to County Counsel (1/10/89) listing Risk
Management co-counsel cases.
o
o
14
Newsoaoer Articles:
Orange County Register, "County sends mixed signal", 2/22/89.
Orange County Register, "Lawyer asks County to waive conflict rules".
Orange County Register, "OC paying millions for legal help", 11/7/88,
Orange County Register, "OC ends law firm contract", 12/1/88.
In addition, we reviewed all contracts, Board of Supervisor's minute
orders, and Agenda Item Transmittal documents related to each outside
contract case listed on Exhibits 3 and 4.
..
"
"
..
..
u
...
-
"
..
=-
ul;
....
J:.J
-"
~=
..:
.. =
...-
E;
of."
..0
00
..
00
..
-
o
o
EXHIBIT 1
~ IS:: r ~ ~ ~
IS:: ~ ; !I
H I " """
,.- . .. 1.:1 "'.1.:1
<.> - .;~ .;
~ E ; ~ S ..... S
- . H " \ ~ ~ ~ ~ l::
<. ~
....
~ - - ~ ~ ~~
L- a j!: j!: . ...j .. ..
~ ,! . .J oJ - e. - -
'\ ~ jE ileee e.e
- <.> ~ .. '-l
f- .;~ ~ I!l III ~ '" i:! !::
gj~
"- <:
~~ -
I c - '-l<.> c ~ ~
.0 c IS::- . .
~2i . c '" f
'" c .is .~ "
~. -' .!~~ . ::l
" ~ ::lJi
i= ~$ .'iii~ .e ~.s ~ =
::; -' H "'fi=' ~g~~~ ;, ~~ ~
=:za;;! . - i
~ -::
~Jj ~.....:.: ~x~~;,; ~. t ~
~. <=
~~~ ~=iii!::r: E.!. -<
:.::::: ,,~
.:! -
e · ".- 1
i .i.t' E~. ~~ .!.o:: ~~ ~ 1: 1 . .
<.:::: :'1 d ~ Do ~ ~1! I~ J
!.tlE ~oa,!.....~ ~.b'" ...~~E'~H,"!
1 ~ ..'~ s toU u!: II! . C :d ~:t.!i;'
Ji .0:: 9< :1--" ~:::I:,,) ~lj~Jj~~!~~!~~~5
~ 'i::E-"'3.~J..:"~:; ;; en '; t.~!:g
.~ .. < ~ of~'~ls.~jgil Vi j~lt~<~i~.gi~~~te i!l 1~!1""
~EE-: i!l ] eEeu!11111~.o::J:l . c-1~
.. . .I.5i: '" e.!! :I e '€ l!l ::I '" "2o,g ...
- - .!:u ~ ~ a~~ ~ uu_o:::E::"V;!T.a) ~ <4<~~====::E::E::EUl~U \!: CQ..:Illlo.
E' .
il ~ ~.~rr.
.1i -
QOi~ = ~ r
!!; H ~ ~ ;;~~
is " .~ .. . 'i
~ ",--oil = ~J" ...~!~ I. c ~
<.> ~
I ~iS ~:~ ! i~]:t ~~J" '~~D
.. " ~ CJ . ~ t'i! "5 .: 1 lEI .
-'
el .. .. ~ ~ i ~.~ .. au 1:!: I~i~<.> IIU S'~'f
!i . ~ ;~~.. j.~'5 e ~ .io~t:l' :> ~""I::;:i_llE
~ ~ = g .~ I'~ i-:.,. ~:i :i ~ ;'E:Ii ~ t j!l ;- e ...nL"-l.!;!d'
l....- i"' e~~~l.~o~~.l.~el s! is
i:.!E < <=~ uu~c_~_~ -~~ Q <sr::i~l!~~cilr.l~ ......;
~g . t
'" 011 K E ~. h~
tl ..::E .. c
i~ ~ 'c. t
hi ! _.8 @ ~ :llJ i 11\ .
~ n ~ Illl. ~ -c; lr.l::I ~ ~ ! j ijL
"'- 1~ :> EO. .-!arn a.._
~~ IX I!!lCi..l::";o
c ~ ~ i~ e e~"'.- '!'Cl~ i I"~ .~;
iii 5 0< ~~ c. c " o i!lCiJ 'C .. .a u 1IQlr.l ..
~ o IC .- <u ~ d!lr.lrnlr.l~
h u_Q;.~ -' ".. "hr:!
~ ::;! S.l .. .!~!:i i:
<
~.
J~ li i 1 .
~~ .. ; ~ I!! ! .!;< Ii
h Q ~ .'~:t_ 'j C'.M ~.~ :i .-li ~ .5.1 if'; .i~
c C IC IC. ' . I.... .. .- da:~o!~ ;.h
c _ ,... IC . r . IC Q E
.~ ~ '" i';~'l~'. !,..l,~a_'~ 1 :lj~tl
.:i.f ~ Ig g liu-:lol!!~i! _fIlS !; 1'1 , g..:!-5u j!!:!l g UlJiH
.... -. p ~"I-l.f<'> "r~"t tj'- 'p jrl"'~ "l1li
;! . ~ n~tlAcH..H !U".il .l i!oII~ Lfil ~ , ~
..~ ..
~ E f
i :~.: ~ ~ ... ; I
. ..
c oz - IC IC ..~ ...~ E.~ .l ~
ii;-- IC f:t IC 5!
~~ Cgd..1-il!'; 3rJjct) z:t.i ~ 18
E.. _ ~ ~ Ii - H i i ~ · i c!.,i!!gJl= icE':j
~'" 1-_--jEE ._UIC:S 1- ~ E~t put:~"11 ~h~
<<.>. ; ~hHHH1H~ .. ilE~.Bj]ii. .
1JiI Q UUr.H..=== II) 11)>.
~
~oo
gs~
~z
i~
~<
~~
~~
o~
~~
s~
-
<lI
'"
C
;:l
o
C,,)
~
c
;:l
o
C,,)
rTl
l!J~
en
~
Col
~ e
~~
~~
, Q
~~
.~ Q
E.S
.a
~
o
.
"t:I
til
o
P:l
<lI
oJ:
...
'-
o
..lo:
...
<lI
5
4 .
...
o
'"
.:;:
...
<lI
s;l.
;:l ~ ~
IZl a; ~
c b
o <lI C
:.::z UJ ....
~
~
'Z
;.:s
...
C
<:>
E
<:>
~
~
c
~
::s
..lo:
'"
~
'"
E ~
.~-
~ 0
- >
<.I C
ca''''
CfJ~ ~
<l.l-....
><lI-
_",0
ocll.
~;:l~
..... 0 c:
~ Co? :1
,-00
_C,,)C,,)
'"
~
~
<.I
'"
~
o
-
.
.!!l
~
...
~
.s~
-;:e
e~
1::
~
s;l.
<lI
o
. .
o
EXHIBIT 2
..lo:
...
o
ai~
.s.s~ s;l.
>.2;<lI7
....J: '" ~
;:l ~ ~ 0
s;l._n-
<lI ....-
o~~o
~ r:...
.s~~'"
..... c:: Q,)
en ~..... >
"'Oct:l~....-I
C <lI ~ 0
<lI > <lI >
IZlc"'c
_C,,)_
-
<lI
'" <lI
C
;:l "t:I '"
.~
0 '" 2;
C,,) ...
;:l '"
~c 0_ 'E
c 0 '" <lI <lI
. ;:l$l "t:I'" ~
o ~ C C
C,,)~ <lI ;:l IZl
... 88 '-
c 8 0
~ "t:I
... 0 ...
'" <.I
,~ ~ ~
'" 0
'" P:l
<:
o
...>,
<lI <lI
~ e
C,,)~
"'<:
&1:::
'Uj .5
"'1Zl
<:
8
~
'"
6J
bll
C
,~
..lo:
<.I
~
...
E-<
<lI
L~
.,;
"t:l
:s
o
Z
oi
"
C
'"
.;:
'"
'"
"
'"
.,...
f
:;
"t:l
'"
"
all e
a '"
.;: "t:l
= . a.i c
.... (/) C c:J
:-;:G.lO>'
,,';: C "
~ = ....
~ > so
C 1_ c..
o c.!! ~
0'" '"
"'g:z:= ~
wOO ...
ca.... ' c
..c c; bZ)....
bl)c'"
g Q,)";: 0
.... c 0 ~
... ..."
t 8.... is
_._ E C
'" ...., 0
CIli:l.""O
. . . .
~
0
"
!C
3
~
"
t :!l ..
..
< ~ ~
'" ~
"'-'
z" ~ ~g
::>'"
OZ
u::>
~~ 1 ~!l
zo 11 .<
::>u 8
8~ 0 ~
~
" "',. 31 ill
~ !<3 i i
!>. ~u It
~~ :=0 -"
:au :Sz
zz 3~ uo: I,:i! h.
::>::> Ji "..
88 ;jg h
.. c 1-0
1 t "
0 ~
z
I '"
l-
I .. <..
'" . t;t: ,,~ ~
-'"
I- ! 0= 1-"
Sl . .... :1:0 ~
~ ~ =< ~:;
:(:3 ZZ ~
--
0 ."
u 11 ~~
w
gj . ..~ :5:.:
It' ..'"
; "'0 <0
'" ~~ ~~ 8
i ;,1 I-;i 0
I~- Sll! Z h
III . . '"
~ .1 J i ~i5
!!~,~ "
.. ". s = "u
~ ;;'102 ~ fl~ 1::1'
::> c
0-' "'-
o~ ::sti
Z I-z ~::i
25 fill
B i:!u
~
i ,;.
" Ji~
~ .'
.oil
" "s
~ i'1!
u.
~"
I 55=
. ~~
1
ar !i~
3 U- ~~ Ji
u ",3 u .3
!
.':
i
.
l 0
I z
f
o
o
EXHIBIT 3
o
o
EXHIBIT 4
PAGE 1 OF 3
12..!l/ ;q
e!( i. ~.
::" ~ ~
S !! !;:~ ~ l:;
l '" o . " ,,;
~ ~!i. ... it
~.
:: ii::: I ~
M l:; ;;M
"
.
" i '3'~ ~
~ ~ 'e .. .. .. ~ "
, ,
. f f:-g ~ ~~ jjjl in
~ ] i: ~::! ~.: ~~ = 8
M _ .. '" c_ ~; M , ;; e;; ~
~ .. ~ ~ :! 0 ~ D ~ t";; to = to . ~ D D
. ''=;O ~ '0..-: S . . . cO;:; C "'U . S s 1
.9 , .9 ' nH
. :c..s >>;.; -.9 !- -
.. 0 "'C " ".:"'C . - - . .. 0'" "1:1 _ . 0 Ii
< <zto::o< z< <z <&-<< "'zz ..
~ ~
'i " ~
,
. . 0
" E~ UIU~iU ~. ili U~ 8
~ o- s !U =
~ 'M ;;~ au H -
'M ~ ;; 0
0
. ! 0
, . !
8 . ~ .
z"' .
'"
~
.
z
Z
" ~~~~~~~~ ~1lI 'Ii\!
! .
0 . 0 !~
. c C -= ::l c"3 . " ~ 0
z ~~j~..;~jl: "!'.,
t ~:!: '00
~;nN_lC-lEiil'll ~~
..
e
~I ..
~~ ..
"'
"
tOg ..
" III " S ~ &l III
~~ ~ ~
. > ~ ~ , ,
, . . .
~ z < z ,.
8~ " ~ " 00 ~
"
n ~
;r. \l @ s
" .. 1i ~
"to .. ; ;! .'e - .
:; . ~ o!! :. 0 ";:i S ! ~
c: c .:: 0 .
~ .; oS .! '0 .. *~ -& l.s ;;. =s.el
" s~ 'c tl ,a. ! ~i 0
" .~ ~ ,,'; -< :'1l : - 0 >.s~ e "'. I
==:: ~'l 000 .1 ~ . .s 1 i< ..
.~ ~ . '5 r ::~~ ~ 1 0
'2 ~ . .- r. o II. s : =
- ~ . 0 . J) .. 1:'1 g
-:.ll ~:! is'- ::l . :f j' .
~. u l ; ~il 110 " ~~Hl
. e . 0
oS ~ 8 oS g ~ ~:E:a ~ . ~ 0
H "to . ".9..--;.
t . "; ~.=: i-:j 1 . s " I! =. ~ !
I: ~-;, .s
. MI .. ~= ::l J t 8= ~ :n ~"iH l
= 0 ! -~ ...= toH' M~
!..", or. 0 !'e';i ."b ~ o 0 ~t6O.s1
" l:: o 0 'Iii";':: c:l~ ~c!d "'1
I e ! ~ e.! ~ ~ f 8 . II 8s ~. s {.l! ~
= II :; 1 i ~ tl ; =j ; ]-:. ~
.s'E! .fi t . . . Ht!
.08' i :I oS ! ~ -5.~ ; 1i "3j !..
~ ! ~ = t:: :. ::.:!!:ii . A. So! f; Ii "1=
.Ii .. ~1 . s . ~~-5 !!.s.s "l ,:l.n ~ ;I'
~ . " . .
:
ol!
" .
. ,!J .
. .!
~ ~ & ~
0 .
0 . oll .
, 1!'t-"
. ~ ~.. " ;
" 0 . ~ S 0
. d ~ 1ft c 0 ~ ~ . ~ .!
> 0 1 "~ . '"
;0'" . ~
. ~ " . "
l ." ."'~ ~ = " 0
> 0 0 ~ . -" 0 I
i ~ ' : =::: .. 0 i i . . .
. "' :n 1 "
"; .. "i: it _ " ~ :l! .
~ ;l..: .~ :: :: ~ .~ ,.
~ 0 . 0 ,.
~~ > . . ~.:! ., ~ ~
.. iil ~ " I " , . 0 0
.. . - i .! :l! . i
~ " .... . "~ . .5 . . I 0
t ! .. 1 .~
. ~- - ~""' ! '" > ~ .
8 ol! h~ /l c! <!Jl ~ " <!
au ~ = " ..
.
i2",
e~
-<"
..
e
d '"
!'" ..
" -<
- ~
05 t
~~ ~
8~ 8
U
ClCl
"
~ll
-"
~~
li
.
.
E
.~ .. ...
. , ,
l.e.E~
~~~c:
o....~
~ t' t'~
.. c C '.::I
..n.!
0...... ::I
U<<l'Il
~
~
~
8
~.U
li;~
"
I
'"
ilili
.:. lit
. ,
"'<
obi!
II;
..
.
'"
'"
;
~
~,~ S
t] :l .:
.: :.: =.~
..__ &I..
.. c;:..c A
:3 1::.~ 1
. liS...
. ... " c
.. "..c c;:
.~ ] ~ t
t ~ .; ~
~ t1'.
. ~ ' <
. -'
~ ~.
1: .. C..l:
C .9 l-i
=..:-:! ..
: j "I ~
t.) >. c: ~
.; i::: .;
~ i i .
,,~ E
~n.,g
I
i
~
~
~ <
"
'q
<::
e]
~ .~
.'"
"-
: oS
,-
. .
< ,
l{-~.
~ ~ :;,.J
~~;
o
S!
Ii
~.
~
Ii.
;;
"
- s c
~~.~ ~ ~
e;..'~ ..g! ~
:E~!~ ~~ ~ j=~
.! .. .. iIlI ":'. ~ _;3-
g .::l '5 c ..c - l!' ~ 1i :
;: ~ ii ~.: -..""..!..
1.0;;;; ....~~1!~i!Q>-:;:
!1i1!~ ll~~::~_!E~
t~t1.....8"o.o"iIlI.3e
" : : 1i ~ = ~ ~ g ~ ] ~ . ~
"!3.s:~1::S: ~:~ ~ ~; I C
~~~:g ~o:g~:g ;:;':ij'".!
=2:2:< Z<=<=:<<=~
Ua
Uli
~--
~....
.:. ~ '3
~.,.,
~-~
,
~
.
,
<
:t
cC:;
.! :J
~ i :
._ c ~
i e c
L~
to; e
." 0 .-
'ij.01i
:.;~2
:i:s';
~E..
< . "
,,;:..t
. . .
. " <
~ lie ~
i.s .i
'" . ~
. B-5
~h
.
. .
~ -
~ .
- .
<::<
"
.5..:
, .
. ,
1;::::
.
i:):
Jl
i3
.
.
~
~
!
"
.
'"
g
U~ii.HU~
i!!!,;!!!!EU,;
~..lttD""""~
'P.ii<l!;~&i il
=~~;~~; t
:E~:z,,"?u,;<"") <
~!:cil~==c:ft:e .0
.
E
.
1
<
..
"
,
-:
~
..
~~
. <
n
.. ~
. I
z
.
~
-~
~ .e
<"
L
-<z
~
~
<
1
t' "!
I . ~
e ... iI'o E
c.J..l: 8
.! " .. f
"c.!!:
.~"z:'S! 1
~ ~ l ~
.o.ll B
. ~ ~
.,g~s..o
~ l'ii 1
E .. ~li
.. .! .- c
~.!!~11
13 E g "CI 0
~ 8 !If = 1
-; s..J l-3
Hiu
..
.
i
.
<
,
.
~
.
.
is
..
'ii
~
l
.
~
~
~
1
<l
"
.
o!
o
~
.
'!~
8 ~
.:! ~
. I
z
.
~
-~
q
<"
L
-<z
~
<
.
.,
'"
~
i.
.~
1j.
.
~~
. .
j'1l
. ~
.. E
'" ~
I'
~"i
:e ~
. B
.2 !'
i 1 .
! 11
1 . .
~..
81 t
-<.~
~
.
dI
.
<
<
.
<l
.
~
..
..
.
.
~
..
~
!
~
II
~
!
-
.
~
l:
-
~
.
!
.,
uu
nn
II;
..
.:
:i
.
'i
t
-<
~
.
i
.:!
~
i
~
.
.
!
~
.~
.
I
.
.
:
-<
E
.
"
.
<
!
PAGE 2 OF 3
Hi
bbb
< . .
B B B
111
..s
.ll.ll.ll
~1)1)l;&iili
'3 = r'3 = ~
'l~<J:r::'1
R.i":;...
<
.
g
.
.,
..
!
'ii
~
f,
.
11
if
o
o
PAGE 3 OF 3
!!'" ~ g
"i .. ~
.," Ii ~ " ..
-.. .~
..., ~s ~
.. iii . ;;
'"
.
"
.
. .~
, ,-
l~ ~H
ti~
I ~ at'''
s C s C -
-ll - II ~
. - ~<~
z..
~
" i ~.
~
~ fl li
::l
&
z
e
~
t<
'"
~
"
O!
!~
..8 '"
!5l !;c
.,
,,~ ..
" IE {
~~ ~ .. ..
<.! .
..
8~ :;i l"l
"
i8 1
J 1! C
.q
e .. C ~ ]~
" . .-
C C . .<-
1 .- .<
~ - E C Gi
~i .. ~ i
.. .
. .-
~ ~.lI . It .!!
'to ]0 .r I = ~
ti C [
"- ""1!-' : s
e ] l! -l!
~ ~-
C . C . , == I ~
J~ J::8 ....~I
- ti - . .
- . -!:! ~C.<
; -.. -: (~ ~ ' .
." ~~ :
s , s ~
~. t.: e ~t.:i-S
. .
.< > Eil:E .:i 8
" C
..t!! .. . s to.i
. ~
~ .
..
, .
,.: .
"
.. i
C .
., ~ ,
. f
. . ~ " .
.. ~ .. E
" .. ~. ~:!
I '< 'l: . ~ .'
. . ~ < !i~
. ol: . ~
'" .!i ii:-lI
. .. c' . .
l. . ;! .l! ] 1! !
.
t ti ~ . c
" ti .J!
. '" C .i! ;; ~.s
~
d
~iolZ
~SO
~~~
~~S
8b
t)8~
II
t)
~~
"'~
o
!li
~
'"
a
!-
Z
~
o
:r;
<
0:
j
8
'"
.. III !
~ ~ $ E . ~~
0':; ~':5:.a""
~~ ~"C~c~
"C ~... "Cl.s l:l ~ := c:ll
CD::; l'Il tlCCO.......
t;;O~Q::;C;-c:
~>>fl.l~>.':>.~8~
~ l:l W l:l l:l ~ W 0 ~ w
.:E~3E....E:;;.s
. .3 b.... .s c .s." c: ....
z<.=:i<&<~~~
~
c
.
E
'"
il.
o
Z
."
.
1::
e
:::c:
~ 8
"'::.
n~
~ ~.~
<z.
~.
i
el
~
i
.
6
It
. .
3 E
~ 0
o ~
z<
~
;;;
o
5!
~
~.
;;;
o
~j
o ~
$0]
~L
"'1::'"
. e 0
E .... ~
Jl 0 0
~ 0 '
<" f
-5
o
o
E
~
~
i8
~
a
.
il
l~n
tJ II II U
S ~ 3 3
'S~'S1
z<zz
I
u.
~!
z
0 ...... ... '" ~ ;:;; :li~
iii ",., "? '"
> = :; C: .;, ;. C: ~
~ o . -'! . 0 ':r;
z, , , :! z ~~
, N .. .. :i
~~ N ~ N ~~
X
15.
co
;;;
u
a~
~. ~.
" 51
;;; '"
!:;
~iol
~~
o
"
"'
'"
;.
o
Z
i
.s ;"
co.
c E
~=
8.,g g
..!l.3>..
::~~
u "
g".:t c
E . 0
- ~ s.
- ~ '"
.s '6'~
~ a. ~
E 'i ~
e .-.....J
":; e g
r:i-5F
'ii
~ ,
.
ri':!
. .
':;~
0'"
. .
"'e ·
.s~
~.e.
~ ~
.
" ..,
.
~~
~'~
.
. .
p:
. .
~3
~ ..I:::
!
'"
'"
/.
0.
<
~
u
E
.
'6
~
c
. ,;
E ~
. u
~ "';
. .
:tl ._
...
~ .
c .
ao~
c .-
.~ ]
.~
~!;>
" "S
-5 .
o E
o E
1;1 e
";j."
.< ;
.
o
..
.
"
,
.
:::
"li'
.,
,
'"
~
C:
.;
.
",.-
u '"
o ~
. C
lO.
< 0
u
. .
.g.c
"E;
o u
u:E
o ~
.2 'is
~ ~
8.;
. :if
Iii f
t-i...<
. !..
-5~.8
~ 0 E
ID._ GI
":.2, e
<.!-.
l
iii
"
.
.
~
::l
"
.
..,
;;
.
~
.-
.
E
.
.
.
~
~
...
~
..,
;..
.
..
.l! "
~a
3!;>
t 'c
c 0
._ .c
s~
e~
H
s .
, .
.. 0
oX
.2 >. .
. ~ "
o .
S = ::
08 .
! . e
.l5 ..'"
= Iii-l!
xc5S
"
.
:i
.
2
.
oS
:Ii
III
~
~ '"
H
.g~
~ '"
. .
...
e .
..g
~ .-
r.' .
. 2 ~
~ Ii..
. '" E
. Iii .
~"'~
~c:.
. . I
.:180
. .-5
-5-50
... '" 0
3"'8
!H
" . .
..,
f
~
oil
.
~
oS
.-
.
e
.
0;
EXHIBIT 5
PAGE 1 OF 2
~
'"
'"
'"
~
..
.
il
$
..
~
..
::.~
~:.E
~ .
<z
...
..
/.
.
:r;
f
S
~
.~
e ~
.
1:-
~.
. .
"' .
-; s ~
o c ~
o . .
t t e
., Is.]
"'. '" .
s.
1 0 "
. 0
'c .
~9'O.
o!i
. .
. .-
"'~.
os: III III
2:!,e
l!;iSf
.
oS
is
...
.
.
l
~
~
"
...
.
..
~
~~
a;~
s
,-
o
g
;;;
o
u.
u
..
~
..
r
~
-
"
,;
8t
,..
'"
;;;
..
c.
'0
o
'C
c.
o
o
."
~
J
"
o
~ 'j;,
..c. E:
.~.E
o
:c~
~ "E
<.2
.s '.::
;~
en:E
-
. c
, 0
o >
"5 "6i:
> .
~ ;
~ 0
~-
. c ?t
't ::II.:
I': ~C; ...
~ - =
c: >>=
8 .D C
.,,"
~l~
~~~
c ~ ~
41 I: b
l'~ ~
a8~
Io....~ ~
o . 0
'E ~ g
8t,:CJ
t.~ 1
H~
!!I
'"
~
g
..
~
::>
o
~
~
8
.
g
:li .
... "
-."
.. ,
~.D
. ~
E-
o .
- .
- .
<>
o
.,
."
. .;
'" ,
~ :
. .-
.2'0
,,-
c c
." ,
~ 0
> ~
"''''
"''''
, ,
]~
'3r!
'E
8
o
.
o
:z:
!o
U '" "
:!'" '" '"
~!c " ~
=
OQ :E i
~ u
t: ."
d . c
- '5 .8
u .
'5 . ~
" Q .lj
t .
is c - 'il "
::: . c c
. ,.,.- 0 ;.. 'i
rZ e -- e -
]~ 0 == E
eo - e ,'"
tlU e . .- 8." .8
- ;z.. s c. . c
c ,.,'" .!i "'..:3 ~
8 -"-
hi i ";: ... - .. c
c u 8.-
0 , 0 < . 0
il e~ '" c ,., e .
E e - - - ~ ~ ~~
~~ = = Ci ~1 ."u . a
;; uu. ;; c c . oS .
c . _ c .8 ~ 0
~~ 0 8'" , ! g l!.'"
u '" 0 .Cl
i ==~t) UU , . el
.$~1 .." o 0
c c Ii a ,5;
'0... c ~e ':c;
:< :E o:c > .!!
U ~~
Z
o
~
8 8 .
~ ~ .
..,
u
." ." .: 0 Ii
c c . 0
. . ... ~ ,-
.. .. c ~
! ~ ~ . 0- ..
. ~
." ." . '"
,g . ;; . 0
, .
~ ir. '" :Ii <::
o
PAGE 2 OF 2
E
o
~
O'l
00
O'l
.-l
t\I
::s
t::
t\I
~
"""
00
O'l
.-l
t\I
::s
t::
t\I
~
o
o
Eo-<
...,
t::
Cli
:::
,.. ,..
Cli Cli ..., ...,...,
5 5 ~ ~ ~
.... Cli.... ,.. Cli c::l Cli c::l c::l
00 U 00 u 1'0 u 1'0 1'0
00.... 00..9:......... '.............
'l""l ~ ..... . Io,J +.=l ~ +:l ~ ~
c::l U c::l ... U 0 ~ u 0 0
~ Cj ~ ~ Cj-- - Cj'-'-
~~ ~~~ S~~ SS
't:l't:lUCliuc:lCli~~Cli~~
CliCli...,""...,U"",..<"""''''
.~.~ ,.. ~ ,..;.:: ~ Cli >. ~ Cli Cli
...,..., ::s..... ::s~.......t::...,.......t::..t::
Cli Cli 0 '"' 0 ... '"' ...,.... '"'...,...,
~~up..up..p..oup..OO
Cli
..t::
Eo-<
Cli
,..
Cli
..t::
:::
t::
o
....
...,
t\I
t::
....
S
,..
Cli
Eo-<
...,
t\I
000000. .
uuuuuuoo
~~~~ . . . . . .uu
HHHHOOOOOO. .
, . . . u u u u u u ,~ ,~
00001 I I I I I ~ ~
UUUU,.....,.....,.....,.....,.....,..... I I
. . . ."""""'~Ht-ol..................)IIooo4
0000""""""""""""""""""""""""
uuuU>.>.>.>.>.>.>.>.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
::s ::s ::s ::s ,.. ,.. ,.. ,.. ,.. ,.. ,.. ,..
Q..Q..Q..Q...B.B.B.B.s.s.s.s
~~~~<<<<<<<<
-
Cli
>
Cli
H
. . . , . . , . .o~C"i
.-l~M"""ll':I~t-ooO'l.-l.-l.-l
,....
.....I
EXHIBIT 6
...
.
o
>
,
Final
.,~
Report
.:'"
o
~P.NC.O
V .~'. <:-~.L
. .
i ,I i
o fl-
i iT~j
'\ -I
"'(. i ,,0
~ .
~&'OEN'f\P.'"
CITY OF
TORRANCE
Management Review of
the City Attorney's Office
February, 1991
au ERNST & YOUNG
PUBLIC SECTOR CONSULTING
t'J&:;
o
i!I ERNST & YOUNG
o
)
f
. 515 South flower Street
Los Angeles, California 90071
. Phone: 21 J 977 3200
February 11. 1991
Mr, Ken Nelson
City Attorney
City of Torrance
3031 Torrance Boulevard
Torrance, California 90503
Dear Mr. Nelson:
We have completed our management review of your office. The final repon which
follows presents our findings and recommendations.
We want to express our appreciation to you and the staff of the City Attorney's Office, as
well as the Mayor and members of the City Council; and representatives from the
following City Depanments: City Manager, Police, Fire, Planning, Redevelopment
Agency, Personnel, Finance, Engineer, and Building and Safety for the cooperation and
assistance extended to Ernst & Young's project team during the course of this study.
We look forward to continued association with the City of Torrance on this and other
engagements. If you have any questions regarding this repon, please call Larry Seigel at
(714) 252-2402.
Very trUly yours,
~TH
o
o
,
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pa~e No.
I. INTRODUCTION 1
A. Study Scope and Objectives 1
B. Study Approach 1
ll. BACKGROUND 3
A. Services Provided 3
B. Organization and Budget 3
III. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5
A. Facility and Organizational Issues 5
Organization Structure 5
Generalist vs. Specialist Approach 11
Role of the Criminal Division 12
B. Use of Outside Counsel 15
Utilization 15
Inventory of Contracts 15
Outside Counsel Case Management 19
Monitoring of Outside Contracts 19
Advantages of In-house and Private Attorneys 20
C. Management Infonnation and Automated Suppon 21
Office Automation 21
Management Infonnation Repons 22
D. Operating Systems, Policies, and Procedures 23
Office Administration 23
Personnel Practices 24
Communications 25
E. Staff Productivity 26
Workload 26
Assignments 30
Staff Size 30
IV. APPENDIX 31
Ell ERNST & YOUNG
o
o
.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
-
Recommendation
Detailed Recommendation
Facility and Onranizational Issues
1 Restructure the organization of the City Attorney's Office 5
2 Locate the Criminal Division physically inside the City
Attorney's Office 8
3 Reclassify the position of Criminal Law Assistant to Legal
Office Manager 9
4 Reevaluate the role and use of the Paralegal positions 10
5 Develop a long-range strategic plan for the provision of
legal services 11
6 Evaluate the cost effectiveness and future role of the
Criminal Prosecution Division 12
Use of Outside Counsel
7
Develop an inventory of outside contracts to be monitored
and reviewed by the Assistant City Attorney
Conduct an audit of all outside counsel contracts and
expenditures using an Independent Auditor
Place all contract and purchase order cases on the
automated contract monitoring system
Develop a program for defining and monitoring milestones
within a contract
Conduct a cost-benefit study of expanding the City
Attorney's staff to handle more cases in-house ~ compared
to contracting with outside counsel
8
9
10
11
Pat:e No.
15
17
19
19
20
Mana~ement Information and Automated Sup,pon
12 Develop staff training on the use of the Litigation Tracking
System 21
13 Acquire additional computer terminals for use by the
Assistant and Deputy City Attorneys 21
14 Install the purchased equipment for the Criminal Division
regardless of the timing of the consolidation of the two
offices 21
15 Provide enhanced management information reponing 22
16 Monitor and maintain case assignment and case status
information 22
!!I ERNST & YOUNG
1
c
o
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS (Coot'd)
Recommendation
Detailed Recommendation
Pa~e No.
Operating Systems. Policies. and Procedures
17 Establish appropriate cash handling procedures for the
intake of parking violation fmes 23
18 Designate a staff member for maintaining a central filing
system 24
19 Use of overtime should only be approved by the Assistant
City Attorney 24
20 Review and complete the employee evaluation system 24
21 Coordinate the Criminal Law Assistant's hours of operation
with the workload and schedule in the Criminal Division. If
the incumbent cannot meet these hours, due to a disability,
the personnel should be reassigned to another Department 25
22 Conduct regular weekly staff meetings with the
professional staff 25
23 Enhance individual access by the City Attorney and staff to
the Email System and allocate appropriate number of
terminals 26
Staff Productivitv
24 Develop a time accounting system for both litigation and
advisory attorneys 29
2
o
o
I. Introduction
In this section of our report, we describe the scope and obje9.tives of the study and
summarize our study approach.
A. Study Scope and Objectives
Ernst & Young conducted a diagnostic management audit of the City Attorney's office for
the City of Torrance. The scope of this study included an evaluation of the Office's
organizational structure, operating practices and interaction with overall City operations.
Specifically, Ernst & Young focused on issues relating to:
o Internal communications
o Spans of control and reponing relationships
o Workload technology
o Office automation
o Contract attorneys
o Service focus.
As the City Attorney's Office serves and suppons the City Council, municipal
departments, and the community of Torrance, the legal and official position of the City is
dependent on the Attorney's Office ability to adequately provide legal services to internal
City Departments, Thus, the objectives of this study were to identify opponunities to
enhance the effectiveness, efficiency, and responsiveness of the legal function.
B. Study Approach
In conducting the review of the City Attorney's Office, we performed the following
activities:
o Conducted interviews with several City officials including: the Mayor; City Council;
City Manager; Civil Service Commission, and the Depanrnent heads from the
following City Departments: Finance, Planning, City Engineer, Police, Fire, Building
and Safety, Redevelopment, Personnel.
o Reviewed background materials on policies, personnel, organization chans, positions
descriptions, budgets, contract expenditure data, workload data, and coun schedules.
o Conducted in-depth interviews with all staff from the City Attorney's Office, City
Prosecutor's Office, and members of the City Manager's staff.
!!l ERNST & YOUNG
1
o
o
o Developed an inventory of staff assignments, in-house and contract cases, and
workload levels.
o Developed a spreadsheet of outside counsel contract expenditures for both civil
litigation and criminal prosecution.
o Observed a demonstration of the City Anomey's computer system capabilities.
o Assessed management information reports and memos, where available.
o Prepared a draft and final report.
2
o
o
II. Background
A. Services Provided
The City Attorney's Office cunently serves as legal advisor to the City Council, City
Manager, Redevelopment Agency and City Departments, The main functions of the
office are advisory, civil litigation and the prosecution of municipal code violations and
misdemeanor crimes. In addition, the City Attorney's office is charged with advising and
preparing various legal documents, ordinances, resolutions, letters or opinions for the
City, City officials, City Departments and City employees.
B. Organization and Budget
The City Attorney's Office has eighteen full-time employees, including the City Attorney,
two Assistant City Attorneys, two Deputy City Attorneys (Criminal), and two Deputy
City Attorneys (Civil and General Suppon). The current organization of the City
Attorney's Office is illustrated in Exhibit II-Ion the following page. The City Attorney's
office also retains private attorneys on behalf of the City to assist in litigation, criminal
prosecution or to provide advice as needed.
In this fiscal year 1990-1991, the City Attorney's budget was proposed at $1,509,431
including reimbursement from other departments and programs. This represents a six
percent increase from fiscal year 1989-1990.
S!I ERNST & YOUNG
3
o
A
V
Exhibit II-I
~
- 51
It
.. t'
=~e
"'-0
f-- i!r..>~
>
~
>2: ~ t'
E-o~ "~E
-0 gU!
U~
-<
I-- )~r
~US
to <
!
Jl
d
~
~J - ..
.... '-- j~E
~~ ~U!
oQ
io<..
"''I
l;>-
"I
!
c
i
..
~
""
a
1
l:!
..
I
..,
1
a!
..
I:l
1
..,
1
a!
..
I:l
i;j~
i
i
Q~
1~
]'~
J
~
I :i
r..>
-
.!j
...
..
~~ foo
~
--
r..>.. =j
il -.!j
glt i~ to of
"C I ...!!
r..> .Sir..>
!-
i.
..
foo
I
:;
r..>
Ji
~
]
~
of
.!!
r..>
-
.!j
...
t:
to
I
4
o
o
III. Findings and Recommendations
A. Facility and Organizational Issues
Organization Structure
Recommendation 1: Restructure the organizotion of the City Attorney's Office
The current organization structure has evolved as a result of past personnel decisions and
personalities within the office. The adopted organization chan presents the City
Attorney's Office with three Divisions that report directly to an Assistant City
Attorney.The adopted organization chan is presented in the Appendix. However, as can
be viewed by Exhibit II-I, in practice, the management structure of the City Attorney's
Office has a number of problems.
All personnel, regardless of professional level, report directly to the City Attorney, with
no venicallines of authority. The reponing relationships, the spans of control and the
level of accountability all require further clarification. The only variation from this
structure is in the City Prosecutor's Division. Although the adopted organization chan and
job classifications showed two Deputy City Attorneys positions, there was a need fora
stronger management structure; therefore, one attorney was classified as Chief Prosecutor
and the other as Deputy City Prosecutor. The functions and responsibilities of these
positions, while being discussed in greater detail in a later section, have been divided and
have led to an uneven distribution of workload and a greater need for the use of outside
counsel.
The current structure is also a result of several past personnel problems that created an
atmosphere of high tension, limited cooperation, and low morale. Based on our
observations and interviews with staff, this atmosphere, while having improved slightly,
currently exists.
This organization structure provides minimal office oversight including those functions
of office administration, workload, job/case assignments and outside contracts, The City
Attorney has the responsibility for the larger legal issues, and acts as legal counsel to the
City Council. This leaves limited time for the management and supervision of the
organization. This organization structure does not give the City Attorney the tools with
which he needs to manage, and is not an effective use or distribution of personnel.
Our review of the office shows that the current organization structure should be modified
to increase the level of accountability and provide the proper fiscal oversight needed and
required by the City Council.
E!I ERNST & YOUNG
5
o
o
>-
~
>-z
E-=
"'0
UE-
E-
-<
~>
c:.Jrol
!Z~
<0
I;;!:
~<
l:n
<
..
~t
or
_s:::
~.
~:liJ
.. to
- ..S:::
:I - Is .IlII
- D,-
E-z !c:.J_ ..
< ..
=0 0
0... -
.. .ftl
.. =-E-Z D,
:I r:
t =-<0 .. .. t'
JJ ~~... - ..! ~
~E=~ :1-
D,- 0
...:l...> !c:.J_ JJ
<
<..J...
1:: =...:lQ .IlII
os ~... ..
e Z> .!l
c:.J
g ~... 'iil
OJ ~U .. .. .is.
- .. r:
.. :I~i
tl!j D,..
Ill" !c:.J_
~Q <
~'"
=
~l 6
~p
o
o
Exhibit llI-I, on the following page, outlines a recommended organization structure
which would facilitate the remainder of Ernst & Young's study recommendations. The
greatest change to the structure would be to establish the role of one strong Assistant City
Attorney. This position would have direct line authority over the two Divisions: (I)
General Suppon and Civil Litigation; and (2) Criminal.
The recommended organization structure would aid in several areas, including:
o Redefining the role of the City Attorney and Assistant City Attorney;
o Increasing the utilization of in-house attorneys; and
o Increasing the responsiveness and accountability of the City Attorney's office.
Rethjining the role of the City Attorney - The City Attorney's focus should be on the
overall legal needs of the City with panicular attention to: City Council; City
Departments; Community; and, the Media. The City Attorney should concentrate his
effons not on the daily internal management of the Divisions and administrative
functions, but on increasing his effons on planning in order to identify emerging legal
issues, and in panicipating and monitoring the cases involving outside legal counsel.
We have also identified a need for a strong Assistant City Attorney who would have
direct line authority over the proposed two Divisions. In addition, the Assistant City
Attorney should take a more active role in the fiscal and operational management
functions of the Office. This would free the City Attorney's time and attention, allow
internal issues to be resolved by the Assistant City Attorney, provide a clear flow of
delegated authority, and focus accountability within the Office.
Increasing tM utilization of in-house attorneys - Currently, if the workload or volume
of cases is beyond that which one office or attorney can handle, the policy has been to
hire outside assistance. This decision should be "oflast reson." The distribution of
workload is not even among the attorneys and staff attorneys area often not utilized to full
capacity. Therefore, since the existing staff does have experience in trial work, we
recommend that prior to going outside for assistance, the in-house attorneys should be
approached for backup in event of the need. For instance, two of the attorneys in the
General Suppon and Litigation Division have prosecution and trial experience. When the
Criminal Division cannot handle the existing workload, these attorneys should be
expected to help as needed, and as available. This decision should be the responsibility of
the Assistant City Attorney, and not of the individual Division. In our analysis, and based
on workload data, we believe there should be limited circumstances requiring outside
counsel on criminal prosecution matters. This recommendation would save the City
approximately $36,000 a year.
E!I ERNST & YOUNG
7
o
o
Increasing the responsiveness and accountability o/the City Attorney's office - The
current organization is structured in a manner that all individuals report directly to the
City Attorney. Even if the the City Attorney had the time, he could not effectively
monitor and track all outside assignments and incoming requests from the Departments.
Therefore, he currently relies on the staff to be timely and responsive to Departmental
requests. From our interviews with Department representatives, the City Attorney's
Office is not meeting Department expectations. It was repeatedly mentioned as an area of
serious concern. Examples were given of issues that were requested but never responded
to, or the office was unprepared and unable to assist, or in several instances The
Department was given the impression that the request was not a priority or of interest to
the attorney. This image has greatly hurt the credibility of the City Attorney's Office.
The recommended organization structure will help to remedy this situation. First, with the
use of the automated case and assignment tracking program, and the role of both a strong
Assistant City Attorney and Divisional chiefs, all assignments should be logged in and
responded to in a timely and monitored manner. Information on case status should be .
accessible to both Departments and City Attorney's Office. Secondly, the attorney's
responsiveness should be a factor in performance evaluations, promotions, and salary
negotiations.
Recommendation 2: Locate the Criminal Division physicaUy inside the City
Attorney's Office.
The Criminal Division personnel currently are housed within the City Police Facility. The
original purpose for this was the lack of available space. There are several operational
reasons why this Division should be located within the City Attorney's Office, including:
o Strengthen the role of management
o Provide oversight of activities
o Distribute workload more evenly
o Regulate the use of outside counsel
o Insure compliance of personnel practices
o Monitor the distribution of resources
o Control and allocate the use of overtime
o Establish office accountability.
8
o
o
Additionally, having the City's Prosecutors located within the Police facility represents,
and has the appearance of, a conflict of interest for the City. The City Prosecutor's are not
providing legal advice to the Police Department but their proximity indicates otherwise,
The City does provide an outside legal advisor to the Police Department on a retainer
basis. The appearance of a conflict of interest was a substantial factor in the recent
Rostello case.
With the departure of the City Prosecutor and as a result of the recommended
organization structure, it would enhance the efficiency of the City Attorney's Office if all
divisions were housed together. Communication has been relatively poor between the two
offices creating several personnel and image problems for the Office. This
recommendation would enhance not only the communication but the coordination of
available attorneys to handle the oveIflow of case volume,
In addition, the Office Manager, who will be responsible for all office administration and
supervision of clerical suppon staff, will be better able to manage the distribution of
clerical resources by having a closer proximity to staff. This organizational approach.
would allow for a closer review of outside counsel bills and the tracking of all dollars
spent on outside counsel. As will be discussed in the next section, this is currently not
being done.
Recommendation 3: Reclllssify the position of Criminal Law Assistllnt to Legal
Office Manager.
The recommended organization structure also creates the position of a Legal Office
Manager. This position was previously recommended by the City Manager. Because of
the volume of workload and the increase of paper flow, this position is essential for the
management of this office. This position should have the responsibility for contract and
purchase order administration, case/work assignment tracking, budgeting, supervision of
the clerical pool, and general office administration. The need for this position will
become more evident as the repon discusses the current state of office management
policies and practices.
This position could be funded by the position of the Criminal Law Assistant. The job
description prepared by the City Manager is Exhibit A in the Appendix, and can by
applied to the position already existing in the Criminal Division.
Ell ERNST & YOUNG
9
o
o
Recommendation 4: ReevalUllte the role and use of the Paralegal positions.
As can be seen from the organization chart Exhibit ill-I. the City Attomey's Office
currently has two paralegal positions. These two positions have specific assigned areas
including, Redevelopment and Civil Litigation. From our observations and interviews,
the existing paralegals are not being utilized to their fullest capability or potential of this
position. Additionally, our analysis and research into the Paralegal profession indicated
that the responsibilities and job functions of the incumbents could be enhanced to assist
the staff attorney's with their workload, Typical responsibilities of a paralegal as
described by the Legal Assistantship Program at the University of California, Irvine,
include:
o Legal research
o Setting coun dates
o Generating interrogatories, pleadings and motions
o Client interaction on behalf of the attorney
o Assisting the attorney in depositions
o Reviewing and summarizing case files
o Preparing case files for motions and coun
o Preparing and reviewing filings
o Preparing contracts under guidance of an attorney.
Several of these functions are not currently being conducted by the paralegals. One
paralegal's job functions are more relative to the Office Manager position than a para-
professionals position. Paralegals can also be utilized to provide informative updates to
Departments, such as a Legislative Summary on new Federal/State and City Statutes
From our interviews, the largest complaint from the external Department's is the slow
turnaround time on contract preparation and review by the City Attorney's Office. Several
of the contracts and lease agreements prepared for the City could be expeditiously
handled by a paralegal using standardized fonnats and language pre-approved by the staff
attorneys,
In addition, the Office purchased WESlLA W, a computerized legal research data base
for $6,000 dollars. This computerized database should enable the Office speedy research
and provide the equivalent of a large law library. Yet, the paralegals are unaware of how
10
o
o
to use the equipment and therefore have relied on the use of a law clerk. The attomeys
repeatedly said in our interviews they needed assistance with research and file review,
which could easily be handled by the paralegals. Therefore, we recommend that the
paralegals repon directly to the Assistant City Attorney and that they be assigned their
workload by office need, and not according to specific issues or legal areas.
Furthermore, the job description prepared for the paralegals states that the incumbent will
do his/her own typing and document preparation. However, one paralegal has a secretary
solely to prepare the assignments of the paralegal. This is an inappropriate use of clerical
personnel, especially in the existence of a shonage of secretarial help and filing in other
areas of the Office,
Concurrent with this recommendation, the City Attorney should review the
responsibilities and utilization of the paralegals and determine whether the incumbents
can fulfill the requirements and expectations of the skills listed above.
Generalist vs. Specialist Approach
Recommendation 5: Develop a long-range strategic plan for the provision of
legal services.
Currently, the City Attorney's Office is composed of attorneys who have generalist
background rather than specializations. This implies that the current professional staff are
able to provide advice on a large range of issues, but not skilled in complex or specialized
legal issues. During our interviews, the Depanment's expressed a preference to use
outside counsel because of their specialization in narrow fields.
The growing complexity of the City's legal environment and the volume of litigation it
faces requires a re-evaluation of the role the City Attorney's Office, It is essential that the
role of the City Attorney's Office be evaluated as pan of a long-range strategic plan for
meeting the total legal needs of the City. The City needs to identify future anticipated
demands for legal services and develop a plan to address those needs. An analysis of the
City's legal environment should focus on: (1) the way the Office is organized; (2) the type
of attorney's recruited; (3) the training they receive; (4) the management of their time;
and, (5) the management of outside attorney contracts.
As an example, the City needs to decide whether they want to remain "generalist" or hire
more in-house attorneys with cenain specialities and expertise that are useful to the City.
If they do, then the Office needs to evaluate the cost effectiveness of hiring experts versus
contracting with outside attorneys, There are various configurations and variations used
by other Cities, including:
Ell ERNST & YOUNG
11
o
o
o Retaining a City Attorney but contracting all legal services to an outside law firm;
o Contracting all legal services to an outside law firm that can offer expenise in several
legal areas;
o Expanding legal staff to facilitate the needs in specialized areas that have increased
legal needs; or,
o Maintain a generalist's approach, and contract all specialized work to outside firms,
i.e. Personnel and Redevelopment.
The Cities of Beverly Hills and Palm Springs have recently contracted out their legal
services to an outside comprehensive law firm who then provides a Panner as the on-site
City Attorney.
The imponance of this recommendation, is that the City Manager and the City Attorney
need to anticipate the City's legal service needs and respond with an appropriate plan.
Role of the Criminal Division
Recommendation 6: EvalUllte the cost effectiveness andfuture role of the
Criminal Prosecution Division.
The City of Torrance's Chaner, Section 1010, provision e, states:
"The City Attorney shall have the power and be required to have charge of
prosecuting on the behalf of the people all criminal cases for violations of this
Charter, of Ciry ordinances, or of misdemeanor offenses arising upon violation of
the laws of the Stare."
The result of this provision was the creation a Criminal Division with two Deputy City
Attorneys, a Criminal Law Assistant, and four clerical positions to manage the workload.
If the workload surpasses the capabilities of this office, then the City contracts with
outside counsel to represent the City. Although this Division is organizationally
accountable to the City Attorney, they have historically operated autonomously to the
City Attorney's Office. As pan of this review, we analyzed the impact of the physical
location and structure of this Division to the City and the organization. In conjunction
with the implementation of our specific recommendations, the City needs to evaluate the
future role and function of this Division, and analyze the alternative organizational
options for providing criminal prosecution services. This is particularly timely with the
recent depanure of the City Prosecutor.
12
o
o
As part of our study, Ernst & Young conducted a survey of twelve comparable cities in
population and budget with regard to their prosecutorial services. This survey presents
options for the City Attomey to consider regarding reorganizing and reevaluating the role
of the Criminal Division. The following cities were surveyed:
0 Burbank
0 Huntington Beach
0 Pomona
0 Santa Monica
0 Riverside
0 Oceanside
0 Glendale
0 Compton
0 Carson
0 Inglewood
0 Pasadena.
Of these twelve cities, only five perform the service of prosecuting misdemeanors and
municipal code violations, One of these five cities, notably, Pasadena is currently
negotiating with the County's District Attorney to provide the function of prosecuting
misdemeanors. Of the remaining seven cities, four use attorneys for both civil and
criminal litigation; and only three cities solely prosecute municipal code violations. The
results of the survey are presented on the following page.
The following are alternatives the City may with to further investigate:
o Contract with the County District Attomey to provide services;
o Contract with a private firm to provide services;
o Amend the City Charter to no longer provide services; or,
o Investigate the possibility of charging the County for prosecuting State-code
violations,
i!I ERNST & YOUNG
13
o
o
SURVEY OF CITY PROSECUTORS
CITY POPULATION BUDGET PROSECUTION SERVICES
(In Millions)
Torrance 77.6 Prosecutor's outside of Cily Ally Office
Burbank 135,570 71.3 (2) in house City Prosecutors
Huntington 183,620 75 (2) prr Allys handle municipal code
Beach violations
Pomona 115,540 84.8 No City Prosecutor. Agreement with District
Attorney
Santa Monica 93,170 82.3 (I) Chief of Prosecution Division
(6) Deputy Cily Ally among divisions
Riverside 196,750 96.9 Asst City Atlys handle both civil & criminal
Oceanside 99,140 64.7 AllyS handle both civil & prosecute
municipal code violations
Glendale 153,660 96.8 (2) Deputy Atlys handle all municipal code
infractions and misdemeanors
Compton 93,530 51.1 (2) Deputies handle both civil and municipal
code violations
Carson 87,840 39.1 Contract with outside flnn for all services
Inglewood 102,550 52 (2) Asst Ally handle all municipal code
violations and misdemeanors
Pasadena 129,900 104.4 Asst Ally is Cily Prosecutor - prosecutes
municipal code violations and misdemeanors
(City negotiating with County District
Attorney to give prosecuting function)
1985 figures
14
o
o
B. Use of Outside Counsel
Utilization
Currently, the City uses outside attorneys on an ad-hoc basis for cases which the City
cannot litigate or does not have the capability to handle. There is no set City-wide policy
or procedure issued by the City Council or City Attorney with regard to when and why
outside counsel should be used. The City currently retains outside attorneys for the
following reasons:
o Lack of in-house expertise;
o Large lawsuits or high visibility cases;
o Cases where the City has a conflict of interest; and
o Cases where the affected Department recommends going outside for other reasons.
In addition, the City contracts for all bond counsel work and workers compensation cases.
The use of outside attorneys has been consistent with the resources available and the role
the City Attorney's Office has traditionally played. The City Attorney has established
policies for the Departments regarding the request for, and use of, outside counsel. All
use of outside counsel must be approved and supervised by the City Attorney. Although
this is a widely known and established policy, there were several instances cited during
the study of Departments utilization of outside counsel without the City Attorney's
approval. The reason given by several of the Department's was again their concern for the
quality of in-house attorney's advice and knowledge. This finding needs to be evaluated
for several reasons: (l) is it a question ofre-establishing the policy; (2) creating a process
that requires City Attorney approval; (3) is it a larger issue of greater concern on behalf of
the Department for the capabilities and experience of the existing in-house attorneys; or,
(4) what is the validity of these concerns and why do the Department's have this
perception.
I nvenrory of Contracts
Recommendation 7: Develop an inventory of outside contracts to be monitored
and reviewed by the Assistant City Attorney.
It was found that there is no central inventory of outside contracts kept with either the
City Attorney's Office or Criminal Division. Currently, the Typist Clerk out of the City
Attorney's Office maintains a hand written list of current outside counsel who have open
purchase orders with the City. Although when analyzing the data, .we found this list to be
!!I ERNST & YOUNG
15
o
o
Exhibit ill-3
Statement of Contracts for Outside Attorneys
and Purchase Orders for Outside Professional
Services for the BUling Period Ended October 15, 1990
!illl!(llllll'IiIII:~:li^V
ADAMS. DUQUE N/A
BURKE, WILLIAMS C-88-RA-18
BURKE, WILLIAMS C-2927
COX, CAStLE 2697
COX, CAStLE 2700
COX. CAStLE 2822
COX. CAStLE 2870
CYCOMDATASYSTEMS 2936
DESMOND & MARCEU..O C-85-RA-13
DOLLE & DOLLE 2708
DOLLE & DOLLE 2820
DREISEN, KASOY C-2467
A.R. EARLY C-89-012
EPSTEIN, BECKER C-2704
HEDGES, POWE C-89.028
HEDGES, POWE C-90-042
HUFSTEDLER, MILLER C-90-012
UEBERT, CASSIDY C-90-022
UEBERT, CASSIDY C-2869
RALPH NUTTER 282t
RALPH NUTTER C-90.Q46
RALPH NUTTER C-90.Q23
RALPH NUTTER C-89-030
BARRYO'GILBY C-89-029
ANGELO PALMIERI C-90-059
ORRICK, HARRINGTON C-89.097
BARRY ROSS C-90-029
SEYFARTH, SHAW C-2696
SHEPPARD,MUUJN RC-90.Q03
$43,250
60,458
24,047
12,942
20,<n5
6.278
t,388
5.715
32.972
5,408
9,066
9.055
16,300
-9(11
206,478
250,000
168,082
32.126
o
18,t76
35.000
25,000
o
5.276
100,000
12,264
20.000
8,084
44,654
$0
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
49,000
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
465,052
o
o
o
o
o
o
5150514
12,492
o
1,820
1,815
o
1,258
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
115,723
19,793
94,311
16,481
o
18,398
3.649
23,734
208,918
o
3,947
o
9,195
2,686
25,926
527,736
47,966
24,047
11.122
19,160
6.278
130
5,715
32.972
5,408
9.066
9,055
16,300
-907
139,755
230.207
73,771
15,645
o
-222
31,351
1.266
256,t34
5.276
96,053
12.264
10,805
5,398
18,728
'!RT&lIII]~:t~lImttlt1~f.~1,imt*ig*fE11tl'f~lil__Dlmlmt~~I1mt_Jm;\]]mj~]1~~I:!!~t:~.q~11:~::
16
o
o
non-inclusive and inaccurate. In addition, this list does not indicate any information
regarding the specific case except for bills sent to the Office and additional appropriations
to the purchase orders.
Recommendation 8: Conduct an audit of all outside counsel contracts and
expenditures using an Independent Auditor.
Dollars spent on outside counsel have increased substantially in the past several years
with the developing trend of more outside contracts. The Criminal Division has seen an
increase of 89 percent from 1989 in outside counsel costs. It is estimated by the Finance
Department that the City Attorney's Office spent approximately $687,000 on outside
attorneys year to date (eight months). A breakdown by contract and purchase order of the
Finance Department's figures is illustrated in Exhibit ill-2 in the Appendix. However,
because of billing practices and delays in posting accounts, the reliability of these figures
is questionable.
We were unable to obtain accurate records or figures for all dollars spent on outside
counsel. Our cost analysis of the data provided to us by the City Attorney's office differs
substantially from the Finance Department's figures, including: (l) dollars spent on
outside counsel for general suppon and litigation totaled $576,000 year to date (eight
months), a difference of approximately $98,000 from the Finance Departments numbers;
and, (2) dollars spent on outside counsel for criminal prosecution totaled $24,000, a
difference of $ll,OOO from the Finance Department's figures. A breakdown of Ernst &
Young's analysis can be found in Exhibits I11-3 and 1II-4.
Funhermore it is difficult to find the costs of outside contracts because of the way the
costs are spread over the Departments. The City's budgeting system has made identifying
costs for outside attorneys difficult because there is no central account or line item.
Therefore, we recommend the City Auditor conduct a financial audit of all outside
counsel expenditures, contracts and purchase orders.
In addition, total outside counsel costs are hard to determine because of the billing and
posting cycle. Outside attorneys are asked to bill monthly, regardless if there have been
any charges. However, several of the contracted firms do not cooperate with this policy.
Therefore, the Finance Department's numbers do not accurately reflect the total cost
because of the delay in receiving the bills, the internal delay in reviewing and approving
the bills, and the timeliness of the Finance Department posting the amount to the account.
!!I ERNST & YOUNG
17
o
""'I
-
Exhibit 1lI -4
>. .
:tt.
;, i1l ." ~
...
,..: '"
'" ... ~
"!. Ol ."
~
11 ~ :;l ...
...
:\~ft
"
-.:.;.:.:.::
,:.:.;.:~.:
II "1 ~ ~
~ '" ...
."
II
~ .::::;~;~:
.. I r
."
.. "il
0 ~ :;:~~ :ol
= .'~ ii
... .. i
.c ~ ,:-:." 1l ... ~
.. >:~ i ~
8 .. ~
~ Cl\ ':$:<- ~ .
o~ ...
.~ otC
is .. ~
;; ~ ...
= = ,
05 Cl .!II
~ '"
...
'C i ~
~ ::::::%
=
= I ." Cl ."
C ,,; ~ ... "1 Cl ... Cl
~ ~ "1 ..; "1
c Cl ... ... ...
... ."
.. ~ '. ." ... ~ ... 18.
." "!. ... ::i Cl_ d
o~ :;: ~ ~ ~ ~
- ... ... ... ... ...
= :.;.:.,.;.;
0 ':"':~:>.:
:h%
.'.:~,:-:,
.:::;%~:::
:\i~; ..
...
-
8
'I ." ." S
... ... ... ." ... ." -
'" ::; ..; ..; l=l ...
'" ~ ~ ... !II
~ ..
:.:.:<.;.: b
.;.:.:,.;.
,',".;.z. g
":'::~:':'
",::,:::;,:' :J
:;::::::~: "
".;.:.:.;.:. @ !
..
".:-:<.;.: ... Do
.:.:.:.:,.: " e:
! ~ ~
:: .:l .
...
, :E "
i .. ~ i !
... " ... il :. ...
~ ... ~ ~
j~ 5!l '" ~ ~ -
- . '" - . .
18
- - -
o
o
Outside Counsel Case Management
While outside counsel cases are assigned to a lead attorney, that case does not appear on a
list of open cases by attorney, nor is it listed or maintained on the automated case tracking
system. It is difficult to ascertain the cost effectiveness of bringing more work in-house if
there is no updated and accurate information in the data base. In some instances, there is
minimal flow of information from the outside attorney to the City Attorney's office, and
the City Attorney's staff does not allocate the time to closely track the case. The City
Attorney has issued a policy directive to all outside counsel that they must submit a case
status repon with each monthly bill, however, not all, follow through. During our
interviews, City officials expressed concern with the management of outside counsel
especially when the liability to the City is high, and the participating attorneys from the
outside fIrms is not consistent.
Monitoring of Outside Contracts
Recommendation 9: PlDce all contract and purchase order cases on the
automated contract monitoring system.
As mentioned earlier, there currently exists no controls on cost and no information or
knowledge of what has been spent to date on outside counsel. In addition, the Office is
not using the automated case contracts expenditures program that is available and
installed in the Office. The newly hired Assistant City Attorney's focus has been to get
control over this issue, but to date, the tracking system is not being used and the manual
tabulation of costs is still being utilized.
The bills for attorney charges come into the City Attorney's Office for approval; while the
bills may be reviewed, they are not necessarily scrutinized. City Attorney's Office does
not offIcially or formally track the expenditures during the course of a contract. This has
the potential for poor case management and budget overrun.
Recommendation 10: Develop a program for defining and monitoring
milestones within a contract.
Many of the contracts and purchase orders do not have a maximum limit on total fees.
This problems is exacerbated by the fact that the City does not negotiate specified work,
milestones, or have a process for evaluating the progress and effectiveness of the contract
with the outside attorney. For these reasons, the need for increased management overview
of outside contracts is more than warranted.
!!I ERNST & YOUNG
19
- - -
o
o
Advantages of In-Muse and Private AIIorneys
Recommendation 11: Conduct a cost-benefit study of expanding the City
Attorney's staff to handle more cases in-house as compared to contracting with
outside counsel.
When City attorneys are effectively being utilized, then the use of in-house attorneys can
be limited thereby keeping costs down, and improving their interface with legal issues
and ongoing City policies. The advantages of in-house attorneys include:
o Perfecting specialities tailored to the City's laws, ordinances, personnel, procedures,
and experience
o Availability without concerns of extraordinary costs
o Continuity of attorneys
o Practicing preventative law
o Freedom from the conflict of interest questions posed more and more frequently by
the larger private firms
o Internal incentives to resolve cases in a timely manner.
However, it is necessary in some situations to hire outside counsel. The City has valid
reasons, as previously discussed, for using outside counsel. The advantages of private
counsel include:
o The availability of devoting more than one attorney to large cases;
o Providing the necessary expertise; and
o Ability to easily terminate the contract with the attorney or firm.
20
-
- -
o
o
C. Management Information and Automated Support
Office Automation
Recommendation 12: Develop staff training on the use of the Litigation
Tracking System.
Recommendation 13: Acquire additional computer terminals for use by the
Assistant and Deputy City Attorneys
Recommendation 14: Install the purchased equipment for the Criminal Division
regardless of the timing of the consolidation of the two offrces.
As part of our study, we received a demonstration of the systems' capabilities including
hardware and software available in the City Attorney's Office. Our findings conclude that
the necessary programs are available, but are not being used because staff does not know
how to operate the system and the Office has only one terminal. The system has the
following capacities:
0 Case Calendar
0 Case Tracking
0 Contract Monitoring
0 Risk Management.
None of these programs are being used to their capacity and in many instances have never
been used at all. The implications of this finding include: (1) there is no central listing of
open cases by attorney; (2) there is no tracking of workload volumes or case assignments;
(3) there is no monitoring of outside contracts or cases; and, (4) there is no tracking of
general advice assignments or requests. The result:
o Uneven distribution of workload
o Underutilized Office productivity
o Untimely responses to City officials and Departments
o No record of outside counsel expenditures
o No record of dollars paid out on risk management cases.
o No generated management repons.
!!I ERNST & YOUNG
21
o
o
The City Attorney's Office purchased equipment for the Criminal Division to assist with
the processing of subpoenas. This equipment has been sitting, and not utilized for at least
six months. In discussion with the Systems Consultant, the installation of this equipment
is relatively simple. The reason given for not having this equipment installed to date, is
because the Division was waiting for additional space in the Police Facility. The cost of
not installing this equipment has been in the amount spent on overtime, and the funding
for five clerical positions in this Division.
In addition, many of the procedures in the Criminal Division are being done both
manually and automated, including the disposition of cases. The Typist Clerk in the
office enters the data in the computer and then re-enters the data on index cards. This is a
time consuming and unnecessary procedure. Additionally, the information must be
entered a third time on the case files. All of the procedures in the Prosecutor's Office are
paper rich and clerical time intensive. These processes need to be re-evaluated and
recommend approaches for streamlining the procedures and automating as much of the
work as possible.
Another procedure which should be automated is the civil litigation calendar. The
Litigation Tracking System has the capability, but the Paralegal who maintains the
calendar continues to prepare it manually. The impact of this procedure is that the manual
calendar cannot generate summary data for management's review.
Management Information Repons
Recommendation IS: Provide enhanced management information reporting.
Recommendation 16: Monitor and maintain case assignment and case status
information.
In the course of our study, we requested existing management information reports and
discussed with the City Attorney the types of information he needs to better manage
Office operations. Our study revealed that management information reports were not
currently being generated for several reasons, including: (1) the database has not been
inputted into the appropriate programs; and, (2) the existing database does not have the
capability to generate reports in its current formal. The exception to this finding, is the
City Attorney's Report Concerning Active Litigation that is prepared for the Mayor, City
Council, and City Manager. This book is prepared monthly, with updates, insertions and
deletions noted. However, this report does not summarize: (l) total number of cases
outstanding; (2) total dollar amount represented; or, (3) next action planned. This kind of
information is vital in measuring the effectiveness of the legal department, its personnel,
its resources, and its use of outside counsel.
22
o
o
Management information repons capture the detailed information about staff productivity
and Department performance to monitor workload, balance assignments, budget outside
counsel costs appropriately, and evaluate internal operations. A program should be
developed to use the existing report as a foundation for Management Summary Repons.
D. Operating Systems, Policies and Procedures
The focus of this report has been how to enhance the operations of the City Attorney's
Office to be more responsive to the City Council, and the City Departments. In addition,
the City Attorney was seeking recommendations for enhanced efficiencies within the
internal operations of the Office. The previous sections have focused on these objectives.
This next section focuses on specific findings and recommendations that can impact and
improve the internal operations and staff morale.
Office Administration
1. Cash handling
Recommendation 17: EstabUsh appropriate cash handling procedures for the
intake of parking violation fines.
While this study did not investigate the possibility for mishandling of cash, it was
apparent through our observations and interviews, that there is the potential for this based
on the manner in which cash is accepted, stored and processed in the Criminal Division.
Cash is currently taken in the Criminal Division for parking violations. The Typist Clerk
behind the counter accepts the cash, attaches a receipt and stores it in an envelope in a
drawer behind the counter, and deposits the money with either the Court or the
Treasurer's Office. Money is deposited three times a week with the Court.and less
frequently with the Treasurer's Office. These are not acceptable cash handling
procedures. Money taken in by a public office needs accountability and standard polices.
The money should be accepted, counted and reconciled with another member of the staff,
and deposited on a daily basis. Although the drawer where the money is kept is locked by
a key held by another member of the staff, the money should be out of sight of the
counter. All money should be stored in a safe even if it cannot be deposited at the end of
the day.
!!I ERNST & YOUNG
23
o
()
2. Filing System
Recommendation 18: Designate a staff member for maintaining a central filing
system.
Files are currently not kept in any central location. Civil Litigation files are currently kept
in the Paralegal's office drawers. Files have not been updated and maintained in any
regular order. Some staff describe the filing system as complex and nothing has been
done since 1987. A staff member should be appointed with the responsibility for daily
maintaining the filing system.
3. Use of Overtime
Recommendation 19: Use of overtime should only be approved by the Assistant
City Attorney.
Overtime should not be authorized unless approved by the Assistant City Attorney.
Currently the Criminal Law Assistant approves clerical overtime of the Criminal Division
which amounts to 99 percent of the City Attorney's Offices use of overtime.
The need for overtime should also be eliminated with the creation of the Office Manager
position who will be able to monitor the clerical division's workload and volume and
distribute resources more appropriately. Overtime should be authorized in advanced of
performing the time and should be closely monitored. Tasks that have been historically
manual and time consuming should be automated to avoid the overload on staff and the
excessive use of overtime. Use of overtime is a discretionary cost which should be
utilized only in extreme circumstances.
Personnel Practices
Recommendation 20: Review and complete the employee evaluation system.
Performance Evaluations have not historically been conducted as required by the City's
Personnel Department on any routine or regular basis. This has several implications,
including: (1) no ability to measure staff performance and productivity; (2) no ability to
justify staffing decisions; (3) does not allows the City Attorney the flexibility to
discipline or promote competent employees. Moreover, as a City Department, the City
Attorney's is bound by union agreements which require periodic reviews. Failure to do so
is a serious violation and presents potential personnel grievances, complaint and suits.
24
o
o
Recommendation 21: Coordinate the Criminal Law Assistant's hours of
operation with the workload and schedule in the Criminal Division. If the
incumbent cannot meet these hours, due to a disability, the personnel should be
reassigned to another Department
The Criminal Law Assistant is currently on disability leave because of an injury, and is
working four hours a day. However, the four hours she is in the office are from 6:00 am
to 10:00 a.m., pursuant to Doctor's orders. Since her position description authorizes her
to supervise all clerical staff, this can not be done in her current hours of operation. In
addition, with her absence from the office from the hours of 10:00 am to 5:00 pm, there
exists no office oversite. Overtime is approved by the Criminal Law Assistant in the
morning, but no one supervises the actual use of or need for that overtime through the rest
of the day.
In addition, the attorney's in that office spend their days in the court room and therefore,
there is no. senior level personnel available to supervise the functions of that office. This
problem is further exacerbated because of the physical location split between the
Criminal Division and the City Attorney's office.
With the reorganization of the City Attorney's Office, we are recommending converting
the position of Criminal Law Assistant to Legal Office Manager. This important position
requires a full-time staff member.
Communications
1. Staff Meetings
Recommendation 22: Conduct regular weekly staff meetings with the
professional staff.
The current policy within the City Attorney's Office is to have a staff meeting when an
issue is brought to the attention of the City Attorney by other staff members. There is no
regular schedule, and no staff meetings occur just among the professional staff. All staff
are invited to these unscheduled meetings. The agenda normally involves administrative
issues and is not used as a forum for discussion of legal issues, City policies or the
distribution and review of workload assignments. The City Attorney should hold
meetings that can evaluate the Office's workload levels and orally review progress reports
by attorneys on ongoing projects.
Staff meetings are also important for internal communications. Several members of the
staff indicated that they felt unaware of City Council decisions and recent iegal
activities. This would provide a forum for discussing ideas and developing a united legal
department.
!!I ERNST & YOUNG
25
o
o
2. Electronic Maii System
Recommendation 23: Enhance individual access of the City Attorney and staff
to the Emoil System and aUocate appropriate number of terminals.
The City utilizes and relies on an electronic mail system for intra-departmental
communications. Each Department Head has his/her own terminal to extract messages
and respond to inquiries. The City Attorney's Office has one terminal in a general office
area, and the Secretary pulls off the messages and photocopies the comments for the
attorneys. Departments expressed concern that they were unable to effectively
communicate with the City Attorney's Office and less likely to use this system the way it
is currently operating. All attorneys within this Office should have their own
identification number and access to the electronic mail system, as well as trained on the
use of the machine. Furthermore, the City Attorney should have one terminal directly in
his office for his own use.
However, due to the high confidentiality of certain legal issues, the City should develop
policies for the administration of the system and controlled access by the City Attorney.
E. Staff Productivity
Workload
While no data was available on the workload levels for the advisory and civil litigation
functions of the Office, we were able to get some caseload data for the Criminal Division.
Exhibit III-5 below summarizes the recent trends by type of activity for six months from
April through September of 1990.
As can be seen from this Exhibit Ill-5, case volume has dropped in the last six months in
the following areas:
o Arraignments;
o Trials; and
o Motions.
26
o
o
Case volume has increased in the last six months in:
o Pre-Trials; and
o Traffic violations.
Exhibit m.5
Analysis of Prosecutor's Caseload
Aprli . September 1990
T Au ust Jul June Ma
Arraignments 35l 326 392 360 459 329
Trial Calendar 48 54 39 52 49 62
Pre-Trial 236 211 319 186 l84 196
Calendar
Motions 5 6 5 5 l2 14
Traffic Calendar l45 l55 104 112 l20 112
!!I ERNST & YOUNG
27
o
o
During our interviews, staff claimed that the most time consuming processes involve
arraignments and trials, yet the workload levels have been decreasing and the use and
cost of outside counsel has been increasing. No explanation was given for this trend.
Exhibit ill -6 illustrates the distribution of workload for the month of September 1990.
Staff is spending 45 percent of its time on arraignments. This data was gathered by the
consultant from the official court calendar schedule. Subsequently, staff later provided
the consultant with Exhibit III-? which represents workload data from January 1990
through October 1990.
Exhibit 1lI-6
Distribution of Workload
Sep-90
. ArTlIignments
~ Trial Calendar
45~
. Pre-Trial Calendar
. Motions
m Traffic Calendar
E3 For DispolMisc.
n
28
-
o
o
Exhibit III-7
PROSECUTION CASE SUMMARY REPORT
JANUARY 11990 THRU OCTOBER 31, 1990
Charges Filed 6,921
Plead Guilty at Arraignment l,932 Referred to DA 14
Plead Guilty at Pre-Trial 812 Reduced to Infrac. 1
Guilty at Trial 263 Rejected by CP 138
Found Not Guilty 13
Bench Warrants Issues 513
Cases Dismissed
138
Nou: TIIese Ill1111bers should 1I0r be
relied 011 /I S being comp1eflly IICt:UI'tlU.
TIw process o/lnput hils beell CluJllging, so
ill/tmIIIlIiollhlls beell1eft out.
l382
91
Officer
Victim
Witness
Other
o
o
2
89
Motions Heard 50
1538.5 25
Disc 14
Priors 4
Speedy Trial 0
Other 7
Cases Open at End of Period 1,951
Settings:
Arrgmnt Pre-trial Coun Trial Jury Trial
4,038 2,245 2 555
!!I ERNST & YOUNG
29
-
o
o
In Civil Litigation, according to their case tracking system there are 150 open cases, 108
with in-house personnel, 35 with outside counsel, and 7 "other" cases as of October 30,
1990. However, the current case status is unknown as is the percentage of staff time
associated with each case. Therefore, there is no way to quantitatively evaluate the
productivity of in-house attorneys. In addition, it is unknown whether this count is
reliable based on the accuracy of data input as described in the Office Automation section
of this report. Members of the staff were unable to determine what the number of open
cases were and how many were with outside counsel, and if the computer generated
number was correct. Staff would have had to manually extract this information from the
files to develop accurate case load data.
In conclusion, we were unable to make any specific recommendations with regard to the
workload levels of the Department. However, as stated in an earlier section, workload
data should be compiled and reported regularly for the City Attorney's review.
Assignments
Recommendation 24: Develop a time accounting system for both litigation and
advisory attorneys.
The City Attorney's Office has no method for tracking attorney's time spent on cases and
respective caseloads including advisory services. The attorneys do keep track of time
spent, but that does not provide sufficient management information to adequately plan
workload flow. The time reporting system does not allocate hours according to specific
case or advisory services. The Case Tracking System was reviewed to see if it could be
used as a management tool for workload planning. The system was designed for case
maintenance and cost tracking, and would need additional applications to make it an
effective management tool.
Staff Size
The current size of the City Attorney's Office may limit the ability to bring more work in-
house. However, without the available workload and utilization data needed to evaluate
this, we were unable to make a recommendation in this area.
30
-
o
o
IV. Appendix
Exhibit A: Sample Position Description for Legal Office Manager
Exhibit III-2: Finance Department's Breakdown of Contracts and Purchase Orders for
Outside Counsel
!!I ERNST & YOUNG
31
o
o
Exhibit A
Sample Position Description
Legal Office Manager
DEFINITION
Provides broad range of support to Legal Department of the City of Torrance by developing
and monitoring the department's budget, coordinating the function of contracting with
outside legal counsel including monitoring the time and expenses of same, the status of all
outside cases, and the monitoring of the types and amounts of settlements in liability cases.
EXAMPLE OF DUTIES
. Management of financial and administrative functions of a legal office
. Preparation and monitoring of the departmental budget
. Monitoring the contracts established with outside legal counsel including tracking
the expenditures and the amount of time spent on each case
. Monitoring the status of cases sent to outside counsel and reviewing the settlements
that are proposed on such cases
. Establish criteria for sending certain cases, both civil and criminaI, to outside
counsel, and authorizing in advance all such activities
. Monitor the billings submitted for outside counsel
. Coordinating the drafting and negotiation of contracts with outside counsel
. Ability to develop a program budget for a legal department
. To forecast need for outside legal counsel results costs, on a yearly basis
. To monitor the budget on an on-going basis
. To read and understand financial reports
. To understand basic legal procedures and concepts as well as legal resources and
materials
. To deal effectively with attorneys and City officials
. To communicate effectively, orally and in writing
. To research and present written material in an organized and effective manner
o
o
SKILLS
. To manage legal office of six staff attorneys and clerical staff
. Working cooperatively with members of the legal profession as well as City
Administrative and clerical staff
. Technical, statistical and financial analysis and presentation
. Communication, oral and written
. Computer application of billing, desirable
QUALIFICATIONS
. 4 Years of increasingly responsible experience managing a legal office in a City or
private firm
. College degree and legal credentials desirable
COMPENSATION
EXHIBIT ID-2
,. ,......,..".". ..................................
Qlij".i:iI.Q,"'....". ,':::,:,::T:'frt:'::
...-.'."...........:":::::::.:.:.;.:.::.::.:.,.,,.,.:.:.:....
ri$i'i!J~:i::::::}}":':"""",:"::"::,:,:,:,}':':"::
1'il~~!i_Inf
C-2927
Burke., Wms & Sorenson
Smith Hillside Condemnation
C-2870
Cox., Castle: & Nicholson
McGrew ConlNWon #1
C.26m
Cox. Castle &: Nicholson
Airport Mallen/Airport Budget
C-2822
Cox, Castle &: Nicholson
Land Use Mailers
C.2700
Cox, CastJe & Nicholson.
Add.uonal Approp.
Oems \IS. Cily of Tornnce
C-2936
Cycom Oala SYSlems
Computer Coosultant/ McG~&or
C-2708
Dolle & Dolle
Smith Condemnation
Dolle & Dolle
Lam-lnverx Condemnation
C-2467
Drelsen, Kassoy etaJ
Widen Torrance Blvd. (gas tax)
C-89-012
A.R. Early
City of Torrance YS. Walter Egan
C-90-1ll6
Ernst & Young
Management Audit
C-89.Q28
Hedges, Powe &: Caldwell
Transfer 10 Nutter's Mobil
CII)' of Torrance vs. Prolcctive
\lIuonal1ns.
C.9Q.042
Hedges, Powe &: Caldwell
People YS. Mobil Oil Corp.
C-9Q.Q12
Hue stc:dler . Miller
RaSleUo Appeal
o
................._............-..,..........
..;.;.;-:.:.;.:.;.:.:.:.:.;.:.:.;.:.;.:.:-:.
:::;;:,:;::::,::::::;;:::;;::;,:,;,:;;,;,::;
.;-,.:.;.:.:.;.:.:.;.:.;.:.,.;.:.;.:.,.;.:.,
..........................,.~:....
.-..-...............:-:.,:.........
7/6188
11(2()/g"/
8115/86
8114/g"/
8/4/'61
5(29/90
6/13/88
9(29186
814m
81181g"/
1/13/84
3(21/89
10115/90
3/10189
9/6190
9/18190
91U119O
2/22J9O
.......................-..............
................."...............
...-.-""".........-...-.........-......
. "...........................
...................................
:...:-;-:-,-:.:.,-:.:.:.:.,-:.;.;.:.;.:.;.;.:.;.;.:.:.;.;.;.;.:.;.:.;.;.
....................................
lIi~l:
$25,000
$10.000
$30.000
$20.000
$20.000
$35,000
$50.000
$10,000
$15.000
$20.000
55.000
$30,000
525,000
5150.000
($51.000)
5150,000
$250,000
$200.000
o
OUTSIDE COUNSEL
12/1190
r,\llji1ItIJJI.'i11iii;111
524,rm
$1,388
$12.942
$6,279
$2O,m5
$5,715
$5,408
$9,066
$9.055
$16,300
$206,479
$168,082
$24,rm
$130
$10.136
$6,279
$14,557
$4,090
$5.408
$9,066
$9.055
$16,300
$8,524
$59,443
$218,0&2
$43,103
$0
$1.258
$2.806
$0
$6.418
51,625
$0
$0
$0
$0
516,476
5147,036
$31,683
$124,m9
COI1UllI:l!POf . ... .
.........."."",_........--.-,-,..
F. v___ . ... ....
~-:.~.................
c
...,..... "." . ,..,-,.".
"'-"':'-"'-':-":-:'-':'-':-"',-',:-',:.:-:.:-',:.:.:.:.:.:.:.-.....-.:'-.
.. '" ..... "..
.:.-.:.-.:.'.-.:.-,','.:-',-.:-',:-',-.:..:.,-,',-,','.:.
.... , " " .",."...
.....,, ,."",,-.,,-,--.
--.-'.-,-----,..._,--,-------,-,-,-,--,-',-"
........ ..... ..........
..-........,....,...............----.,
..--,--,....-......,........,...._---.-.-,--,-.-.-..:...;
."....,...... ,. """H"""
.....-,."..,..",..",.,-,----.-,.
.--.-,--".-...,-,---'..------_.
.... . .__H....__..
............--..--...,........"........
............"..."...........,-..-...
........-..-.....--...--.-,---.-,---.............
......... . ..........--....
....~IM.
C-2783
Liebert, Cassidy
Personnel Mauers (Police)
C.2821
Liebert, Cassidy
Personnel Maners
C-2821
Ralph Nuuer
Planning Matters
C-89-030
Ralph Nutter
Transfer from Ogilby
Transfer from Hedges
Additional Appropriation
Appropriation 9-18-90
C-90-023
Ralph Nutter
Conrow, Cultural Arts Center
C .90-046
Ralph Nutter
Land Use Mauer-Lichter v. COT
C .89-029
8arryOgilby
Transfer LO Nutter
Transfer La Nutter
People vs. Mobil Oil Co.
C.89-097
Omck, 'ierringaon
Dan Walker lniuauvc
C .90-059
AngeJo Palmien
Eminent Domain/Waher Egan
C .90-029
UarryRoss
Eawsement Cond./Carson Street
C-2696
Seyfarth, Shaw, et. al.
Alrpon Leases (frans. Budget)
TOTAL YEAR TO DATE 12.1-90
5130190
5/10189
9/18190
8f2919O
511 0189
10/4189
5125190
9/19189
8130190
8/15/86
REDEVLEOPMENT AGENCY CONTRACTS
C.88-RA-180
Burke, Wms &. Sorenson
Solvent Ctg/HazWaSle Li.tilalion
C.85-RA.130
Demetriou, Del Guercio &. l..oYejoy
26 Ac~ Condemnfforr Industrial
3120190
419185
3125/86
2/14/89
514187
8(//87
712190
7/2/90
o
.",,,,, ,,,.............
....."....."."",...".
.-,-,-,-'.-.'.-,-.'.-.',-,-.'.-.-.--'--.-..-'-,-.
Olillim! Aai<iODt.
"""~_...
.. ...............
.'.....'...'.,.........,.....,...........
;:t:::,<:::;:::::;:.:::;:~:::,:::::};t:
lIinj~
..iiiiiHd
,.:.,-:.:.,,;.;.:,,-,,:.;.,,:.,-:-,.:.:.;-:-:-:.:.:-:.;-;.;
:::;:::::::,:;:::::::=:;:,:,:,:,::::::;:;::';:::::;::;::
';"::::::::;:::::,::::::,:::::",:::::,::;:,::::::>;.:,'.
Aii;;;;';;(~i
.......ii~ltbli,1~
.:"...-.-..-.-..-.-,--......'....
-.,....-..-...--.-..........
........jijiii~!l
1/liWi
520.000
516,204
$3.796
512.408
538,500
$32,1Z6
511,012
$21,114
520.000
5\8,176
51.603
516,573
5175.000
522.000
551.000
$50.000
$350.000 $478 5189,022 5161,456
525.000 $25,000 51,267 $23,733
535.000
535,000
$31,352
$3,648
$75.000
($20.000)
(52.000)
55,276
$5,276
$0
522.000
512,264
512,264
$0
5100.000
599,219
$781
5Z0.ooo
519,213
510,087
S9.1Z6
530.000
58,084
$4,275
$3.809
$584,929
Paid From Redevelopnen. Agency Bud...
$75.000
$75,000
512,565
$62,435
5140,000 Paid Oul fo.Service lluou&b 1984, 1986
o
o
C~--~ .
..:.:~..;t~.~~:::::}}:,:::;::::::::,:::::::;::::i
Frim'.NaJae. .::: .::.:.. .:..:"::
.... .-.""....,-"..-..-..........-......
P'"I.ioec*ll4~ ... ......
..........-....." ..,_.._,
. ,........,.....,.......---.-.-......,..,
.,,-,',-,'.',-.....-..,-_._----,-,'-',-,-,-,_.,.....,"-',"-","-',"
....'.._-_..-_..-,...,....-..........,......---...-...-.-.-,-...-.-....,......
....".,...,--,.,..,.--,.......,--....-...-...-.-.-.-..'-'-",'-'-'-'-"
:,:,:""::,:":,:,:':.:';.:,:';.:.:.,,:::,,.:.:,,.:,:",0-:.:,:.":':':-":,'-":"'::::
:.:.:.:.;.:.:-,-:-,-:.:-:.:-..:.:.:.:._,:.,:.:--:,-::-,.:-:,-::.:.:,'.:.:-.,:-:-:,:-.::
...........---,..,..........-...............-...
:;-:-:-:,:-:,:-:.:,;.:,:.,::,,'::..:.:-':"'-::':':-"-:':-'-:-'.:-;-:.:-'-:"-.':-'-:
::......::..::..,.~.~:.
~Ja"_iilli!;ilillli;llliilli~
RC 89-003
Demeui.ou, Dei Guercio & Lovejoy
26 Acre Condemntrorr Indusuial
1989!l990 Bills not in as yet.
RC-89-OO2
Demeui.ou, Del Guercio & Lovejoy
City of Torrance vs. Walter Egan
Agency Answer to X-C
Desmond & Marcello
Goodwill Appraisen/26 Acres
RC-90-OO3
Sheppard, Mullin,Richter et al
Redevelopment Mauen
TOTAL YEAR TO DATE 12-1-90
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CONTRACTS
C.88-RA-180
Hurte. Wms & Sorensen
Solvent Ctg/HazWane Litigation
C-85-RA.130
Demetriou, Del Guercio & Lovejoy
26 Acre Condemntr orr Indusui.al
RC.89-OO3
Demetriou. Del Guercio & Lovejoy
26 Acre Condemntrorr Industrial
1989/1990 Bills nOl in as yet.
RC.89-OO2
Demetriou, Del Guercio & Lovejoy
City of Torrance vs. Walter Egan
Agency Answer to X-C
Desmond & Marcello
Goodwill Appraisen/26 Acres
RC.90-OO3
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter et al.
TOTAL YEAR TO DATE 12-1-90
OPEl' PURCHASE ORDERS 12-1-90
1'0# 31560
Elinur Aunhur
Relocation Services
1'0# 43252
Adams, Duque & Haz.eJtine
McGrew ConSlNcUon .2
1'0# 40641
Adams, Duque & Hazeltine
5/16/89
5134.900
5134.900
so
5615.000
5/16/89
530,000
530.000
530,000
so
5140,000
532,912
so
532,912
3(20190
550.000
544.654
52,850
541.804
554.369
Paid From Redcve1opmcn. Aaency Budgel
3(20190
515,000
515,000
$62,435
512,565
419/85
3(25/86
2114189
5140.000 Paid Ou,forService Throulh 1984,1986
5/16189
5134,900
5134.900
so
5615,000
5/16189
530.000
530.000
so
530,000
5140.000
532.912
532,912
so
3(20190
550.000
52,850
541.804
544.654
554,369
8/14189
S500
5155
so
$155
8130190
524,999
52,118
514.615
516,133
4/18190
55.000
54,084
54.084
so
C......~.....::.......,......,....
-, ,......-.-,.............,........,.,.,..,..-...
FJiml'I_."..'.......:i::',::i:..,
......,-..............................
Pu........~~
.,.:.:.:.:.:.:':"':
.:.:.:.;.:-,.:.:.:.:.
..................--,.,."...........
;';"""-:':'-':':':':':':':':"':":':''':',-'-,',-:-,.:.;.,.:.;.:.:.".:
................
..,.'~lltl:I;IIIIIIJIII:llliii:i
c
...._'.',.............
... ,':::':'::;:;:":;:::)::;:tf:
.:.:.:.:.:.:-.:.,-:.:.,.:.;.:.:.:.,.;.;.,.:-:.:.:.:.:.;.:<.:-:.;.:.:.:.:.;.:.,-:.,.,.:.,.:.:.;.:.;.:.
..........................-..-.........................
"i:::::~tiw
PO# 42512
Burlce, Wms & Sonmsen
Artisuc Landscape Litigation
PO# 38584
CA. Champon
PO# 30589
Daniel Curtin
General PlanlPlanning Maners
PO# 36666
Converse Consuhants
Soil Testing/Hillside S1ippage
PO# 40161
Epstein. Becker & Bonody
Personnel Maners
PO# 41635
Jeff Friedman
Personnel Maners
PO# 43722
Hedges, Powe & Caldwell
Par4gon Cable Tax MalLer
1)0# 43414
Liebert, Cassidy & Frierson
Personnel Mauer
PO# 40578
Liebert. Cassidy & Frierson
Personnel Mauer
PO# 40158
Liebert. Cassidy & Frierson
Personnel Mauer
PO# 40577
Lleben, Cassidy & Frierson
Personnel Maller
PO# 40601
Ralph Nuner
Park Beyood the Park
PO# 29463
Port & Ror
Rclocauon Services
PO# 44339
Pachulski. SWIg & Ziek.I
Park Beyond lhc: Part< (IIankrupl)
PO# 39669
5aanley E. Reme1rncycr
Cable TV. SpcCUlI Projeas
5fl5/90
Ilnt89
4/13/88
6/12/89
2/13/90
6/22190
IlnI/90
9/6190
3/13/90
8f}.7/90
2/13/90
3/13/90
3/9/90
2/1/88
1115/90
1/9/90
$15,000
$2.000
SS.OOO
$6.500
$10.000
$25,000
$10.000
$15.898
$13,000
$15,000
$10.000
$5,000
SS.OOO
$10.000
SS.OOO
$15,000
$931
$849
$4,123
$9.934
SS.OO8
$13,000
$2,056
$4.590
$1,151
$840
rn6
so
$200
o
$9.103
$14,087
$931
so
$849
so
$840
so
$4,123
so
$8.572
$1.362
SS,008
so
$15,898
so
so
so
S2,0S6
Closed
rn6
Closed
$4,590
so
$796
$355
$10,000
so
$200
so
G~t::,::"""""""",:"",,{
~ffi!!i!~tI,I
pg_iiiI4'~:g'::
POll 40705
Stanley E. Rcmelmcycr
Additional Appropriation
Cable TV. Special Projects
POll 43022
Stanley E. Remelmcyer
TOTAL YEAR TO DATE 12.1.90
CRIMINAL DIVISION POs
POll 37741
Sleven Bcnnan
Prosecutor Services
POO 38725
Michael Kellog
Prosecutor Services
Ken Meersand
POll 38724
POll 39940
POll 41280
POll 43475
DP 00416
DP 00417
DP 00451
DP 00453
Prosecutor Services
POll 32590
Marl< T, McDonald
TOTAL YEAR TO DATE 12+90
o
o
:.:.::~:::...::::::::::::::::':::::::::.::::::?:::::::::::::::::: ~~~:::::::j:::::f::tt:IItmmmf::
t....g....'..tt '::.~iI,,*~
':r~liii! ..'.'...'.:.lW!llittiJiWl
ij~I!JtIlIIIII:(I!.illlll:II::;,;
3/14190
$5.000
8/15190
$2.915
$2,915
$7,000
$0
8/15190
$5,000
$874
$0
$874
$34.234
9/lSI9O
$7,000
$2,137
$3.047
$910
I 0/26189
$5,000
$390
$1,854
$1.464
10/26/89 $5.000 $0
1/29190 $5,000 $0
4/18190 $3.675 $0
9/10190 $7.000 $0 $0 $7,000
7/18190 $1,200 $1,200
8nl9O $150 $150
9/20190 $750 $750
9rwt90 $1.750 $1.750
8/18/88
$1,200
$0
$1,200
$2.000
$12,m
-
o
...
u
-
-
.
.
o
Q'
..
A PROPOSAL TO CONDUCT
A MANAGEMENT AUDIT FOR THE
CITY ATI'ORNEY'S OFFICE,
CITY OF SANBERNARDlNO
Prepared for:
Mr. David C. KAnn('dy, Treasurer
City of San Bernardino
Prepared by:
Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation
August 21, 1992
~c:.
-
-
o
arvey
o
ose &<C<C(Q)I!.IIm.~ <C(Q)~R\1tn~m.
1390 Market Street, Suite 1025, San Francisco, CA 94102 (415)552-9292' FAX (415)252-0461 Los Angeles, CA
(213) 965-7175
August 21, 1992
Mr. David C. Kennedy, Treasurer
City of San Bernardino
300 North "D" Street .
San Bernardino, California 92418
Dear Mr. Kennedy:
Pursuant to your Request for Proposals dated July 22, 1992, we have prepared the
attached proposal for a management audit of the City Attorney's Office of the City of
San Bernardino. As you will see, the scope of the audit is comprehensive and
includes all internal arlm;n;strative, managerial, fiscal and support staff issues, as
well as many programmatic issues related to legal aspects of the operations of the
clients served by the City Attorney.
/l'he--estimated cost of the proposed cornnrehensive scone management audit is
$77,555 based on a total of 747 estimated professional staff hours. This cost is a
manmum cost and includes all clerical, report production (50 bound copies of the
final report), travel and other costs; no additional costs would be charged. If
additional professional staff hours in excess of 747 are required to complete the
highest quality professional product, such additional hours would be provided at no
additional cost. Alternatively, iffewer hours are required, the maximum cost would
be reduced on an hour for hour basis, based on the applicable staff hourly rates.
In consideration of the review requirements of your Request for Proposals, we have
organized our detailed work plan into the following functional areas: Organization
and Structure; Management Information; Policies and Procedures; Business
Management; Use of Outside Legal Counsel and; Client Services. Separate
estimates of hourly requirements for detailed analysis of each functional area are
provided.
Mr. David C. KennedyQeasurer
City of San Bernardino
August 21, 1992
Page 2
o
By providing separate hourly estimates, cost estimates can be made oflimited scone
m'm>\gement audit alternatives should the City of San Bernardino's audit objectives
change or should funding be limited. For example, a management audit, that would
provide a pre-audit survey and analysis, a review of organization and structure and
a review of the use of outside counsel would cost approximately $39,000, instead of
the $77 ,555 cost of a comprehensive management audit.
In short, our proposed work plan is designed to be flexible. It can be altered as
necessary in order to best meet the needs and any fiscal constraints which the City
of San Bernardino might have.
While such limited scope management audits, requiring less professional hours,
provide benefits to our clients, in our judgment, a comprehensive scope management
audit would result in substantially greater benefits to the City of San Bernardino.
We have provided you with our honest estimate, based on over 30 years of
experience in conducting management audits, that a comprehensive scope
management audit of the City Attorney's Office for the City of San Bernardino
would require 747 professional staff hours, utilizing highly experienced
management auditors.
I am enclosing for your review five copies of our management audit report on the
Review of the Operations of the Santa Clara County Counsel's Office. This
management audit was completed in December of 1988 and represents a sample of
the kind of product which you would receive. Although the County Counsel's Office
in the County of Santa Clara is somewhat larger than the organization of the San
Bernardino City Attorney's Office, the operational responsibilities are very similar.
The written response to the management audit report from then County Counsel
Donald L. Clark, presently a Santa Clara County Judge, may be found beginning on
page 138 of the report. Judge Clark is also listed as a reference in Section II of our
proposal.
In addition, I am enclosing five copies of representative management audit reports
on the Los Angeles County Investigation Division of the Law Offices of the Public
Defender, completed in September of 1989 and the Stanislaus County Purchasing
Division, completed in May of 1992.
I am also enclosing five copies of our corporate qualifications statement for your
review. This latter document will provide you with the background information of
our firm, the breadth and scope of our experience, brief descriptions of the hundreds
of similar management audits which we have conducted, resumes of our staff and a
list of our references.
In addition to our 1988 management audit report of the Santa Clara County
Counsel operations, which is also briefly described in the Project Experience Section
VI on page 81 in our corporate qualifications statement, you might also note the
similar management audits and budget analyses which we have conducted of the
Legal Department of the Port of Oakland (page 83), the elected City Attorney (and
Harvey
~
. .ose ~Ccrpcnticft
Mr. David C. Kennedy, Casurer
City of San Bernardino
August 21, 1992
Page 3
o
County Counsel) of the City and County of San Francisco (ongoing - page 80), the
County Clerk, Superior Court, and Municipal Court of the County of Santa Clara
(page 124) and our May 1991 evaluation of the Split Court Session Pilot Program of
the Superior and Municipal Courts in Los Angeles County (page 122).
Section II of our proposal contains our relevant project experience and also includes
our references who can verify our public sector management audit and budget
analysis work pertaining to legal matters.
Our firm also has considerable experience working in the San Bernardino County
area. We have served the San Bernardino County Grand Juries as management
auditor during fiscal years 1984-85, 1986-87 1987-88, 1988-89, 1990-91 and 1991-92.
Verification of our experience may be obtained from Ms. Susan L. Shuey, Executive
Secretary to the San Bernardino County Grand Jury. Ms. Shuey may be contacted
at (714) 387-3820. Section II of our proposal also includes former San Bernardino
County Grand Jury members that may be contacted as references.
The estimated duration of time required to complete a comprehensive management
audit of the City Attorney's Office of the City of San Bernardino, and to provide you
with a draft report, is approximately twelve weeks from the date of the entrance
conference. In order to obtain the highest quality professional product, I would
propose to use the same highly qualified staff members who performed the
management audit of the County Counsel's Office in the County of Santa Clara. Our
staff would spend full time on site during the course of this management audit.
Please don't hesitate to contact any of our references listed in Sections II and V of
our proposal and corporation qualifications statement respectively. I believe these
governmental officials, located throughout California, can independently verify the
professionalism, objectivity, quality and timeliness of our management audit
reports.
If you have any questions pertaining to this proposal, please contact either myself at
(415) 552-9292 or our Vice President Roger Mialocq at (408) 299-2323.
Respectfully submitted,
/ / ---
/,J------> //c, / (.- - .
, ./ / .~ ---
, "
Harvey M. Rose, CPA
President
Enclosures
~arv.y
os. ~~
-
-
o
o
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION I Detailed Management Audit Work Plan.......................................... 1
SECTION II Relevant Management Audit and Budget
Analysis Experience Pertaining to Law Offices,
Courts and Related Agencies and Specific
Relevant References .......................................................................... 6
SECTION III Major Management Audit and Budget Analysis
Projects Completed in the Last Five Years ...................................10
SECTION IV Resumes of Proposed Project Staff................................................. 19
SECTION V Project Cost......................................................................................25
r.
~-: arvey
~
i-'.ose ~~.ft"'''''7 iCcrporatlaD
-
o
o
SECTION I
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
DETATT.1m MANAGEMENT AUDIT WORK PLAN
~
Estimated
Professional
Hours
1. Entrance Conference
· Meet with the City Attorney, the two Senior Assistant City
Attorneys, the Administrative Operations Supervisor and any
other staff the City Attorney may wish to be present to describe
the management audit process and introduce audit staff.
Interview the City Attorney, the two Senior Assistant City
Attorneys, and the Administrative Operations Supervisor to
determine the organizational structure, to obtain an
understanding of the operations of the Department and to identify
City policies and legal mandates that are unique to the City
Attorney's Office.
· Obtain various documents pertaining to the City Attorney's Office
including a schedule of authorized staffing, a copy of the budget,
an organization chart, a list of attorney assignments and other
general information to be reviewed by audit staff.
· Respond to any questions regarding the scope, methodology, audit
process and other issues which may be raised by the City Attorney
and his staff. 16
2. Pre-Audit Survev
· Review general information and interview notes collected at the
entrance conference. Interview management and staff regarding
operations of the City Attorney's Office, with a particular
emphasis on their specific areas of responsibility.
· Survey the five California municipalities, with populations from
150,000 to 190,000, and survey six other municipalities including
the City of Riverside, regarding the organizational structure,
budget levels, staffing, revenues, use of outside counsel,
operations and activities of the City Attorney's offices in these
other cities.
~arv.y
i 05. ,\\"""",R"'""" CorpafttIcA
- 1 -
.
o
o
Section I cont.
lJlsk
Estimated
Professional
Hours
· Collect and analyze various documents and data which illustrate
costs, revenues and activities of the City Attorney's Office
including employee job descriptions and workload, hours reported
on timesheets, productive versus nonproductive hours and billable
versus nonbillable hours of professional staff. Analyze the process
used by the City Attorney to monitor employee productivity, use of
sick, vacation and other leave, and to conduct employee
performance evaluations.
· Review the City Charter, City Ordinance Code and State statutes
regarding mandated functions of the City Attorney. Review City
policies and procedures regarding operations of the City
Attorney's Office.
· Based on our interviews, surveys, and our review and analysis of
the documents and data, identify specific issue areas requiring
further analysis. 140
3. Orl!anization and Structure
· Review the organization and structure of the City Attorney's
Office. Determine whether the current organizational structure
results in the most efficient use of attorney time. Review attorney
assignments and staffing.
· Identify activities of the City Attorney's Office which should more
appropriately be performed by paralegal, business management or
clerical staff. Determine whether an alternative management
structure would result in more effective operations as well as
resulting in improvements in productivity and accountability. 40
. ,
~arvey
Rose ~~
-2-
-
o
o
Section I cont.
1:aak
Estimated
Professional
Hours
4. Manal!'ernent Information
· Review the management information system of the City
Attorney's Office. Evaluate the periodic information reports
produced to determine if the City Attorney, the two Senior
Assistant City Attorneys and the Administrative Operations
Supervisor obtain comprehensive, accurate and timely
management information by which to fulfill their managerial and
supervisorial responsibilities. Evaluate such information for
purposes of workload and financial monitoring. 40
5. Policies and Procedures
· Review the policy and procedures manual of the City Attorney's
Office to determine if it is comprehensive, current and consistent
with actual practices followed by staff. Interview staffpertaining
to actual practices and the dissemination and adherence to
established policies and procedures. Evaluate use of the policy and
procedures manual in the orientation and training of employees. 35
6. Business Manal!'ernent
· Analyze the business management functions of the City Attorney's
Office, including budget development and monitoring. Evaluate
assignment of business management duties to attorney and non-
attorney staff. Analyze office automation needs, including the use
of word and data processing, and case tracking and management
systems.
· Review the Department's basis for determining fees and other
methods of reimbursement for costs. Determine whether adequate
processes exist to ensure that all billable hours are charged, that
appropriate rates are used, whether the Courts are advised of City
Attorney costs, when appropriate, and whether maximum
collections occur.
. Determine whether the Department has developed an effective
methodology for estimating costs of services to be provided to non-
General Fund City departments, schools and special districts, and
for collecting reimbursements through direct charges and through
the City's indirect cost plan.
~arY.y
os. --...".~
- 3 -
-
o
o
Section I cont.
lJWs
Estimated
Professional
Hours
· Perform a reconciliation of hours and billings for a randomly
selected three-month period. Review actual hours worked and
billed to schools, special districts, and General Fund clients which
receive significant State, Federal or other reimbursements and
other major General Fund and non-General Fund clients which do
not receive such reimbursements. 120
7. Use of Outside Lee-al Counsel
· Review the use of outside legal counsel by the City Attorney and
other City Departments. Evaluate the process used by the City to
determine whether the use of outside contract legal services is
more effective and economical than using the in-house staff of the
City Attorney for these same functions. Determine whether
certain legal services currently provided by outside legal counsel
could be provided more economically by the City Attorney; or
whether other services currently provided by the City Attorney
should be contracted out. Review existing City policies and
procedures which provide criteria for the use of outside counsel. 40
8. Client Services
· Interview major clients of the City Attorney's Office to determine
whether these clients are satisfied with the types and level of
services they are being provided, or whether they believe there are
areas which are in need of improvement. Discuss these concerns
with the City Attorney and the two Senior Assistant City
Attorneys to determine whether modifications to the way in which
certain legal services are provided should be considered.
Harvey
~o5e ~~
- 4-
o
o
Section I cont.
Estimated
Professional
fisk Hours
· Specifically, evaluate services to those clients whose operations
are governed by State, Federal or local law to ensure that legal
requirements of mandated services are being met in an efficient,
effective and economical manner. Services evaluated would
include tort defense litigation, including bodily injury and
property damage, code enforcement, eminent domain, land use
litigation, criminal proceedings involving violations of the City's
Municipal Code and other areas. Selected general City activities
would also be evaluated, such as the development of leases,
contracts and agreements, to determine if the City Attorney's
Office should become more involved in reviewing the substance of
these documents rather than approving these documents only as
tOlorrn. 140
9. Draft ReDort PreDaration and Exit Conference
· Prepare a draft report containing findings and recommendations
for review with the City Attorney's Office and other affected
departments. Conduct exit conferences as appropriate. 160
10. PreDare and Issue Final ReDort
· Prepare the final report incorporating any appropriate
clarifications and corrections to the draft report based on the exit
conference and written response of the City Attorney and any
other departments. .16
Estimated total management audit hours: 747
Estimated Proiect Comnletion Date
We estimate that this project will require approximately twelve weeks to complete
from the date of the entrance conference. If the project were to commence by
September 15, 1992 the projected completion date would be December 8, 1992.
~arv.y
os.~~
-5-
o
o
SECTION IT
RELEvANT MANAGEMENT AUDIT AND BUDGET ANALYSIS
ExPERIENCE PERTAINING TO LAW OFFICES, COURTS AND
RELATED AGENCmS AND SPECIFIC RELEvANT REFERENCES
The following 21 projects have been selected from the more than 200
management audits and budget analyses, which have been conducted by the
Corporation. These projects include several studies of law offices including city
attorney, county counsel, public defender, district attorney and other law offices. We
have also conducted management audits of related. agencies which play an important
part on the ongoing operations of a city attorney's office including superior court,
municipal court, police and sheriff. A description of each of the management audit
projects is included in SECTION III of our proposal and in SECTION VI of our
corporate qualification statement. These sections also include a description of the
budget analyses projects, which were a part of comprehensive budget analyses
performed annually of the entire budget of the City and County of San Francisco and
the County of Santa Clara.
Mana~ment AuditslSnecial Proiects:
Law Offices:
· Santa Clara County Counsel FY 1988-89
· .Santa Clara County District Attorney-Family Support FY 1991-92
· Port of Oakland-Legal Department FY 1986-87
. Related ~encies:
· Los Angeles County Split Court Session Pilot Project FY 1990-91
· Los Angeles County Public Defender Investigation Division FY 1989-90
· Santa Clara County Superior Court FY 1986-87
· Santa Clara County Municipal Court FY 1985-86
· Santa Clara County SheriffFY 1980-81
· City of Oakland Code Enforcement FY 1991-92
· City of San Francisco Police Department FY 1978-79
· City of Oakland Police Department FY 1982-83
· Mendocino County-Court Data Processing FY 1985-86
· City of San Jose Police Department-Work Management System FY 1989-90
Bud!1'et Analvses:
Law Offices:
· City of San Francisco City Attorney (annually FY 1971-72 to FY 1992-93)
· City of San Francisco Public Defender (annually FY 1971-72 to FY 1992-93)
. City of San Francisco District Attorney (annually FY 1972-72 to FY 1992-93)
· Santa Clara County Counsel (annually FY 1984-85 to FY 1992-93)
· Santa Clara County Public Defender (annually FY 1984-85 to FY 1992-93)
· Santa Clara County District Attorney (annually FY 1984-85 to FY 1992-93)
Related A!1'encies:
· Santa Clara County Sheriff (annually FY 1984-85 to FY 1992-93)
· City of San Francisco Police Department (annually FY 1971-72 to FY 1992-93)
t!arvey
~ose '1"e"..ft.a_~
- 6 -
o
o
Section II cont.
The following list of relevant references may be contacted to verify the quality of our
IJl8nagement audit work.
Donald L Clark
Judge, Santa Clara County Superior Court
Former County Counsel, Santa Clara County
191 North 1st Street
San Jose, California 95113
(408) 299-3406
Robert E. Gonzales
Former Member, San Francisco County Board of Supervisors
Attorney-at-Law
100 Van Ness Avenue, 19th Floor
San Francisco, California 94102
(415) 431-3200
David Horowitz
Judge, Superior Court
County of Los Angeles
111 North Hill Street, Department 30, Room 400
Los Angeles, California 90012
(213) 974-5635
George Kennedy
District Attorney
County of Santa Clara
70 West Hedding Street
San Jose, California 95110
(408) 299-7507
Quentin Kopp
State Senator
Room 4062, State Capitol
Sacramento, California 95814
Former Member, San Francisco County Board of Supervisors
(916) 445-0503
(415) 952-5666
C. Randall Schneider
Judge, Santa Clara County Municipal Court
1095 Homestead Road
Santa Clara, California 95050
(408) 248-4823
~arv.y
os.~~
- 7 -
o
o
Section II cont.
Dorothy yon Beroldingen
Judge, San Francisco Municipal Court
Hall of Justice
850 Bryant Street
San Francisco, California 94103
(415) 553-9430
Below, we list former members of San Bernardino County Grand Jury which we
have served from Fiscal Year 1984-85 through Fiscal Year 1991-92.
Richard Abraham
Chairman, Public Works Committee
1990-91 San Bernardino County Grand Jury
995 West Marshall Blvd.
San Bernardino, California 92405
(714) 883-0707
Doreen Baylus
Foreman, 1986-87 San Bernardino County Grand Jury
661 East Jackson Street
Rialto, California 92376
(714) 875-0969
Charles Budinger
Chair, Audit Committee
1984-85 San Bernardino County Grand Jury
P.O. Box 7430
Victorville, California 92392
(619) 245-1390
Betty Cook
Foreman, 1990-91 San Bernardino County Grand Jury
844 Edgehill Dr.
Colton, California 92324
(714) 825-2422
Jerome Johnson
Chairman, AudiUFiscal Committee
1990-91 San Bernardino County Grand Jury
1366 Shelley Avenue
Upland, California 91786-3245
(714) 982-0513
Donna Kelsey
Foreman, 1987-88 San Bernardino County Grand Jury
P. O. Box 1010
Big Bear Lake, California 92315
(7l4) 585-6931
~:::.:~'8"~~
- 8-
o
.:)
Maurice Long
Member, 1986-87 San Bernardino County Grand Jury
18549 Cocqui Road
Apple Valley, California 92307
(619) 242-2868
Jerri IL>nkino,
Chairman, Audit/Fiscal Committee
1987 -88 San Bernardino County Grand Jury
1155 East 45th Street
San Bernardino, California 92404
(714) 882-0551
tJarv.y
t
KOs. --....,.~
-9-
Section II cont.
-
o
o
SECTION III
Major ManaJtement Audit and Budllet AnAlvsiA ProiectA
Comnleted in the Last Five Years
A list of all of the public sector areas in which the Corporation has conducted
management audits, major projects and budget analyses over the last five years is
presented below. As can be seen, we have performed analyses in virtually all areas
oflocal government operations. This extensive experience saves time for our clients
since our staff knows which questions to ask, what documents to review and how to
approach a government agency to quickly identify and document areas where
operations could be improved. Additionally, the Corporation staffis familiar with
comparable operations in other jurisdictions which provides useful comparative
information for evaluating an agency's policies and procedures.
General AdnlfniRtration and fJ.nance
Assessor
Auditor/Controller
Civil Service and Personnel
County Counsel
Data Processing
Retirement Systems and Pension Plans
Legislative Bodies
General Government
P!fmn;ng and Permit Processing
Housing and Redevelopment Agencies
Revenue Source Analysis/Enhancement Strategies
Treasurertrax Collector including all Business Taxes and Licenses
Registrar of Voters
Convention and Visitors Bureaus
~tnre And Recreation
Libraries
Cable Television
Museums
Parks and Recreation
H~alth And Welfare
Public Hospitals
Social Services (Welfare)
Homeless Services
Children's Services
Community Mental Health Substance Abuse Services
Emergency Services
Public Protection
Fire Safety
Coroner
Police, Sheriff and Correction Departments
Court and Detention Services
An;mal Control
~ arvey
os. ~oeo-.-........,.lCcwporatioD.
- 10-
-
o
o
Section III cont.
District Attorney
Public Defender
Adult Probation
Juvenile Probation
Public Works.. Trangnnrtation and Pnrehasinst
Purchasing, Public Works and General Services Agencies
Public Utilities
Building Inspection
Central Garage and Vehicle Fleet
Parking Control
Transit and Paratransit Services
Public Service EnternriseR and SnecialDbltricts
Airports
Ports
Wafer Districts
School Districts
County Offices of Education
Sewer Districts
Solid Waste
Refuse Collection Rates
Management AuditA. Budget AnalvRes and Other AnSllvses of Coqntv
and Citv Agencies and 80ecial Purnose Districts Conducted bv th~
Corooration
The following is a list of management and fiscal audits and budget analyses
of local government operations performed by the Corporation over the last five
years.
1992.93
The Corporation has been authorized to conduct the following management
audits and analyses of the following city and county agencies this fiscal year as of
July I, 1992. Additional projects will be added as the fiscal year progresses.
Client
Men~vlProiect
Board of Supervisors, City and
County of San Francisco
Management Audit of the Clean
Water Program
Management Audit of the Internal
Services Department
Chief Ailm;n;strative Officer,
Los Angeles County
~ arvey
OM ~\rj .......-"CorpondiaD
- 11-
-
o
Client
Board of Supervisors, Santa
Clara County
City Manager, City of Oakland
Office of Policy Analysis,
City of San Jose
Board of Supervisors, Santa
Clara County
Chief AClm;n;strative Officer,
Stanislaus County
Board of Supervisors, City
and County of San Francisco
Board of Supervisors, City
and County of San Francisco
1991-92
Grand Jury, San Bernardino
County
Grand Jury, San Bernardino
County
Board of Supervisors, City and
County of San Francisco
Board of Supervisors, City
and County of San Francisco
Board of Supervisors, City
and County of San Francisco
Chief Administrative Officer,
Stanislaus County
~:::.~_'R..~~
,...."
V
Section III cont.
AstencvlPrQiect
Management Audit of the Correction
Department
Management Audit of the Animal
Control Section of the Oakland Police
Department
Review of Revenue Projections and
Detailed Budget Estimates
Management Audit of Assessment
Appeals Process
Preparation of Model Budget Document
and Evaluation of Budget Process
Review of All Expenditures Related to
the Loma Prieta Earthquake
Management Audit of the Department
of Social Services
Management Audit of the San
Bernardino County Lease Agreement
with Lockheed Aircraft Services and
Development Project at the Chino
Airport
Management Audit of the San
Bernardino County Department of
Airports Leasing Administration for
the Chino Airport
Management Audit of the
Redevelopment Agency
Survey of Programs for Senior Citizens
(Phase I); Needs or Gaps in Services
for Senior Citizens (Phase II)
Management Audit of the Senior
Escort Program
Review of the Purchasing Department
-12 -
-
o
Client
Board of Supervisors, Santa
Clara County
Governing Board, San Francisco
Community College District
Office of Policy Analysis,
City of San Jose
City Manager, City of Modesto
Board of Supervisors, City and
County of San Francisco
City Manager, City of Oakland
Chief Administrative Officer, City.
and County of San Francisco
Board of Supervisors, Santa
Clara County
Board of Supervisors, City and
County of San Francisco
1990-91
San Bernardino County
Grand Jury
Marin County Grand Jury
Marin County Grand Jury
Board of Supervisors,
Santa Clara County
~ arvey
o.e ".,.,.,..-....,.eo...... ......
,-,
V
Section III cont.
Agen~vlProiect
Building Operations Division,
General Services Agency
Evaluation of Budget Process
Review of Revenue Projections
and Detailed Budget Estimates
Review of Cost of Property Tax
Administration by Stanislaus County
Review of Salary Standardization
Process for Miscellaneous Employees
Management Audit of the Permit
Processing, Construction Inspection
and Code Enforcement Functions of
. City of Oakland Departments
Review of Solid Waste Management
Program Rate Application
Review of the Operations of the Family
Support Division .of the Office of the
District Attorney
Survey of Senior Citizens Programs
Provided in San Francisco
Management Audit of the County's
Solid Waste Disposal Contracts and the
Solid Waste Enterprise Fund Balances
Audit of Marin County Garage
Internal Controls
Limited Review of Golden Gate Bridge
Gift. Center and Friends of the Golden
Gate
Analysis of Ballpark Financing
Strategies and Funding Options
-13 -
-
o
Client
Chief Anministrative Officer,
Los Angeles County
Board of Supervisors,
Santa Clara County
Tulare County Grand Jury
Board of Supervisors,
City and County of San Francisco
City Manager, City ofOrinda
City Manager, City of Vallejo
Director of the Recreation and Park
Department, City of Alameda
Governing Board of the San
Francisco Community College
District
1989-90
Board of Supervisors, City
and County of San Francisco
Auditor-Controller,
Los Angeles County
Board of Supervisors,
Santa Clara County
Planning and Police Departments
San Jose
~arY.y
os. .--...........,. Ccrporatioa.
o
Section ill cont.
MencvlProiect
Evaluation of the Los Angeles County
Split Court Session Pilot Project
Management Audit of the Probation
Department
Management Audit of Tulare County's
Decision Making Functions
Management Audit of the Purchasing
Department
Analysis of the Costs Incurred by the
County of Contra Costa in Providing
Various Services to the Citizens of
Orinda
Review of the City's General Fund
Projections and Assessing the General
Fund Reserve Policy
Conduct a Time and Motion Study
of the City's Park System
Review, monitor and evaluate the
budget process of the San Francisco
Community College District
Review and Analysis of the Deputy
Mayor Function in the Office of the
Mayor
Management Audit of the Medical
Examiner-Coroner Department
Management Audit on the County's
System of Services for the Protection
of Abused and Neglected Children
Provided by the Social Services Agency
and the Probation Department.
Review of the Work Management
System in the Planning and Police
Departments
- 14-
-
o
Client
San Mateo County Grand Jury
Auditor-Controller
Los Angeles County
Children's Services Division
Los Angeles
Convention and Visitor's Bureau
and Northern California Black
Chamber of Commerce
City of Oakland
San Bernardino County Grand
Jury
City Manager, City of Oakland
Ventura County Grand Jury
Resource Management Department
Santa Barbara County
~arv.y
OS8 A~"""'-TCorpontioIl
o
Section ill cont.
MencvlProiect
Management Audit of the County
Controller's Office
Management Audit of the
Investigation Division of the Law
Offices of the Los Angeles County
Public Defender
Evaluation of the Department of
Children's Services Planning and
Implementation Efforts Related to the
Adoptions Division Corrective Action
Plan
Management and Organizational
Study of the Oakland Convention and
Visitor's Bureau and the Northern
California Black Chamber of
Commerce Related to Services Funded
by the City of Oakland
Management Audit of the Homeless
Assistance Component Aid to Families
with Dependent Children Program
Review of Opportunities for the
Consolidation or Contracting of City
Activities and of Existing Contracts
and Major Revenues for the City
of Oakland
Management Audit of the Ventura
County Purchasing Function
Management Audit of the County
Resource Management (Planning)
Department
- 15-
-
o
Client
1'988.89
Board of Supervisors, County of
Santa Clara
City Manager, City of Oakland
Chief Administrative Officer,
City and County of San Francisco
Auditor-Controller.
Los Angeles County
Board of Supervisors, City and
County of San Francisco
Contra Costa County
Superintendent of Schools
1987.88
San Bernardino County Grand Jury
Santa Barbara County Grand Jury
San Mateo County Grand Jury
Amador County Grand Jury
Board of Supervisors,
Santa Clara County
Board of Supervisors, City and
County of San Francisco
Board of Supervisors,
Santa Clara County
City Manager, City of East
~arv.y
os. ~iCorporatIoA
o
Section III cont.
AilencvlProiect
Review of the Operations of the County
Counsel's Office
Review of Implementation of
Recommendations from all Previous
Management Audits Conducted for
City
Review of Appropriateness of City's
Garbage Rates
Management Audit of Department of
Children's Services Adoptions Division
Management Audit of City's Planning
and Building Inspection Permit
Process
Audit of Assets Available for Health
Benefit Claims
Management Audit of Probation
Department
Management Audit of Office of County
Superintendent of Schools
Treasurer/Retirement System
Management AuditlFiscal Review of
City ofIone (Amador County)
County Transportation Agency
Marketing Division
City-wide Compliance with Minority
and Women's Business Enterprise
Ordinance
Recreation and Parks Department
Analysis of City Budget and
- 16-
o
Cli~nt
Palo Alto
Board of Directors, Ukiah Unified
School District
Jefferson School District (Daly
City, California)
1986.87
Board of Supervisors,
Santa Clara County
Board of Supervisors,
Santa Clara County
City of Fullerton
City of Cerritos
Board of Supervisors,
City and County of San Francisco
City Manager, City of Oakland
Executive Director,
Port of Oakland
Santa Clara County
Transit District
Kern County Grand Jury
Los Angeles County Grand Jury
Los Angeles County Grand Jury
San Bernardino County Grand Jury
~::.~_,...~~~ 'LR
-
-
o
Section III cont.
MencvlProiect
Development of Recommended
Revenue Reductions
Analysis of District Budget and
Management Audit of Business
Services Office
Financial Audit of School District
Department of Weights and
Measures
County Clerk and Superior Court
Police Department
Redevelopment Agency
Department of Public Health
City Planning Department and
Bureau of Building Inspection
Department of Public Works
Legal Department
Feasibility study of County
Transportation Plan
Department of Public Works
Children's Services
Assessment of County Procedures
Regarding Services Provided to
UndocurnnentedllUens
Analysis of County's Contract
Monitoring Procedures
Airports Department
- 17-
o
Client
Board of Directors, Bay Area Air
Quality Management District
Santa Barbara County Grand Jury
MiIpitas Unified School District
Board of Education
Jefferson School District
~arv.y
058 "oo-......-rColporr~
o
Section ill cont.
MencvJProiect
Classification Study, Salary Survey
and Comparable Worth Analysis
Resource Management Department
MiIpitas Unified School District
School District (Financial Audit)
- 18-
SECTION IV
~arv.y
OM Aceo--.......~~
o
o
REsUMES OF PROPOSED PROJECT STAFF
HARVEY M. ROSE
ROGER MIALOCQ
STEVE FOTI
JOHN JOHNS
KURT ABRAHAMSON
- 19-
o
o
HARVEY M. ROSE
Position
President, Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation
Professional
Qualifications
Education
Scope of
exnerience
Professional
history
Professional
exnerience
Professional
affiliations
Certified Public Accountant, State of California
RRA., Accounting, University of Miami, Florida
Mr. Rose is a recognized leader in the field of public sector management auditing.
His experienee includes comprehensive reviews of all aspects of budget and
financial analysis at the Federal, State, City and County levels. He has served as
financial and budget advisor to both legislative bodies and chief executives.
President, Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation: January 1979 to present.
Board of Supervisors, City and County of San Francisco: Budget Director and
Analyst, 1975-1979.
State of California: Auditor General, 1973-1975.
Board of Supervisors, City and County of San Francisco: Budget Director and
Analyst, 1971-1973.
City of Los Angeles, City Administrative Office (Management Audit Division):
Management Examiner, 1966-1971.
U.S. General Accounting Office, Los Angeles, California: Supervisory Auditor,
1962-1966.
Presently serves, under contract to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, as the
Board's Budget Analyst and chief fiscal advisor.
As State of California Auditor General, was in charge of conducting management
and financial audits and organization and staffing surveys of State agencies.
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants.
California Society of Certified Publie Accountants (Governrnental Accounting and
Auditing Committee, San Francisco Chapter).
~arv.y
058 A--.....~ CcqxNatiaA
- 20-
-
o
o
ROGER MIALOCQ
PllRitinn Vice President, Harvey M. Rose A<countancy Corporation
Eduoatinn M.B.A., Business Management - San Francisco State University
B.A., Economics - San Francisco State University
Scope of Mr. Mialocq has extensive experience in public sector management auditing, budget analysis and
exnerience design,and financial management and planning. He has managed studies in the following areas: health
care issues including hospitals, public health clinics and mental health inpatient and outpatient programs;
law enforcement issues including patrol deployment and work load, jail staffing and space utilization, etc.;
financial issues including pension fund operations, investmente, cash management, capital improvement
project financing, facility leasing, concession and other financial agreements; transportation issues
including scheduling, staffing, maintenance, equipment utilization, and administration; personnel i88ueS
and other areas.
Professional Harvey M. Rose A<countancy Corporation: Vice President - January 1979 to dete.
himn:x
City and County of San Francisco: Assistant Budget Director and Analyst to the Board of Supervisors -
-March 1973 to December 1978.
City and CoWlty of San Francisco, S.F. International Airport: Assistant Property Manager, Januaxy 1972
to March 1973.
City and County of San Francisco, S.F. International Airport: Accountant, July 1971 to Januaxy 1972.
Professional Manages the Santa Clara County Management Audit Program for the Board of Supervisors. In this
exnerience capacity, supervised the comprehensive management audit of the Department of Children's Services, the
County Counsel. the Superior Court and County Clerk, the Municipal Court, the Sheriffs Office, the
County's Budgetary Policies and Procedures, the Valley Medical Center, the County's Mental Health
huts Services, the Transit District, the County Airports, the Recreation and Parks Department, the
Animal Control Program. the Gamge and Automotive Services Agency, the Purchasing Department and
the Department ofWeighte and Measures. Provided technical supervision on the management audit of
all County-Funded Services provided to the Los Angeles County Municipal Courts including the District
Attorney, Public Defender, Probation Department, Sheriff and Department of Collections. Managed a
study on the implementation status of recommendations contained in the preliminary review of the Los
Angeles County Department of Children's Services; participated in a comprehensive management audit
of the Los Angeles County - Medical Examiner/Coroner's Office and the Martin Luther King Jr. Hospital
Medical Records Unit.
Served as Project Director on the comprehensive management audit of the San Francisco Employees
Retirement System, the management audit and ealary survey of the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and
Transportation District. Performed the financial analysis ofthe District's long term capital improvement
program for the replacement of its 230 motor coaches. Supervised management audits of the San
Francisco Municipal Railway, the the San Francisco Unified School District, and the San Francisco Public
Utilities Commission, and others.
Supervised the analysis ofthe budget of the City and County of San Francisco from 1973 through 1980.
Conducted analyses of concession, rental and lease agreements with concessionaires at Candlestick Park,
Golden Gate Park and the Port of San Francisco. Conducted rate studies of water rates, taxicab rates,
cable TV rates and Muni bus rates for the City and County of San Francisco.
Conducted analyses of San Francisco International Airport, the Port of San Francisco, San Francisco
International Airport General Obligation and Revenue Bonds, Wastewater Revenue Bonds, and the
refinancing of Candlestick Park Revenue Bonds.
~arv.y
ose A___"'--,CarpontiaD
- 21-
.
o
o
STEPHEN A FOTI
Position
Education
Scope of
exnerien~e
Professional
hWm:
Professional
exnerienM
Principal, Senior Manager, Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation
M.P.A., Public Administration of Local and Regional Government, San Jose State University
B.A., Political Science, San Jose State University
Public sector policy and budget analysis, financial analysis, grant
monitoring, budget development and program design.
Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation: Project Manager,
August 1981 to present.
County Executive's Office, Office of Management and Budget, Santa Clara County:
Budget Analyst, 1980-1981.
Board of Supervisors, Santa Clara County: Management Analyst, 1977-1980.
Management Audita (Project Manager): Los Angeles County Internal Services Department;
Oakland Animal Care and Control; Evaluation of Los Angeles County Superior Court Split Court
Session Pilot Program; Oakland Permit Processing Operations; Oakland JTP A Program
Organization; Oakland Visitor and Convention Contractors; Los Angeles County Public Defender
Investigations; City of Oakland Special Projects, 1988-89; County of San Bernardino Probation
Department; Medical Records Retention Procedures at Los Angeles County Martin Luther King,
Jr. Hospital; City of Oakland Department of Public Works; County of Alameda Selected Parking
Citation Collection Functions; San Francisco Department of Public Works Bureau of Building
Inspection; City of Oakland Animal Control Division of the Police Department. Management
Audits (Principal Analyst): Santa Clara County Probation; Los Angeles County Medical
Examiner - Coroner; Santa Clara County Department of Children's Services; Santa Clara County
Counsel; Santa Clara County Municipal Court; Santa Clara County Superior Court and County
Clerk; Santa Clara County Paratransit Services; Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation; Los
Angeles County Procedures Regarding Services Provided to Undocumented Aliens; Procedures
Utilized by all Los Angeles County agencies for Monitoring Contracts for Service; Santa Cruz
County Planning Department; Santa Clara Valley Medical Center; Santa Clara County Mental
Health Bureau, Acute Services; Santa Clara County Transit District; Analysis of Santa Clara
County Transit District Psssenger Vehicle Fleet; Rancho Laguna Seca Alcoholism Rehabilitation
Program (Santa Clara County); City of San Jose Budget Process.
Principal Analyst, review of 1985 through 1989 requestad revenue and expenditure
appropriations, and mid-year budget review, Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors. San
Francisco County Budget Analysis: Health Department, including Laguna Honda Hospital and
Central Office (Outpatient and Public Health Services); Fire Department; Sheriffs Office; Adult
and Juvenile Probation Departments; Public Library. Santa Clara County Budget Analysis and
Management Audits: Department of Correction; Sheriffs Department; Assessment Appeals
Process, County District Attorney's Office, Public Defender and Probation Department;
Department of Social Services, Environmental Health, Parks, CETA Training Programs,
Personnel and Affirmative Action; San Jose Public Works Department; Public Library.
Special Projects: Feasibility Study of the Santa Clara County Humane Society assuming Animal
Control Functions in Santa Clara County. San Francisco Community Development Block Grant
Program Review. Analysis of San Francisco municipal financing, investment and purchasing
practices. Santa Clara County update of Sheriffs Department audit. Santa Clara County Transit
District Life Cycle Cost Demonstration Project.
~arv.y
OS.~~
- 22-
.
o
o
JOHN P. JOHNS
Position
Principal Analyst, Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation
Education
Scope of
exnerience
Professional
history
Professional
exnerience
B.S. Business Administration, University of California, Berkeley.
M.B.A Santa Clara University
Public sector management and budget analysis, operations
coordination and diversified accounting responsibilities.
Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation, Analyst, 1986 to present
Seapac Services, Inc: Operations Coordinator, 1984 - 1986
Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc: Assistant to Sr. Vice President for investments, 1982 _
1984
Management Audits: Stanislaus County Purchasing and Fleet Management
Division (Projeet Manager); Santa Clara County Building Operations, Department
of Corrections, Assessment Appeals; Los Angeles County Split Court Evaluation; San
Bernadino County Solid Waste Management Program; Santa Clara County
Probation Department; Santa Clara County System of Services for the Protection of
Abused and Neglected Children; Santa Barbara Office of the County Superintendent
of Schools; Milpitas Unified School District; Santa Clara County Department of
Children's Services; Santa Clara County Counsel's Office; City of Oakland
Revenue Enhancement Opportunities; Santa Clara County Department of Weights
and Measures; Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation Department, Santa Clara
County Transportation Agency; Ventura County Purchasing Department, Santa
Barbara Planning Department. Assignments have included organizational
analyses; staff productivity analyses; evaluations of program costs to determine
appropriate charge rates; methodologies for increasing State revenues; property and
lease management practices; compliance auditing and analyses of purchasing
practices.
Financial Audits: Jefferson Unified School District, FY 1985-86, FY 1986-87 and FY
1987-88.
Budget Analyses: Santa Clara County Mid-Year Budget Review, FY 1986-87; Santa
Clara County Annual Budget Review, FY 1987-88. Assignments have included
analyses of property tax and motor vehicle in lieu tax collections; investment
income; legislative and executive departments; Tax Collector; County Assessor; and
the Department of Land Use and Development.
Special Projects: Drafting of a manual of policies and procedures for the City of
Mountain View Finance Department; Analysis of Santa Clara County Park Charter
Fund Balance, 1972 through 1987 for compliance with the County's charter
arnendment governing expenditures of tax receipts.
Other Experience: As Operations Coordinator for Seapac Services, Inc., was
responsible for logistical coordination necessary when ocean vessels called into
port. As Assistant to Sr. Vice President for Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. was
responsible for analysis of customer investment accounts and profitability of
potential investrnents.
tjarvey
Rose A~,"'a""7 iCorparatica
- 23-
o
8
KURT ABRAHAMSON
Position
Principal Analyst, Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation
Education
Scope of
exnerience
Professional
history
Professional
exnerience
M.P.P., Public Policy, Harvard University
B.S., Communications, Cornell University
Fiscal and policy analysis, legislative analysis, project appraisal and
management.
Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation, Analyst, October 1989
to present.
Rep. Robert Wise, Jr., U.S. Congress, Legislative Assistant, 1986-1987.
Rep. Robert Wise, Jr., U.S. Congress, GTants and Project Assistant, 1985-1986.
Manapement Audits: Los Angeles County Internal Services Department; San
Francisco Redevelopment Agency; Analysis of City of Oakland Permit Processing,
ConstructionInspection and Code Enforcement Functions; Santa Clara County
Probation Department; Review of Deputy Mayor Functions, San Franciseo Board of
Supervisors.
Additional Proiects' Evalution of Los Angeles Superior Court Split Court Session
Pilot Program; Analysis of Santa Clara Park Charter Revenue Balances and
Program Expenditures
Fiscal and policy analysis of San Francisco City and County legislative agenda
items for Finance, City Services and other Board of Supervisors comrnittees.
As Legislative Assistant for Rep. Robert Wise, Jr., analyzed legislation, prepared
testimony, and drafted legislation for the areas of health, justice and
telecommunications. Assisted constituents with processing of social security,
Medicare and black lung claims.
As Grant and Project Assistant, for Rep. Robert Wise, Jr. aided West Virginia towns
and counties in their efforts to obtain state and federal assistance for public works
and other projects.
~arY.y
os. A_'A"''''''' Cclrpcraticft
- 24-
o
.........
.....,
SECTION V
PROJECT COST
The table below provides our estimate of professional staff hours by staff level,
hourly rate and cost for this proposed project.
The estimated cost of the proposed comDrehensive SCODe management audit is
$77,555 based on a total of 747 estimated professional staff hours. This cost is a
maximum cost and includes all clerical, report production (50 bound copies of the
final report), travel and other costs; no additional costs would be charged. If
additional professional staff hours in excess of 747 are required to complete the
highest quality professional product, such additional hours would be provided at no
additional cost. Alternatively, iffewer hours are required. the maximum cost would
be reduced on an hour for hour basis, based on the applicable staff hourly rates.
Rate Estimated
Staff Level Per Hour BouN ~
Partner $140 20 $ 2,800
Manager 125 345 43,125
Senior Analyst 85 340 28,900
Analyst 65 ~ 2.730
Total 747 .$77 .555
Our detailed work plan provides separate hourly estimates for each subject area for
the audit. Therefore. cost estimates can be made of limited scope management audit
alternatives should the City of San Bernardino's audit objectives change or should
funding be limited. For example, a management audit, that would provide a pre-
audit survey and analysis, a review of organization and structure and a review of
the use of outside counsel would cost approximately $39,000, instead of the $77,555
cost of a comprehensive management audit.
Our proposed work plan is designed to be flexible. It can be altered as necessary in
order to best meet the needs and any fiscal constraints which the City of San
Bernardino might have.
~arv.y
os.~~
- 25-
.
.
J
o
o
HARVEY M. ROSE ACCOUNTANCY CORPORATION
Certified Public Accountants
CORPORATE QUALIFICATIONS
1390 Mamet Street, Suite, 1025
San Francisco, California 94102
(415) 552-9292
(415) 252-0461 (FAX)
955 South Canillo Drive, Suite 202
Los ADgeJes, California 90048-5400
(213) 965-7175
(213) 965-7176 (FAX)
August 1992
/1 r
..
-
-
o
o
o
o
TART.F. OF CONTENTS
~
I. Qualifications of Firm........... ............................................................1
II. Management and Fiscal Audit Experience..........................................6
III. Rates for Services ...........................................................................18
IV. Qualifications and Resumes of Key Staff and Method for
Selecting Project Staff......................................................................19
V. References for the Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation
Certified Public Accountants ...........................................................45
VI. Detailed Project Experience ............................................................. 61
General Administration and Fin..nl'A
Budget Analysis.... ...... .... ............ .......... ............... ...... ...........61
Revenue Source AnalysislEnhancement Strategies................... 6S
FinancelTreasurer, Tax Collector, Assessor............................. 71
Auditor-Controller......... ........ ............ .................................... 75
Civil Service and Personnel.................................................... 76
Retirement Systems and Pension Plans ...................................79
General Government.................... ................................. ........8)
Data Processing .... ............. .............. ............ .........................85
Planning alld Permit Processing............................................. 87
Redevelopment, Housing and Economic Development
Agencies ........ .... .................................................... ...........00
Registrar of Voters ...... ........................................... ...............96
Convention and Visitors Bureau............................................. !B
Culture and Recreation
Libraries ..... .......... ..... .......................... ................................ ffi
Cable Tele17ision ...................................................................1CK>
Museums ....... .... ...... .... ..................................................... ..101
Parks and Recreation.......................... .... .......... ................. ...102
Health. WAlr...... and l'lntoi..ll'lA1"Vi1'JP<\
Public Hospitals............................................................ ..... ..105
Children's Services.............................................................. .107
Social Services..................................................................... .110
Homeless Services... ........... .... ............ .................... .... ....... ...113
Community Mental Health and Substance Abuse
Services............................................................................ .114
-
o
o
Fmm
PtJh1i~ Prn~on
Coroner .............. .................... ........................................... ..116
Fire Safety...... ..... .............................................................. ..117
Police, Sheriff and Correction Departments.............................llB
Court and Detention Services Including Public Defender ..........122
Adult and Juvenile Probation Departments .............................127
Animal Control. ..... ....................... .......................................129
EJlhlic Works.. Tranmv\rt.Ation and Ptl~~RmnO'
Public Works, Purchasing and General Services Agencies........l3O
Wastewater, Sewer and Solid Waste Programs ........................136
Building Inspection.......................... ....................................138
Central Garage and Vehicle Fleet..........................................139
Parking Control..... ......... ........ .......... ........................ ......... ..141
Transit and Paratransit Services............................................l42
Public ~""~ Rnt~QAQ Sind ~Rl DiQtrict8
Airports ......... ....... ............ ......... ..... .................................. ..145
Harbors.............................................................................. .146
Water and Power.. ....... ...................................................... ...147
School Districts ..... ....... .... ....... ........ ... .......... .... .... ... .......... ...148
-
..
o
-
1'""\
V
-
-
o
o
L o.l..1ification.!IOfFirm
The Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation Certified Public
Accountants specializes in management services for the public sector. The
corporation has extensive experience in conducting management audits, budget
analyses, financial audits and research projects for governmental agencies. Over
the past ten years, the Corporation staff has performed over 225 such analyses of
public agencies ranging from small municipalities to some of the largest and
most complex governmental service providers in California, with budgets in
excess of $2.7 billion annually. Through our services, the Corporation has
assisted many county and city agencies and special purpose districts throughout
California in allocating and managing their resources in a more efficient,
effective and economical manner and we have developed a reputation as a leading
firm in the area of public agency management.
The Corporation's clients have included numerous Grand Juries, boards of
supervisors, county administrative officers, city managers and boards of directors
of special districts throughout California. We have or are providing management
and fiscal audit and budget review services to the following clients:
· The County Grand Juries of:
Amador County
Fresno County
Kern County
Lassen County
Los Angeles County
Marin County
Merced County
Nevada County
San Bernardino County
San Mateo County
Santa Barbara County
Santa Cruz County
Siskiyou County
Solano County
Sonoma County
- Tulare County
- Ventura County
· The San Francisco Board of Supervisors (on an ongoing basis since
1979);
· The Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors (on an ongoing basis
since 1980);
-1-
o
o
. The Chief Administrative Officer of Los Angeles County;
. The Chief Administrative Officer of San Francisco County;
· The Chief Administrative Officer of Stanislaus County;
· The County Administrative Officer of Mendocino County;
· Butte County - County Counsel's Office;
· The Auditor General of the State of California;
· The Auditor-Controller of Los Angeles County;
· The City Manager of the City ofEI Segundo;
· The City Manager of the City of Oakland;
· The City Manager of the City of Fullerton;
· The City Manager of the City of Cerritos;
· The City Manager of the City of Belmont;
· The City Manager of the City of East Palo Alto;
· The City Auditor of the City of San Jose;
· The Santa Clara County Transit District;
· The Executive Director of the Port of Oakland;
· The Metropolitan Transportation Commission;
. The Board of Directors of the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District;
· The Board of Directors of the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway, and
Transportation District;
· The Board of Education of the Milpitas Unified School District;
· The Board of Directors of the Ukiah Unified School District;
· Contra Costa County Superintendent of Schools;
· The Jefferson School District, Daly City;
· The Finance Director of the City of Mountain View;
-2-
-
c
()
· The City Manager of the City of Vallejo;
· The Board of Directors of the Oakley Sanitary District;
· Discovery Bay Property Owner's Association;
· The City Manager of the City of Orinda;
· Director, Recreation and Park Department of the City of Alameda;
· The Governing Board and Chancellor of the San Francisco
Community College District;
· The City Manager of the City of Modesto;
· The Policy Analyst of the City of San Jose;
· The Superior and Municipal Courts of Los Angeles County.
The Corporation staff is very familiar with the operations of government
agencies at all levels because the firm's services are provided almost exclusively
to government. Because of this, the Corporation staff has earned a reputation for
its ability to quickly identify problem areas, collect and analyze all .relevant
information and prepare effective recommendations within the government
setting, all in a timely manner. The Corporation has also earned a reputation for
conducting its analyses and audits in an independent and objective manner. We
have a commitment to meeting all of our clients' deadlines and to providing
follow-up services whenever needed.
We have conducted comprehensive management audits of virtually every
type of government agency, including treasurer/tax collector, personnel, public
health and hospitals, public works, social welfare services, police and sheriff
services, transit districts, municipal and superior courts, planning, airports, and
others. In all of our audits and analyses, our work has not only improved our
clients' abilities to allocate and manage their resources more effectively, but it has
also saved our clients literally millions of dollars through the development of
conceptually sound, practical solutions to their problems. In our judgement, the
value of our services is best demonstrated by the savings realized by our clients
and the improved efficiency and effectiveness of their operations.
Specific services provided by the firm include the following:
· Management auditing;
· Performance monitoring and auditing;
· Program evaluation;
-3-
-
"'"
v
()
. Financial auditing;
· Research projects;
· Operational and organizational reviews;
· Budget review and analysis;
· Analysis and projection of revenues;
· Design and installation of budget systems, including program and
performance budgets;
· Audit and budget training programs;
· Design and installation of accounting and financial reporting systems;
· Review of staff utilization, work measurement and work standards;
· Personnel classification studies and salary surveys; and
· Review of personnel policies, systems and procedures.
In performing our comprehensive management audits and program
evaluations, topics covered have included:
· Management policies and structure;
· Organizational structure;
· Communications within the department and with other agencies;
· Compliance with all applicable federal and state laws;
· Appropriateness of staffing level and allocation;
· Potential revenue enhancements;
· Budget controls and expenditure policies;
· Administrative policies and procedures;
· Level of service to the public;
· Lines of authority and span of control;
· Space utilization; and
· Staff training activities.
-4-
-
o
o
Rst~k'P"rnllnrl orillA (jorooration
The Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation Certified Public
Accountants was formed after the voters of San Francisco approved a charter
amendment which allows the City and County of San Francisco to contract out for
services if a private firm can provide the same services as civil service staff at less
cost. At that time, San Francisco's Budget Bureau was a civil service office
headed by Mr. Rose. However, by forming a private corporation to provide the
same services, Mr. Rose and his staff have been able to produce annual savings in
excess of $200,000 for the City and County of San Francisco, primarily by reducing
mandatory civil service costs such as pension contributions. Under contract, the
Corporation has continued to provide the identical services to the San Francisco
Board of Supervisors while expanding the staff to provide similar services to
numerous other governing bodies, county administrators, civil grand juries and
city managers.
-5-
o
o
-
o
o
n. ~SlnAstement Anti Fi.4iWm Audit Exnerience
A list of all areas in which the Corporation has conducted management
and fiscal audits and budget analyses is presented below. As can be seen, we have
performed analyses in virtually all areas of local government operations. This
extensive experience saves time for our clients since our staff knows which
questions to ask, what documents to review and, generally, how to approach a
government agency to quickly identify and document areas where operations
could be improved. Additionally, the Corporation staff is familiar with
comparable operations in other jurisdictions which provides useful comparative
information for evaluating an agency's policies and procedures. A list of specific
audits and clients follows the list of management and fiscal audits and budget
analysis topics below.
General Aihnlni~tration and FinAn~
Assessor
Auditor/Controller
Civil Service and Personnel
Data Processing
Retirement Systems and Pension Plans
Legislative Bodies
General Govenunent
Planning and Permit Processing
Housing and Redevelopment Agencies
Revenue Source Analysis/Enhancement Strategies
. Treasurertrax Collector including all Business Taxes and Licenses
Registrar of Voters
Convention and Visitors Bureaus
Culture SIn" R-...tion
Libraries
Cable Television
Museums
Parks and Recreation
Health Anti Welfare
Public Hospitals
Social Services (Welfare)
Homeless Services
Children's Services
Community Mental Health Substance Abuse Services
Emergency Services
Puhlip.Proh>iMion
Fire Safety
Coroner
Police, Sheriff and Correction Departments
Court and Detention Services
Animal Control
-6-
..
o
o
District Attorney
. Public Defender
Adult Probation
Juvenile Probation
Public Works. 1'"In<mnri..tlnn and Pu1"P.h...nn...
Purchasing, Public Works and General Services Agencies
Public Utilities
Building Inspection
Central Garage and Vehide Fleet
Parking Control
Transit and Paratransit Services
Public Service Rnt~RAQ Sind RnAPial Diqtricbl
Airports
Ports
Water Districts
School Districts
County Offices of Education
Sewer Districts
Solid Waste
Refuse Collection Rates
M..n"l!'ement and Fiscal Audits. Budl!'et An..1V5el! and Other An<\lvses of ('A)1Pltv
and Citv A_rw.ies and RnAPi..l PtJrrJoRe Di<dricb; Conilucted bv thP. Cornoration
The following is a list of mAn'lgement and fiscal audits and budget analyses
of local government operations performed by the Corporation over the last ten
years.
1992-93
The Corporation has been authorized to conduct the following management
audits and analyses of the following city and county agencies this fiscal year as of
July 1, 1992. Additional projects will be added as the fiscal year progresses.
Client
A2'encvlProiect
Board of Supervisors, City and
County of San Francisco
Management Audit of the Clean
Water Program
Management Audit of the Internal
Services Department
Chief Administrative Officer,
Los Angeles County
-7-
-
o
Client
Board of Supervisors, Santa
Clara County
City Manager, City of Oakland
Office of Policy Analysis,
City of San Jose
Board of Supervisors, Santa
Clara County
Chief Administrative Officer,
Stanislaus County
Board of Supervisors, City
and County of San Francisco
Board of Supervisors, City
and County of San Francisco
1991-92
Grand Jury, San Bernardino
County
Grand Jury, San Bernardino
County
Board of Supervisors, City and
County of San Francisco
Board of Supervisors, City
and County of San Francisco
Board of Supervisors, City
and County of San Francisco
Chief Adm;n;strative Officer,
Stanislaus County
o
.Al!encvlProiect
Management Audit of the Corrections
Department
Management Audit of the Animal
Control Section of the Oakland Police
Department
Review of Revenue Projections and
Detailed Budget Estimates
Management Audit of Assessment
Appeals Process
Preparation of Model Budget Document
and Evaluation of Budget Process
Review of All Expenditures Related to
the Loma Prieta Earthquake
Management Audit of the Department
of Social Services
Management Audit of the San
Bernardino County Lease Agreement
with Lockheed Aircraft Services and
Development Project at the Chino
Airport
Management Audit of the San
Bernardino County Department of
Airports Leasing Administration for
the Chino Airport
Management Audit of the
Redevelopment Agency
Survey of Programs for Senior Citizens
(Phase 1); Needs or Gaps in Services
for Senior Citizens (Phase II)
Management Audit of the Senior
Escort Program
Review of the Purchasing Department
-8-
-
o
Client
Board of Supervisors, Santa
Clara County
Governing Board, San Francisco
Community College District
Office of Policy Analysis,
City of San Jose
City Manager, City of Modesto
Board of Supervisors, City and
County of San Francisco
City Manager, City of Oakland
Chief Administrative Officer, City
and County of San Francisco
Board of Supervisors, Santa
Clara County
Board of Supervisors, City and
County of San Francisco
1990-91
San Bernardino County
Grand Jury
Marin County Grand Jury
Marin County Grand Jury
Board of Supervisors,
Santa Clara County
o
AO'PnmrlProiect
Building Operations Division,
General Services Agency
Evaluation of Budget Process
Review of Revenue Projections
and Detailed Budget Estimates
Review of Cost of Property Tax
Administration by Stanislaus County
Review of Salary Standardization
Process for Miscellaneous Employees
Management Audit of the Permit
Processing, Construction Inspection
and Code Enforcement Functions of
City of Oakland Departments
Review of Solid Waste Management
Program Rate Application
Review of the Operations of the Family
Support Division of the Office of the
District Attorney
Survey of Senior Citizens Programs
Provided in San Francisco
Management Audit of the County's
Solid Waste Disposal Contracts and the
Solid Waste Enterprise Fund Balances
Audit of Marin County Garage
Internal Controls
Limited Review of Golden Gate Bridge
Gift Center and Friends of the Golden
Gate
Analysis of Ballpark Financing
Strategies and Funding Options
-9-
-
o
.
Client
Chief Administrative Officer,
Los Angeles County
Board of Supervisors,
Santa Clara County
Tulare County Grand Jury
Board of Supervisors,
City and County of San Francisco
City Manager, City of Orinda
City Manager, City ofValIejo
o
AmmcvlProiect
Evaluation of the Los Angeles County
Split Court Session Pilot Project
Management Audit of the Probation
Department
Management Audit of Tulare County's
Decision Making Functions
Management Audit of the Purchasing
Department
Analysis of the Costs Incurred by the
County of Contra Costa in Providing
Various Services to the Citizens of
Orinda
Review of the City's General Fund
Projections and Assessing the General
Fund Reserve Policy
Director of the Recreation and Park Conduct a Time and Motion Study
Department, City of Alameda of the City's Park System
Governing Board of the San
Francisco Community College
District
1989-90
Board of Supervisors, City
and County of San Francisco
Auditor-Controller,
Los Angeles County
Board of Supervisors,
Santa Clara County
Planning and Police Departments
San Jose
-10-
Review, monitor and evaluate the
budget process of the San Francisco
Community College District
Review and Analysis of the Deputy
Mayor Function in the Office of the
Mayor
Management Audit of the Medical
Examiner-Coroner Department
Management Audit on the County's
System of Services for the Protection
of Abused and Neglected Children
Provided by the Social Services Agency
and the Probation Department.
Review of the Work Management
System in the Planning and Police
Departments
o
.
Client
San Mateo County Grand Jury
Children's Services Division
Los Angeles
Convention and Visitor's Bureau
and Northern California Black
Chamber of Commerce
City of Oakland
San Bernardino County Grand
Jury
City Manager, City of Oakland
Ventura County Grand Jury
Resource Management Department
Santa Barbara County
1988-89
City Manager, City of Oakland
Chief Anm;n;strative Officer,
City and County of San Francisco
Auditor-Controller,
Los Angeles County
-11-
o
Mencv/Proiect
Management Audit of the County
Controller's Office
Evaluation of the Department of
Children's Services Planning and
Implementation Efforts Related to the
Adoptions Division Corrective Action
Plan
Management and Organizational
Study of the Oakland Convention and
Visitor's Bureau and the Northern
California Black Chamber of
Commerce Related to Services Funded
by the City of Oakland
Management Audit of the Homeless
Assistance Component Aid to Families
with Dependent Children Program
Review of Opportunities for the
Consolidation or Contracting of City
Activities and of Existing Contracts
and Major Revenues for the City
of Oakland
Management Audit of the Ventura
County Purchasing Function
Management Audit of the County
Resource Management (Planning)
Department
Review of Implementation of
Recommendations from all Previous
Management Audits Conducted for
City
Review of Appropriateness of City's
Garbage Rates.
Management Audit of Department of
Children's Services Adoptions Division
-
o
Client
Board of Supervisors, City and
County of San Francisco
Contra Costa County
Superin~ndentofSchoills
1987-88
o
.Ai!encvlProiect
Management Audit of City's Planning
and Building Inspection Permit
Process
Audit of Assets Available for Health
Benefit Claims
San Bernardino County Grand Jury Management Audit of Probation
Department
Santa Barbara County Grand Jury
San Ma~o County Grand Jury
Amador County Grand Jury
Board of Supervisors,
Santa Clara County
Board of Supervisors, City and
County of San Francisco
Board of Supervisors,
Santa Clara County
City Manager, City of East
Palo Alto
Board of Directors, Ukiah Unified
School District
Jefferson School District (Daly
City, California)
-12-
Management Audit of Office of County
Superin~ndent of Schools
Treasurer/Retirement Sys~m
Management AuditlFisca1 Review of
City of lone (Amador County)
County Transportation Agency
Marketing Division
City-wide Compliance with Minority
and Women's Business En~rprise
Ordinance
Recreation and Parks Department
Analysis of City Budget and
Development of Recommended
Revenue Reductions
Analysis of District Budget and
Management Audit of Business
Services Office
Financial Audit of School District
-
o
Client
1986-87
Board of Supervisors,
Santa Clara County
Board of Supervisors,
Santa Clara County
City of Fullerton
City of Cerritos
Board of Supervisors,
City and County of San Francisco
City Manager, City of Oakland
Executive Director,
Port of Oakland
Santa Clara County
Transit District
Kern County Grand Jury
Los Angeles County Grand Jury
Los Angeles County Grand Jury
o
.A2'encvlProiect
Department of Weights and
Measures
County Clerk and Superior Court
Police Department
Redevelopment Agency
Department of Public Health
City Planning Department and
Bureau of Building Inspection
Department of Public Works
Legal Department
Feasibility study of County
Transportation Plan
Department of Public Works
Children's Services
Assessment of County Procedures
Regarding Services Provided to
lJndocumented Aliens
Analysis of County's Contract
Monitoring Procedures
San Bernardino County Grand Jury Airports Department
Board of Directors, Bay Area Air
Quality Management District
Santa Barbara County Grand Jury
Milpitas lJnified School District
Board of Education
Jefferson School District
-13-
Classification Study, Salary Survey
and Comparable Worth Analysis
Resource Management Department
Milpitas lJnified School District
School District (Financial Audit)
-
o
Client
1985-86
City ofEI Segundo
Auditor General,
State of California
Board of Supervisors,
Santa Clara County
Santa Clara County
Board of Supervisors
Board of Supervisors,
City and County of San Francisco
Board of Supervisors,
City and County of San Francisco
Kern County Grand Jury
Executive Director,
Port of Oakland
Executive Director,
Port of Oakland
County Administrative Officer,
County of Mendocino
()
Asrencv/PrQiect
All City Departments
(Program Budget Development)
Peralta Community College
District (Alameda County)
Municipal Court
Mental Health Department
Port of San Francisco
Citizens Telecommunications Policy
Committee
Assessor;
General Services
Personnel Department
Finance Department
Court Data Processing
Board of Directors, Alameda-Contra Analysis of Management Study
Costa Transit District on Personnel
City Manager, City of Oakland
City Auditor, City of San Jose
Jefferson School District
(Daly City, California)
-14-
Economic Development and
Employment; Grants Management
Office
Review of proposed 1986-87 Budget and
Budget Process; Analysis of Selected
Legislation for City Council
School District (Financial Audit)
-
o
Client
1984-85
San Bernardino County Grand Jury
Fresno County Grand Jury
Amador County Grand Jury
Executive Director,
Port of Oakland
Board of Supervisors,
City and County of San Francisco
Board of Supervisors, City
and County of San Francisco
San Jose City Council
City Manager, City of Oakland
City Manager, City of Oakland
City Manager, City of Oakland
City Manager, City of Oakland
1983-84
Los Angeles County Grand Jury
Los Angeles County Grand Jury
-15-
o
MencvlProiect
Children's Services (Health and
Mental Health Departments,
Probation, District Attorney, Social
Services, Data Processing, Public
Defender, Superintendent of Schools,
Sherifl).
Auditor Controllerll'reasurer
General Services (Purchasing), Road
Department, Surveyor
Data Processing
Treasurer-Tax Collector
San Francisco Convention and City
Visitor's Bureau
Analysis of City-wide Budget
Procedures
General Services: Purchasing Fleet
MBn~ement;Trmncffignal
Maintenance; Phone Systems;
Building Maintenance.
Recreation and Parks
Oakland Museum
Social Services
District Attorney, Public Defender,
Sheriff, Probation Department and
Department of Collections (Support
Services provided to the Municipal
Courts).
Lynwood Unified School District
-
o
Client
Los Angeles County Grand Jury
Board of Supervisors,
City and County of San Francisco
City Manager, City of Oakland
Solano County Grand Jury
Lassen County Grand Jury
Nevada County Grand Jury
Board of Supervisors,
Santa Clara County
Board of Supervisors,
City and County of San Francisco
Board of Supervisors,
City and County of San Francisco
City Manager, City of Oakland
1982-83
City Manager, City of Oakland
Siskiyou County Grand Jury
Ventura County Grand Jury
Santa Cruz County Grand Jury
Board of Supervisors,
Santa Clara County
-16-
o
AstencvlPrQiect
Selected Community Redevelopment
Agencies of Los Angeles County
Municipal Court of San Francisco
General Services Department
Elmira Fire Protection District
Treasurertrax Collector and
Budgeting Procedures of Lassen
County
Truckee-Donner Public Utility District
Santa Clara County Transit District;
Rancho Laguna Seca (County
Alcoholism Services Contractor)
Recreation and Parks Department:
Candlestick Park and Alternative
Stadium Sites
Rent Stabilization and Arbitration City
Board; Juvenile Probation Department
and Courts
Oakland Museum
Oakland Police Department
Public Works and Planning
Departments
Personnel Department
PlanningIBuilding Inspection
Department
Valley Medical Center (Santa Clara
County Hospital)
-
o
~
-....I
Client .Al!'enevlProiect
Santa Clara County Santa Clara County Paratransit
Services Coordinating Council
City Manager, City of Oakland Oakland Fire Department
County Administrator, Mendocino Treasurer-Tax Collector
City Manager, City of Oakland Oakland Library
Other County Agencies audited for our ongoing contracts with the San Francisco
Board of Supervisors and the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors include the
following:
San Francisco
Police Department
Fire Department
Public Utilities Commission
Civil Service Commission
San Francisco International Airport
Wastewater Program
Department of Social Services (General Assistance, AFDC)
Recreation and Parks Dept.
Santa Clara
Fiscal functions of law and justice agencies
Sheriffs Department
Environmental Management Agency
Animal Control Program
Alcoholism Services Bureau
-17-
- -
o
o
-
o
o
IlL Rates for Services
The billing rates for the Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation Certified
Public Accountants are as follows:
Staff Level
Hourlv Rate
Partner
Project Manager
Principal Analyst
Senior Analyst
Analyst
$140
125
100
&5
En
Based on the above rates, the cost for a management and fiscal audit would
vary depending on the number of hours required. We would estimate the number
of hours required for a particular job based on the size and complexity of the
agency to be examined as well as any budgetary constraints facing the client.
Once the client selects an agency or function to be examined and audited,
we will provide an estimate of the rn..Yirnum cost for conducting the project based
on the total number of hours and the number and level of staff analysis needed to
complete the project. This estimated amount would represent our total
maximum cost to the client. In other words, no additional costs whatsoever
would be charged since our hourly rates listed above cover all of our expenses
including clerical support, travel, field expenses and report preparation.
Furthermore, if additional staff hours in excess of our estimates are required to
provide the highest quality product, we will expend such additional hours at no
cost to the client. Alternatively, if fewer hours than those estimated are required,
we will reduce our total billings on an hour-for-hour basis based on our rates for
the appropriate staff levels.
-18-
-
~
-
-
~
~
o
o
-
o
o
IV. Q,lRJifications Rnd Resumes ofKev ~mff and Method for ~JP.M:ill'" Proiect ~mff
This section presents brief descriptions and resumes of the firm's partners
followed by resumes of our key staff. As can be seen by reviewing the resumes on
the following pages, our staff has extensive experience in all areas of local
government operations. The analysts to be assigned to a project team are selected
based on their experience in the area designated for review. The names and
resumes of all selected project team members would be presented to the client for
their review and approval prior to project commencement to insure the client of a
qualified project team.
The Corporation's partners are Mr. Harvey M. Rose and Mr. Roger
Mialocq, president and vice president, respectively. Mr. Rose and Mr. Mialocq
are responsible for overseeing all work conducted by the firm's staff, including
project design, project performance and final reports.
Harvev M. Rose. President. Mr. Rose is a recognized leader in the field of public
sector management auditing and fiscal analysis. He has dedicated his career to
improving public sector operations through the use of management audits and
budget analysis. Prior to starting the Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation
Certified Public Accountants in 1979, Mr. Rose served as civil service Budget
Analyst to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, Auditor General of the State of
California, Management Examiner for the City Administrative Officer of the City
of Los Angeles and Supervisory Auditor for the Los Angeles Region of the U.S.
General Accounting Office.
Ro!!'er Mialoco. Vice President. Mr. Mialocq has extensive experience in public
sector management auditing, financial management and planning and budget
analysis and design, He has managed the ongoing management audit program
for the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors since 1980 and has had audit
experience in virtually every type of county government agency. He has also
served as Project Manager for numerous management audits of departments in
San Francisco County for the Board of Supervisors. Prior to joining the
Corporation, Mr. Mialocq served as Assistant Budget Director to the San
Francisco Board of Supervisors and Assistant Property Manager at the San
Francisco International Airport.
Full resumes of Mr. Rose and Mr. Mialocq along with selected key staff
analysts are included on the following pages.
-19-
-
o
o
HARVEY M. ROSE
Position
President, Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation
Professional
Qualifications
Education
Scope of
exneTien ce
Professional
history
Professional
exnerience
Professional
affiliations
Certified Public Accountant, State of California
B.B.A., Accounting, University of Miami, Florida
Mr. Rose is a recognized leader in the field of public sector management auditing.
His experience includes comprehensive reviews of all aspects of budget and
financial analysis at the Federal, State, City and County levels. He has served as
financial and budget advisor to both legislative bodies and chief executives.
President, Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation: January 1979 to present.
Board of Supervisors, City and County of San Francisco: Budget Director and
Analyst, 1975-1979.
State of California: Auditor General, 1973-1975.
Board of Supervisors, City and County of San Francisco: Budget Director and
Analyst, 1971-1973.
City of Los Angeles, City Administrative Office (Management Audit Division):
Management Examiner, 1966-1971.
U.S. General Accounting Office, Los Angeles, California: Supervisory Auditor,
1962-1966.
Presently serves, under contract to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, as the
Board's Budget Analyst and chief fiscal advisor.
As State of California Auditor General, was in charge of conducting management
and financial audits and organization and staffing surveys of State agencies.
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants.
California Society of Certified Public Accountants (Governmental Accounting. and
Auditing Committee, San Francisco Chapter).
?n
o
o
ROGER MIALOCQ
Position
Vice President, Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation
Education
M.B.A., Business Management - San Francisco State University
B.A., Economics - San Francisco State University
Scope of
eXDAM encp-
Mr. Mialocq has extensive experience in public sector management auditing, budget analysis and design,
and financial management and planning. He has managed studies in the following areas: health care
issues including hospitals, public health clinics and mental health inpatient and outpatient programs; law
enforcement issues including patrol deployment and work load, jail staffing and space utilization, etc.;
financial issues including pension fund operations, investments, cash management, capital improvement
project financing, facility leasing, concession and other financial agreements; transportation issues
including scheduling, staffing, maintenance, equipment utilization, and administration; personnel issues
and other areas.
Professional
hW=
Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation: Vice President _ January 1979 to date.
City and County of San Francisco: Assistant Budget Director and Aoalyst to the Board of Supervisors _
March 1973 to December 1978.
City and County of San Francisco, S.F. International Airport: Assistant Property Manager, January 1972
to March 1973.
City and County of San Francisco, S.F. International Airport: Accountant, July 1971 to January 1972.
Professional Manage a study on the implementation status of recommendations contained in the preliminary review
exnerience of the Los Angeles County Department of Children's Services; participated in a comprehensive
management audit of the Los Angeles County - Medical Examiner/Coroner's Office and the Martin
Luther King Jr. Hospital Medical Records Unit. Manages the Santa Clara County Management Audit
Program for the Board of Supervisors. In this capacity, supervised the comprehensive management
audit of the Department of Children's Services, the County Counsel, the SuperiOr Court and County Clsrk,
the Municipal Court, the Sherift's Office, the County's Budgetary Policies and Procedures, the Valley
Medical Center, the County's Mental Health Acute Services, the Transit District, the County Airports, the
Recreation and Parks Department, the Animal Control Program, the Garage and Automotive Services
Agency, the Purchasing Department and the Department of Weights and Measures. Providsd technical
supervision on the management audit of all County-Funded Services providsd to the Los Angeles County
Municipal Courts including the District Attorney, Public Defender, Probation Department, Sheriff and
Department of Collections.
Served as Project Director on the comprehensive management audit of the San Francisco Employees
Retirement System, the management audit and salary survey of the Goldsn Gate Bridge, Highway and
Transportation District. Performed the financial analysis of the District's long term capital improvement
program for the replacement of its 280 motor coaches. Supervised management audits of the San
Francisco Municipal Railway, the the San Francisco Unified School District, and the San Francisco Public
Utilities Commission, and others.
Supervised the analysis ofthe budget of the City and County of San Francisco from 1973 through 1980.
Conducted analyses of concession, rental and lease agreements with concessionaires at Candlestick Park,
Golden Gate Park and the Port of San Francisco. Conducted rate studies of water rates, taxicab rates,
cable TV rates and Muni bus rates for the City and County of San Francisco.
Conducted analyses of San Francisco International Airport, the Port of San Francisco, San Francisco
International Airport General Obligation and Revenue Bonds, Wastewater Revenue Bonda, and the
refinancing of Candlestick Park Revenue Bonds.
21
-
o
o
KURT ABRAHAMSON
Position
Principal Analyst, Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation
Education
Scope of
exnerience
Professional
hi storv
Professional
exnerience
M.P.P., Public Policy, Harvard University
B.S., Communications, CornelI University
Fiscal and policy analysis, legislative analysis, project appraisal and
management.
Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation, Analyst, October 1989
to present.
Rep. Robert Wise, Jr., U.S. Congress, Legislative Assistant, 1986-1987.
Rep. Robert Wise, Jr., U.S. Congress, Grants and Project Assistant, 1985-1986.
Mana~ement Audits: Analysis of City of Oakland Permit Processing, Construction
Inspection and Code Enforcement Functions; Santa Clara County Probation
Department; Review of Deputy Mayor Functions, San Francisco Board of
Supervisors.
Additional Proiects: Evalution of Los Angeles Superior Court Split Court Session
Pilot Program; Analysis of Santa Clara Park Charter Revenue Balances and
Program Expenditures
Fiscal and policy analysis of San Francisco City and County legislative agenda
items for Finance, City Services and other Board of Supervisors committees.
As Legislative Assistant for Rep. Robert Wise, Jr., analyzed legislation, prepared
testimony, and drafted legislation for the areas of health, justice and
telecommunications. Assisted constituents with processing of social security,
Medicare and black lung claims.
As Grant and Project Assistant, for Rep. Robert Wise, Jr. aided West Virginia towns
and counties in their efforts to obtain state and federal assistance for public works
and other projects.
??
-
o
o
JACQUELINE BARSH
Position
Consultant, Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation
Education
Scope of
exnArience
Professional
historv
Professional
exnerien ce
M.S., Public Management and Policy, minor in Business Administration, Carnegie
Mellon University, May 1990
B.A., Political Science and Philosophy, minor in Economics, University of
Pittsburgh, May 1988
Fiscal and policy analysis, budgetary review, statistical analysis, and database
management
Wallace, Mah & Louie Certified Public Accountants, Affiliated with Harvey M.Rose
Accountancy Corporation: Budget Analyst, July 1991 to present
Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation, Analyst, February 1991 to June 1991
Shadyside Hospital, Planning Department, Research Assistant, April 1990-
September 1990
Western Pennsylvania Advanced Technology Center, Graduate Intern, May 1989-
September 1989
As Budget Analyst, Fiscal and policy analyses of San Francisco City and County
legislative agenda items for Finance, City Services and other Board of Supervisors
committees, performed budget review of various departments and recommended
reductions, completed special projects, including an audit of all funds authorized
and expended by the City and County of San Francisco as a result of the 1989 Lorna
Prieta earthquake.
As Research Assistant for the Planning Department at Shadyside Hospital,
performed statistical analysis of staffing needs, and performed financial analysis
for medical services business plan, and for State of Pennsylvania Certificate of Need
applications for proposed capital improvement projects.
As Graduate Intern at the Western Pennsylvania Advanced Technology Center,
analyzed projects funded through a State Department of Commerce economic
development program for number of jobs created, products developed, and company
start-ups, and incorporated data into a database.
')')
..
o
o
SANDRA BROWN-RICHARDSON
Position
Consultant, Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation
Education
Scope of
exnerience
Professional
historY
Professional
exnerience
B.A. Social Science, San Jose State University, San Jose, 1966
Budget preparation, contract negotiations and monitoring, administering
Federal and State grant awards, program planning and evaluation, office
management procedures, and fiscal and legislative analysis.
Stanton W. Jones and Associates, Affiliated with Harvey M. Rose
Accountancy Corporation: Budget Analyst - San Francisco Board of Supervisors!
Management Auditor, April 1988 to present.
Administrative Trainee, Project Analyst, Administrative Services Assistant,
Alameda County, 1974-1984.
Budget Analyst - duties include, budget and management analysis and .
legislative/policy analysis.
Management Audits - City of Oakland and the Los Angeles County Coroner.
Administrative Trainee, County Administrato.r's Office - analyzed
departmental budgets, reviewed RFP's submitted for Revenue Sharing Funds,
provided administrative support to community agencies and participated as a
team member in the development of a county-wide plan for the delivery of social
services (Human Services Council).
Project Analyst, Alameda County Treatment Alternative's to Street Crime
Program (TASC) - managed the fiscal operations of the program. Duties
included: preparation of the program budget; monitoring of program
expenditures; preparation of quarterly statistical reports; and supervision of the
clerical staff.
Administrative Services Assistant - prepared departmental budgets and
administered 40 contracts and subcontracts, which were funded by Federal, State
and County funds.
'>/.
-
o
KENNETH BRUCE
o
Position
Principal, Senior Manager, Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation
Education
M.A., Urban and Regional Science
B.A., Eronomics, Geography - State University of New York at Buffalo
Scope of
Experience
Management auditing, budget, policy and legislative analysis; financial forecasting and rate
analyses (water rates, solid waste rolIection and disposal, hydroelectric power sales;) extensive
project management experience involving alI subject matters and levels of government.
Professional Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation: Principal, Senior Manager - January 1979 to present.
history
City and County of San Francisco Board of Supervisors, Bureau of the Budget, City and County of
San Francisco: Associate Budget Analyst, 1977-1979.
Erie County New York: County Executive's Office, Administrative Consultant, 1975-1977. Erie
County Department of Mental Health: Manpower Program Coordinator, 1974-1975; Systems
Analyst, 1973-1974.
Recent
professional
experience
Ongoing responsibility as chief assistant to Harvey M. Rose, Budget Analyst to the Board of .
Supervisors, City and County of San Francisco. Duties include review and analysis of City-wide
expenditures and revenues, economic and policy analyses; manager for special projects.
Project Manager, Mana~ement Audit of San Bernardino County Solid Waste Mana~ement
Pro&ram. San Bernardino County Grand Jury.
Project Manager: Analysis of BalIpark Qperatin~ Cost Projections and Alternative Fundin~
Sources: Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors
Project Manager, Management Audit Services to Marin County Grand Jury 1989-90.
Project Manager: Mana~ement Audit of Los An~eles County Chief Medical Examiner - Coroner
(under rontract with Los Angeles County Auditor-ControlIer): Detailed Management Audit and
technical review of forensic pathology, toxicology and operation of entire Los Angeles County
Medical Examiner - Coroner Department.
Project Manager: Review and Analysis of Downtown BalIpark Proposal: Board of Supervisors,
City and County of San Francisco: Detailed review and report on the long-tenn costs and benefit
projections of forecasts for the proposed downtown ballpark.
Project Manager: Review and Analysis of DeJlUty Mayor Function: Board of Supervisors, City and
County of San Francisco - Review and analysis of the seven Deputy Mayor positions in the San
. Francisco Mayor's Office; comparative cost and positions analyses; survey of prevailing practices
in Mayors' Offices nationwide.
Project Manager: Alternative Refuse ColIection and Disposal Rate - Settin~ Methodolo~ies:
Chief Administrative Officer, City and County of San Francisco - provision of regulatory,
economic and policy recommendations.
Ongoing Consultation, Review of Refuse Collection and Disposal Rate Application: Chief
Administrative Officer, City and County of San Francisco (1989, 1990, 1991).
Project Manager: Recommendations for Budget Development Improvement: San Francisco
Community College District Governing Board.
Project Manager: management audit of County-wide Contract Monitorin~ Functions.Qlunty of Los
Angeles Civil Grand Jury.
')~
..
o
o
WILLIAM D. COURTRIGHT
PO!1lit.ion
Principal, Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation
Professional
Qualifications
Education
Scope of
eXDp.riencp.
Professional
history
Professional
exnerience
Certified Public Accountant, State of California
B.S. Business and Public Administration (Accounting), University of
Maryland
Mr. Courtright has specialized throughout his professional career in
accounting, financial auditing and management advisory services. He has
served as financial advisor, auditor and accountant for both local governments
and the private sector.
Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation: Principal, January 1979 to
present.
Board of Supervisors, Bureau of the Budget, City and County of San Francisco:
Associate Budget Analyst, 1977-1979.
County Administrator, Howard County, Maryland: Budget Officer, 1971-1977.
The Rouse Company, Columbia, Maryland: Land Development Accountant,
1969-1970.
Controller, Anne Arundel County, Maryland: Staff Accountant, 1967-1969.
Management Audits (Project Manager): San Francisco Department of
City Planning and Bureau of Building Inspection; Peralta Community College
District; Merced Union High School District; Jefferson School District
(financial audit); San Francisco Redevelopment Agency; San Francisco
Housing Authority; San Francisco Recreation and Park Department; Merced
County Treasurer-Tax Collector; Transit cost allocation analysis for the
Golden Gate Bridge, Highway, and Transportation District; Supervised audits
of contractors and consultants on specific contracts being performed for San
Francisco departments; Merced County vehicle utiliUzation study.
Budget Analysis (Project Manager): Supervises annual analysis of budget
and all supplemental appropriation requests submitted by all San Francisco
City departments including the Treasurer-Tax Collector, Employees
Retirement System, Municipal Railway, San Francisco International Airport,
Public Health Department and General Hospital, Department of Public Works,
Police, Fire, Sheriff, Parks and Recreation and others; Budget Analysis of San
Francisco Unified School District.
Other Experience: Administered and directed the budget office of Howard
County, Maryland which served as financial advisor to the County Executive
and County Council; performed management audits, organizational analysis,
budget analysis, budget preparation, compensation and pay surveys.
Maintained, supervised and audited cost accounting records in the. private
sector and for governmental units (including grant funded programs).
Managed and conducted financial audits of government organizations and
programs.
?t:.
-
o
()
HUGO DELGADO
Position
Consultant, Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation
Professional
Qualifications Certified Public Accountant, State of California
Education
Professional
hi storv
Professional
exnerience
B.S., Accounting/Finance 1977, University of California at Berkeley
Candidate for Masters of Business Administration, San Francisco State
University
Consultant, Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation: June 1989 to present
Controller, Industrial Indemnity Financial Corp., San Francisco, California,
1987 to 1988
Supervising Senior, Peat Marwick Main & Co., San Francisco, California, 1983
to 1987
Assistant to the Treasurer, American International Underwriters, San
Francisco, California, 1981 to 1983
Senior Accountant, Southern Pacific Communications, Burlingame, California,
1980 to 1981
Accounting Manager, Viacom Communications, Dublin, California, 1978 to 1980
As a budget analyst, duties include: fiscal analyses of City and County of San
Francisco departmental budgets, supplemental appropriation spending requests
and legislative/policy analyses of various governmental operations and Board
of Supervisors Committee resolutions and ordinances, with the objective of
reducing costs and improving governmental efficiency, effectiveness, and
economy.
Development and implementation of accounting policies and procedures and
staff training.
Responsible for financial reporting, budgeting, financial and cash forecasts,
monthly general ledger closing and staff development.
Internal Audit Department--planning, budgeting, evaluation of audit findings
and implementation of audit recommendations.
Special Projects--including portfolio profitability analysis.
Planned, staffed, budgeted and supervised audits for high tech, software
developers and financial services industries.
Knowledgeable in GAAP, internal control system, financial statement
preparation, management letters, SEC reporting and offerings (lPO's and debt).
Recruited, counseled, evaluated and developed professional staff.
?7
-
o
o
TOM DORN
.
Position
Principal Analyst, Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation
Education
Scope of
eXnAr1 ence
Professional
hWllrx
Professional
exnerien~e
M.P.A., Public Administration of Local and Regional Government, Golden Gate University, San Francisco
B.A., Business Administration, University of Arizona, Tucson
His work and consulting experience include implementation of personnel policies, budget analysis,
management auditing, financial analysis, program and computer system design and implementation,
grant administration, computerized program/performance budgeting systems, legislative/policy analysis
and implementation, management experience involving city-wide operations.
Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation: January, 1979 to present
Board of Supervisors, Bureau of the Budget, City and County of San Francisco: Associate Budget Analyst,
1977.1979
City of Coolidge, Arizona: Acting City Manager, City Clerk-Treasurer, Assistant to the City Manager,
Internal Affairs Director, 1973-1976
Management Audits (Project Manager): Los Angeles County Internal Service Department, San Francisco
Police Department's Senior Escort Division, San Francisco Salary Setting Procedures, San Francisco
Purchasing and Storekeeping Functions; Tulare County Board of Supervisors Decision Making Functions;
Ventura County Purchasing; City of San Jose Performance Measures; San Mateo County Controller; Los
Angeles County Adoptions; City of San Jose Budget Analysis; San Mateo County Treasurer; San
Bernardino County Homeless Assistance Program; Lassen County Treasurer Tax Collector's Operations
and County Budgetary Procedures; Review of the Investment Policies, Procedures and Practices of the
San Francisco Treasurer's Office; Lassen County Treasurerfl'ax Collector; San Bernardino County
Airports Division; San Francisco Port, Kern County General Services Department and Assessor's Office;
Ventura County Personnel function; San Bernardino County Children's Services; Amador County General
Services Department (including Purchasing and the Department of Public Works) and County
ClerklRecorder's Office, Public Works and Building Departments, Water Agency and Water Resources
Department; Analysis of Proposed Personnel Reclassification and Compensation Package for A-C Transit
District.
Management Audits (Principal Analyst): Oakland Permit Processing Operations, Los Angeles County Split
Court Program; Oakland Visitor and Conventions Bureau; Oakland Marketing Activities; San Bernardino
County Probation Department; Los Angeles County Public Defender; City of Alameda Budget Analysis;
San Francisco Economic Development Activities; Santa Clara County Municipal Court Operations; Santa
Clara County Weights and Measures Division; City of EI Segundo Program Budgeting System; Jefferson
School District (financial audit), Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District, including
classification study; Santa Clara County Purchaser; San Francisco Recreation and Parks Department; San
Francisco Registrar of Voters; San Francisco Housing Authority; San Francisco Public Utilities
Commission; Mayor's economic development activities funded through Community Development block
granta; Merced County Tax Collector and vehicle utilization study; Kern County Purchaser; Kern County
Assessor
Budget Analysis: Reviews all capital improvement project requests for San Francisco; supervises budget
staff work and analyzes operations oflllllior public works/capital project intensive departments, including
the Port of San Francisco, Municipal Railway and the Hetch Hetchy Project; and the budgets of the
Recreation and Park Department, San Francisco General Hospital, and the Health Department
Other Experience: As Acting City Manager of Coolidge, Arizona, general responsibilities included:
Administrative: reports and analyses for the Mayor, Council, and City Manager; Financial: investment idle
treasury balances, cash flow analyses, payroll, budgetary control, financial reporting, disbursements, and
administration of grant funds; Centralized purchasing and contracting: billing, fee structures,
recordkeeping
Other Activities: Manages and maintains microcomputer network and file server currently used by
Corporation
')0
-
o
o
Po!=;ition
JOHN C. FARRELL
Education
Scope of
exneriencp.
Professional
historY
Professional
exneT.ienr.e
Technical Adviser, Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation Certified Public
Accountants
B.S., University of San Francisco
Public sector administration and management, city and county revenue
projections, city and county appropriation controls, management and
development of EDP systems, internal audit function, city and county
financial management
Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation, Technical Adviser, 1989 to present
City and County of San Francisco Controller; 1974-1988
Public Utilities Commission of San Francisco; Assistant General Manager,
1972-1974
San Francisco Mayor's Office; Budget Director under Mayor Alioto, 1971
San Francisco Water Department; Chief Accountant, 1969-1971
San Francisco Recreation and Park Department; Head Accountant, 1963-1969
As Controller of the City and County of San Francisco, oversaw preparation of
City and County budget, EDP systems (development and maintenance),
appropriation control, expenditure monitoring, projections of all City and
County revenue sources, payroll system, warrant system, claims payments
and internal audit function.
29
o
()
STEPHEN A. FOTI
Position
Principal, Senior Manager, Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation
Education
Scope of
exoerienr.A
Professional
hW2n
Professional
exneri encp.
M.P.A., Public Administration of Local and Regional Government, San Jooe State University
B.A., Political Science, San Jose State University
Public sector policy and budget analysis, financial analysis, grant
monitoring, budget development and program design.
Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation: Project Manager,
August 1981 to present.
County Executive's Office, Office of Management and Budget, Santa Clara County:
Budget Analyst, 1980-1981.
Board of Supervisors, Santa Clara County: Management Analyst, 1977-1980.
Management Audits (Project Manager): Los Angeles County Internal Services Department;
Oakland Animal Care and Control; Evaluation of Los Angeles County Superior Court Split Court
Session Pilot Program; Oakland Permit Processing Operations; Oakland JTPA Program
Organization; Oakland Visitor and Convention Contractors; Los Angeles County Public Defender
Investigations; City of Oakland Special Projects, 1988-89; County of San Bernardino Probation
Department; Medical Records Retention Procedures at Los Angeles County Martin Luther King,
Jr. Hospital; City of Oakland Department of Public Works; County of Alameda Selected Parking
Citation CoIlection Functions; San Francisco Department of Public Works Bureau of Building
Inspection; City of Oakland Animal Control Division of the Police Department. Management
Audits (Principal Analyst): Santa Clara Crjlnty Probation; Los Angeles County Medical
Examiner. Coroner; Santa Clara County Department of Children's Services; Santa Clara County
Counsel; Santa Clara County Municipal Court; Santa Clara County Superior Court and County
Clerk; Santa CIara County Paratransit Services; Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation; Los
Angeles County Procedures Regarding Services Provided to Undocumented Aliens; Procedures
Utilized by all Los Angeles County agencies for Monitoring Contracts for Service; Santa Cruz
County Planning Department; Santa Clara Valley Medical Center; Santa Clara County Mental
Health Bureau, Acute Services; Santa Clara County Transit District; Analysis of Santa Clara
County Transit District Passenger Vehicle Fleet; Rancho Laguna Seen Alcoholism Rehabilitation
Program (Santa Clara County); City of San Jose Budget Process.
Principal Analyst, review of 1985 through 1989 requested revenue and expenditure
appropriations, and mid-year budget review, Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors. .San
Francisco County Budget Analysis: Health Department, including Laguna Honda Hospital and
Central Office (Outpatient and Public Health Services); Fire Department; Sheriffs Office; Adult
and Juvenile Probation Departments; Public Library. Santa Clara County Budget Analysis and
Management Audits: Department of Correction; Sheriffs Department; Assessment Appeals
Process, County District Attorney's Office, Public Defender and Probation Department;
Department of Social Services, Environmental Health, Parks, CETA Training Programs,
Personnel and Affirmative Action; San Jose Public Works Department; Public Library.
Special Projects: Feasibility Study of the Santa Clara County Humane Society assuming Animal
Control Functions in Santa Clara County. San Francisco Community Development Block Grant
Program Review. Analysis of San Francisco municipal financing, investment and purchasing
practices. Santa Clara County update of Sheriffs Department audit. Santa Clara County Transit
District Life Cycle Cost Demonstration Project.
~"
-
o
o
MARTIN GUSTAVSON
Position
Senior Analyst, Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation Certified Public Accountants
Education
Scope of
exnerience
Professional
historv
Professional
-exnerience
M.C.P., City Planning, Yale University
B.A., Geography, Clark University
Public sector administration and management, budget and policy analysis,
development and management of Federal Housing and Urban Development programs,
management audits.
Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation, Senior Analyst, 1989 to
present.
City and County of San Francisco, Mayor's Office of Community Development, Deputy
Director, Program and Fiscal Manager, 1972-1988.
San Francisco Redevelopment Agency, Senior Planner, 1969-1972.
New Bedford, Massachusetts, Department of City Planning, 1964-1969.
Budget and Policy Analysis: analyzed budget and program requests from various City
and County of San Francisco departments. for recommendation to the Board of
Supervisors Finance and Economic and Social Policy Committees. Specialization in
housing, economic development and Redevelopment Agency issues.
Senior Analyst, Management Audit of the Santa Clara County Department of Corrections
for the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, June 1992.
Senior Analyst, Management Audit of the San Francisco Police Department Senior
Escort Program for the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, October 1991.
Senior Analyst, Management Audit of the Santa Clara County District Attorney's
Family Support Division for the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, April, 1991.
Principal Analyst and author: San Francisco Redevelonment ~enev Financinv and
Bud",etin", Issues. San Francisco Board of Supervisors, May, 1990.
Principal Analyst, Review of Denutv Mavor Functions. San Francisco Board of
Supervisors, April, 1990.
Principal Analyst, annual budget and policy reviews of proposed budget for both the San
Francisco Redevelopment Agency and the Office of Community Development, 1989
through 1992, San Francisco Board of Supervisors.
Senior Analyst, Management Audit of the San Mateo County Controller's Office for the
1989 San Mateo Grand Jury, September, 1989.
HUD Community Development Program: Supervised program managers in the
administration of 120 to 130 contracts annually; negotiated annual contracts for CDBG
funds to the San Francisco Redevelopment and Housing Authority; responsible for
program compliance; assisted in the 1982 approval of $60 million revenue bond measure
to provide below market interest loans for subsidized housing. public facilities;
supervised management audits of non-profit corporations receiving CDBG funds.
"l1
o
o
JOHN P. JOHNS
Position
Principal Analyst, Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation
Education
Scope of
exnerience
Professional
history
Professional
exnerienee
B.S. Business Administration, University of California, Berkeley.
M.B.A. Santa Clara University
Public sector management and budget analysis, operations
coordination and diversified accounting responsibilities.
Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation, Analyst, 1986 to present
Seapac Services, Inc: Operations Coordinator, 1984 - 1986
Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc: Assistant to Sr. Vice President for investments, 1982 -
1984
Management Audits: Stanislaus County Purchasing and Fleet Management
Division (Project Manager); Santa Clara County Building Operations, Department
of Corrections, Assessment Appeals; Los Angeles County Split Court Evaluation; San
Bernadino County Solid Waste Management Program; Santa Clara County
Probation Department; Santa Clara County System of Services for the Protection of
Abused and Neglected Children; Santa Barbara Office of the County Superintendent
of Schools; Milpitas Unified School District; Santa Clara County Department of
Children's Services; Santa Clara County Counsel's Office; City of Oakland
Revenue Enhancement Opportunities; Santa Clara County Department of Weights
and Measures; Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation Department, Santa Clara
County Transportation Agency; Ventura County Purchasing Department, Santa
Barbara Planning Department. Assignments have included organizational
analyses; staff productivity analyses; evaluations of program costs to determine
appropriate charge rates; methodologies for increasing State revenues; property and
lease management practices; compliance auditing and analyses of purchasing
practices.
Financial Audits: Jefferson Unified School District, FY 1985-86, FY 1986-87 and FY
1987-88.
Budget Analyses: Santa Clara County Mid-Year Budget Review, FY 1986-87; Santa
Clara County Annual Budget Review, FY 1987-88. Assignments have included
analyses of property tax and motor vehicle in lieu tax collections; investment
income; legislative and executive departments; Tax Collector; County Assessor; and
the Department of Land Use and Development.
Special Projects: Drafting of a manual of policies and procedures for the City of
Mountain View Finance Department; Analysis of Santa Clara County Park Charter
Fund Balance, 1972 through 1987 for compliance with the County's charter
amendment governing expenditures of tax receipts.
Other Experience: As Operations Coordinator for. Seapac Services, Inc., was
responsible for logistical coordination necessary when ocean vessels called into
port. As Assistant to Sr. Vice President for Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. was
responsible for analysis of customer investment accounts and profitability of
potential investments.
q?
.
o
o
WESLEY JOHNSON
Position
Technical Advisor, Retired Assistant Sheriff, Santa Clara County
Education
Professional
historv
Professional
exnerience
Professional
B.A. Public Administration, San Jose State University
California Highway Patrol Academy
Federal Bureau of Investigation National Academy
Various professional level academic law enforcement management and
administrative programs.
Santa Clara County Sheriffs Department, in the following positions:
Bureau Chief, Field Operations Bureau Commander, 1981 to 1988.
Bureau Chief, Custody Operations Bureau Commander, 1977-1981.
Captain, Detective division Commander, 1975-1977.
Captain, Patrol Division Commander, 1973-1975.
Captain, Detective Division Commander, 1970-1973.
Lieutenant, Personnel and Training Division Commander, 1968-1970.
Line, supervisory, and mid-management positions in Patrol, Detective, and
Administrative Divisions, 1956-1968.
Assistant Professor, San Jose State University, Police Sciences, 1963-1966.
Managerial, administrative, and operational command experience in all major
line and support .organizations in an urban city's Sheriffs Department.
Direct participation in initial development stages of an automated Criminal
Justice Information System designed for booking and case tracking of criminal
bookings.
Participation in analysis and technical evaluation of staffing, security, and
operational requirements, under the auspices of grants from the American
University, Washington D.C., of agencies in:
Baltimore, Maryland
Kitsap County, Washington
Multnomah County, Oregon
Superior Court, Washington D.C.
California Peace Officers Association
FBI National Academy Associates
California State Sheriffs Association
Peace Officers Research Association of California
-
o
o
STANTON W. JONES
Position
Owner, Stanton W. Jones and Associates, 1988 to present
Education
Professional
hW=
Professional
exneriencA
M.B.A., Controllership, Syracuse University
U.S. Army Command and General Staff College
B.S., Aeronautical Science, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University
Consultant, Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation: 1986 to 1988.
Manager, Accounting Services & lovestment Control, Marine Division, Westinghouse
Electric Corporation, Sunnyvale, California, 1984 to 1986.
Project Manager, Marine Division, Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Sunnyvale,
California, 1982 to 1984.
Program Aoalyst, Defense lotelligence Agency, Pentagon, Washington, D.C., 1979 to
1981.
Controller, U.S. Army lotelligence School, Fort Devens, MA, 1977 to 1979.
Executive Officer, 2nd Bn., 71st Artillery (Air Defense) Korea, 1974 to 1975.
Command Briefer, Headquarters, North American Air Defense Command (NORAn),
Colorado Springs, CO, 1973 to 1974.
Commanding Officer, Battery A, 2nd Bn., 51st Artillery (NIKE-HERCULES), San
Francisco, CA, 1970 to 1972.
Management audit of San Francisco's Purchasing Department.
Management audit of San Francisco County Office of the Registrar.
Management audit of the San Francisco Department of City Planning and Bureau of
Buildiog Inspection.
Management audit of the San Francisco's implementation of its Minority/Women
Business Enterprise ordinance.
Fiscal analyses of City and County of San Francisco department's supplemental
appropriation requests.
Management audit of the San Francisco automotive fleet.
Accounting Services manager of a $400M (sales) engineering and manufacturing division
Supervised the development and manufacture of all support equipment for a major
weapons system.
Management audit that determined the dissemination of highly classified military intelligence
with the Defense lotelligence Agency.
As Controller of the U.S. Army lotelligence School (Devens), managed all aspects of
financial and manpower planning and execution.
Commanded a nuclear-equipped Air Defense Unit which shared responsibility for the
air defense of the San Francisco area.
Fixed-wing and rotating-wing combat pilot.
~,
o
CARoLE SANCHEZ KNAPEL
o
Position
Consultant, Justice Facilities Construction
Education
University of Santa Clara, School of Law, Juris Doctorate, 1976.
Professional President, Knapel and Associates, 1988 to Present
history
County of Santa Clara, Office of the County Executive, 1979-1988
. Director, Justice Projects Division, 1987-88
. Facility Planning and Construction Project Manager, 1984-1987
. Justice Division Management Analyst, 1979-1984
Professional As President of Knapel and Associates, monitors construction progress for the Sonoma County Main
exoerience Adult Detention Facility, providing reports and recommendations to the Justice Thelton Henderson,
Federal Court - Northern District of California.
Assiste the County of San Mateo in developing and implementing a plan to design and build new
and/or renovated jail facilities. Has assisted in the development of facility program and design.
Assisted the County of Santa Cruz with developing and implementing a plan to build an initial phase
criminal housing facility and to identify options for future expansion to include support services
facilities. Assisted in the development of facility program and design for Phase I project. As
Director of the Justice Projects Division for Santa Clara County, developed recommendations for the
goals and objectives of the Justice Projects Division and identified tasks necessary to meet those
goals and objectives.
Developed County policy recommendations and implemented programs and procedures which
reflected County decisions, policies and long-term planning in criminal justice. Developed
functional plans and implementation requiremente for the County criminal justice information
system. Directed the work necessary to develop effective programs and improve processing and
procedures in the criminal justice system.Evaluated programs and arranged for funding to include
staffing costs, operating budgets and other resources needed for program implementation. Developed
funding necessary to realize new criminal justice projects. Assisted in the development of grant
programs, new legislation, and recommendations to maximize utilization of new County programs.
Developed solutions to jail crowding and assisted in developing appropriate capacity potential for
existing facilities. Evaluated services provided to inmate population to comply with constitutional
requiremente. Monitored and coordinated the County's response to inmate litigation. As Facility
Planning and Construction Project Manager for Sants Clara County, evaluated the need for new
justice facilities including detention and correctional facilities, superior courts, municipal courts
and juvenile facilities.
Developed requiremente for new facilities including site and functional requiremente. Developed
County policy recommendations, established project budgets and schedules, developed financing
plans, and balanced the intereste of all departmente involved in the operation of Court and
detention/correction facilities.
Directed the work of architectural, construction management and consulting firms to ensure that
performance reflected County direction and decisions on construction projects: New court facility -
$25 milIion, New main jail - $60 million, Renovation of minimum/medium security correctional
facility - $130 million, and Renovation of maximum security detention facility - $13 million.
Professional
affiliations
California Bar Association
Ad Hoc Committee, California Board of Corrections Jail Operations Cost
American Correctional Association
American Jail Association
Professional American Society of Public Administrators.
affiliations
1~
o
o
VICTORIA R. MEAD
Position
Consultant, Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation
Education:
Scope of
ExneriencA
Professional
history
Professional
Exnerience
A.B., History, Cornell University, 1981
M.P.P., Public Policy, University of California, Berkeley, 1990
Public policy analysis and research, fiscal and legislative analysis
Debra Newman Associates, Analyst, January 1992 to present
Catholic Charities of San Francisco County, Development Consultant, 1991
San Francisco Commission on the Status of Women, Consultant, 1990
Institute of Transportation Studies, U.C. Berkeley, under contract to Metropolitan
Transportation Commission, Research Assistant, 1989
As a budget analyst, duties include fiscal and policy analyses for the San
Francisco Board of Supervisors, including department budgets and requests for
supplemental appropriations, intergovernmental grants and general
administrative matters.
Special projects have included a Management Audit of the Santa Clara County
Department of Corrections and reports to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors
concerning the City's economic vitality and business climate, proposed
appropriations for children's services, pricing practices at City-owned parking
garages, effects of budget cuts on the small business community, and proposed
changes in condominium conversion limitations.
As a development consultant, helped to establish systems for centralized control
of agency revenues and expenditures to enhance fiscal accountability, by
analyzing information needs and evaluating administrative procedures within
the agency.
As a consultant to the San Francisco Commission on the Status of Women,
conducted a comparative analysis of the functions and duties of Commissions for
Women across the United States.
As a research assistant, assisted in a special report to the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission evaluating alternative forms of organization,
including potential consolidation, of 26 transit agencies within the nine county
San Francisco Bay Area.
Previous experience includes an extensive background in U.S. immigration
and nationality law.
':I'"
o
o
NEWT MITZMAN
Position
Consultant, Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation
Education
Military
service
Scope of
exnerience
Professional
historv
Professional
ex;nerience
Professional
affiliations
A.B., S.F. State University; Business Administration - 1949
M.B.A., University of California, Berkeley; Industrial Relations - 1951
L.L.B., Lincoln University Evening Law School, San Francisco - 1962
U.S. Army, 1942-1945
Thirty-seven years of progressively responsible experience in research, supervision,
administration, and management, primarily in government finance.
City and County of San Francisco, Controller's Office: Special Projects Manager, July
1986 - July 1988; Assistant to Controller, January 1977 - July 1986.
City and County of San Francisco, Mayor's Office: Principal Administrative Analyst,
October 1969 - January 1977; Administrative Analyst, April 1965 - October 1969.
City and County of San Francisco, Department of Social Services: Senior Statistician,
December 1962 - April 1965; Statistician, August 1956-December 1962; Social Worker,
August 1955 - August 1956.
United States Government, Wage Stabilization Board: Industrial Relations Analyst,
May 1952 - August 1953.
United States Government, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics: Labor Economist, March
1951 - May 1952.
Directed the Budget, Special Projects, and Legislative Analysis functions of the City
Controller's Office and assisted the Controller in analyzing and resolving
management and fiscal problems. Also developed and directed a new division created to
audit and fiscally supervise the Federal, State and County-funded Clean Water Project.
Served as Assistant Budget Director in the Mayor's Office in planning and supervising
budget analysis and review, including studies of the organization and procedures of city
and county operating departments. Budget analysis included analysis of Health,
Sheriff and Welfare budgets. In this capacity, participated in the formulation of city and
county budgetary policies and managed the fiscal operations of the office. As
Administrative Analyst, reviewed departmental budget requests and made
recommendations for achieving economies. Also developed and applied pre-audit
procedures to ensure county compliance with Federal and State grant awards
administered in the Mayor's Office.
Responsible for the planning, supervision, and performance of the Research and
Statistics Unit of the Department of Social Services.
San Francisco Municipal Executive Association
Municipal Finance Officer Association
~~
o
o
DEBRA A. NEWMAN
Position
Consultant, Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation
Education
Scope of
exnerience
Professional
historv
Professional
exnerience
M.R.P., City and Regional Planning, University of North Carolina
BA, Urban Studies, Ohio State University
Archeological Studies, University of Tel Aviv.
Management and performance auditing; program evaluation analysis;
planning, research, and management of public service organization, technical
assistance and resource development; legislative, policy and transportation
planning and analysis; project management.
Consultant, Debra A. Newman, July 1988 to present
Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation: Project Manager and
Principal Analyst, October 1982 to June 1988.
Crain and Associates, Project Manager, 1982.
SYSTAN, Inc., Senior Associate, 1977-1982.
University of North Carolina, Engineering Department, Assistant
Engineer/Cartographer, 1976-1977.
South Florida Regional Planning Council, Assistant Planner, 1976.
Special Projects (Project Manager): Santa Clara County Feasibility Analysis
Transportation Programs; San Francisco Costs and Benefits of Battleship
Homeporting; San Francisco Stadium Review; Performance Audit of Santa
Clara County Community Transit Services: Santa Clara County Senior Transit
Program Assessment; and Performance Audit of Ten Transit Operators in the
San Francisco Bay Region.
Management Audits (Project Manager): San Francisco War Memorial
Veterans Building; San Francisco Private Industry Council; and San Francisco
Citizen's Telecommunications Policy Committee.
Management Audits (Principal Analyst): Santa Clara County Municipal
Courts; San Bernardino County Children's Services; Santa Clara County
Transit District; Los Angeles County Redevelopment Agency; Sonoma County
Planning Department; Santa Cruz County Planning Department; Nevada
County (California) Truckee-Donner Public Utility District; and San FranciscQ
Recreation Center for the Handicapped.
Other Experience: (Project Manager, Crain and Associates): Assessed Alameda
County's coordinated paratransit services and Hermosa Beach, California's
permit, parking and transit services, under contract to the U.S. Department of
Transportation. (Senior Associate, SYSTAN, Inc.): Responsible for evaluation
of innovative transportation programs in selected cities, funded by the Urban
Mass Transportation Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation.
~n
o
o
CHRISTINA OLSON
Position
Principle Analyst, Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation
Education
Scope of
exnerience
Professional
historv
Professional
exnerience
B.A. Economics, B.A. Political Science, University of California-Santa Cruz 1986
MPA, Public Administration, San Francisco State University, May 1991
Public policy analysis and research, program evaluation, and fiscal and legislative
analysis
Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation: Principle Analyst, January 1991 to present
San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board: Technical Assistant, September
1989-December1990
California Postsecondary Education Commission: Project Assistant, January 1988-
August 1989
General Analysis: fiscal analyses of City and County of San Francisco supplemental
appropriation spending requests and legislative/policy analyses of various
governmental operations and Board of Supervisors Committee resolutions and
ordinances, and special projects requested by the Board of Supervisors with the objective
of reducing costs and improving governmental efficiency, effectiveness, and economy.
Budget Analyses: San Francisco City and County annual budget review includes the
Redevelopment Agency, Commission on Aging, Civil Service Commission and General
Fund Capital Projects. City of San Jose annual budget review of revenues and citywide
salary savings projections. Santa Clara County annual budget review includes Public
Services Department, Personnel, and County Counsel.
Project Manager, Survey and Analysis of Senior Citizen Services Provided by
Community Based. Organizations in San Francisco; Analysis of Target Group 1990
Census and Demographic Data. Conducted survey of all programs for senior citizens
provided by the City and County of San Francisco and private sector agencies operating
within San Francisco. The survey includes data on senior citizen demographics, type
and scope of programs, economic needs of participants, source of funds and cost of
programs. Using survey and demographic data, wrote report on the needs and gaps in
services for San Francisco senior citizens.
Principle Analyst, Management Audit of San Francisco Redevelopment Agency;
Performed analysis of the Agency's annual budgets, conducted 20 year revenue and bond
projections, and analyzed clerical staffing needs.
Senior Analyst, Management Audit of Los Angeles County Internal Services
Department (ISD); Conducted benchmark study of private and public sector
organizations that provide facilities maintenance and management services
internaUy. Reviewed cost of services, rates, wages as weU as management practices of
participating organizations with the goal of providing ISD with alternative
organizational and financial models.
As a Technical Assistant, duties included: reviewing groundwater contamination
cases, data management, report generation and statistics
As a Project Assistant, duties included: conducting studies on California higher
education, evaluating the Private Postsecondary Education Division in the California
Department of Education, and gathering and analyzing fiscal data on public
postsecondary education.
~n
o
o
ERNIE PRINDLE
Position
Consultant, Project Manager Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation
Education
Scope of
exnerience
Professional
historv
Professional
exnerience
Affiliations
B.A. Accounting and Economics, San Francisco State University
Public sector policy and budget development, financial management,
budget analysis, and revenue development
Consultant, Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation 1991 to present.
San Francisco Recreation and Park Department, Assistant General
Manager Finance and Property Management 1983-1991
San Francisco Recreation and Park Department, Budget Officer 1979-
1983
Controller's Office City and County of San Francisco, Systems
Accountant 1978-1979
United States General Accounting Officer, Management Auditor 1974-
1978
Revenue Development: Developed new fees for various activities;
recommended increased fees; instituted marketing program for major
park revenue facilities; developed new revenue concessions;
negotiated/leased various revenue contracts.
Financial Management: Developed financial procedures for accounting,
budget eta.; managed accounting, budget, billing, accounts receivable;
developed audit program for leases.
Organizational Management: Centralized billing/accounts receivable
activities; developed reorganization for Park Division San Francisco
Recreation and Park Department.
Management Audits: Performed various management audits of
governmental programs to improve efficiency, effectiveness and
economy of operations.
San Francisco State University Teacher in Parks Management
Program, 1984 and 1986
National Recreation and Park Association - Pacific Revenue and
Resources Management School - First Year 1985, Second year 1986,
Graduate Forum 1988 and 1989. Guest Speaker -July 1987
Assistant Chairperson for City-wide Employee Combined Charity
Campaign - 1985 and 1989.
I.A
o
o
PEDRO RODRIGUEZ
Position
Analyst, Rodriguez, Perez, Delgado & Company
Professional
Qualifications Certified Public Accountant, State of California
Education
Professional
historv
Professional
exnerience
Mfiliations
B.S., Accounting 1979, San Francisco State University
Partner, Rodriguez, Perez, Delgado & Company: June 1989 to present
Controller, TXL Corporation: February 1984 to October 1986
Senior Internal Auditor: June 1983 to January 1984
Senior Accountant: January 1980 to May 1983
As Partner duties include accounting, audits, review, compilations and computer
and management consulting. In addition, perform fiscal analyses of City and
County of San Francisco departmental budgets, supplemental appropriation
spending requests and legislative/policy analyses of various governmental
operations and Board of Supervisors Committee resolutions and ordinances, with
the objective of reducing costs and improving governmental efficiency,
effectiveness, and economy.
As Controller, duties included financial reporting, cash and income forecasting,
profit plan and strategic plan, contracts administration, tax returns and reports,
interfacing with external auditors and ~upervising accounting and
administrative staff.
As Senior Accountant, duties included planning, directing and executing
financial audits, culminating with the preparation of financial statements, audit
reports and letters to management regarding internal control weaknesses.
Responsible for supervision and training both audit staff and client personnel.
Member, American Institute of Certified Accountants
Member, California Society of Certified Accountants
41
o
o
DOMINIC F. RUGGIERO
Position
Consultant, Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation
Professional
Qualifications
Education
Scope of
exnerience
Professional
historv
Professional
exnerienee
Certified Public Accountant, State of California
B.S., Accounting, California State University at Los Angeles
Retired from the Los Angeles Region of the U.S. General Accounting Office after 30
years of service with particular emphasis in the management audit area including the
direction of management audits of government agencies and government contracts in
order to improve the efficiency, effectiveness and economy of operations.
Inspector General, U.S. Department of Energy: Audit Project Director under
contract, 1986.
U.S. General Accounting Office, Los Angeles Region: Assistant Regional Manager,
1957-1986
As Assistant Regional Manager of the Los Angeles Region of the U.S. General
Accounting Office:
Plan and execute audit and investigative work of the Regional Office in carrying
out the major functions of the General Accounting Office which are to (1) assist the
Congress in its legislative and oversight responsibilities, (2) audit and evaluate
programs, activities, and financial operations of federal departments and
agencies, (3) prescribe standards for financial control and related functions with
respect to most federal government programs and operations.
Results of the audit and investigative work performed are communicated through
comprehensive written reports submitted to the Congress, its committees, or
Members of the Congress, and top federal officials. In addition to the written
reports, results of work are communicated through testimony before Congressional
committees and informal briefings to Members of the Congress.
Evaluation of effectiveness of U.S. Post Office in assessing and collecting revenue
due from second class mail. This is a one billion dollar program.
Audit of the Los Angeles Olympic Organizing Committee and the U.S. Olympic
Committee to determine if they used the proceeds from the sale of the Olympic Coins
as directed by the Federal legislation authorizing their minting and sale. Each
Committee received about $35 million from the sales.
Evaluation of effectiveness of the Internal Revenue Service and the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms in managing tax collection operations involving
the payment of occupational excise taxes imposed on manufacturers and
distributors of alcoholic beverages, firearms dealers and individuals and
establishments engaged in the business of accepting certain types of gambling
wagers.
Evaluation of the Federal Section 8 Housing Program carried out by the Los
Angeles County Housing Authority, including the impact of the illegal alien
population on Los Angeles County.
42
o
o
KAREN SIKKENGA
Position
Analyst, Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation
Education
Scope of
exoerience
Professional
historv
Professional
exoerience
B.A. University of Michigan, Bachelor of Arts, U.M. Regent Scholar, Honors College Participant
San Francisco State University
Candidate for Master of Public Administration 1992
Public policy analysis and research, program evaluation, and fiscal and legislative
analysis
Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation, Aoalyst, May 1991 to present
Oak Street Computers, owner, 1989-present
Freelance, grantwriter; budget consultant; editor, 1987-1991
Children's Council, PIC program co-coordinator; GAIN assistant, 1987-89
Boston Urban Gardeners, newsletter coordinator/office manager, 1986-1987
Boston, Massachusetts
Women's Crisis Center, counselor/trainer; board member, 1982-86
Ann Arbor, Michigan
As a budget analyst, duties include: fiscal analyses of City and County of San Francisco departmental
budgets, supplemental appropriation spending requests and legislative/policy analyses of various
governmental operations and Board of Supervisors Committee resolutions and ordinances, and
special projects requested by the Board of Supervisors with the objective of reducing costs and
improving governmental efficiency, effectiveness, and economy.
As the owner of Oak Street Computers, created and implement all administrative aspects of operation
for small company, including coordination of orders, equipment installation, research, progress
reports and strategic planning, billing and bookkeeping, freelance staff hiring and supervising.
As a freelance grantwriter, budget consultant and editor, researched foundations and wrote grants;
assisted in budget preparation to funders; designed and edited brochures and newsletters.
Organizations included: ACORN, Central American Refugee Center, WOMAN, Inc., Association for
the Education of Young Children.
As a Private Industry Council (PIC) Program Coordinator, implemented all administrative.aspects of
PIC program, including contract evaluation and maintenance. Mediated between contracting
agency, child care providers, parents and training centers regarding contracts and payments.
Initiated computerized check writing and recordkeeping. Prepared monthly financial report. Set up
administrative systems for State GAIN welfare program; created all printed materials.
As newletter coordinator and office manager, directed production of quarterly newspaper: assigned
and wrote articles, proofread, designed and implemented lay-out, distributed finished paper.
Managed agency: executed all secretarial, some bookkeeping tasks; oversaw inventory, monitored
filing system and mailing list. Participated in five-year strategic plan.
As a counselor, trainer and board member,counseled women in crisis. Mediated between clients, utility
companies, landlords. Trained in-coming counselors. As board member, planned fundraising events,
hired staff, participated in strategic planning and budgeting for agency.
43
o
o
MERLIN ZIMMERLY
Position
Education
Scope of
exnerience
Professional
history
Professional
exnerience
Senior Accountant/Analyst, Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation
B.S., Managerial Accounting, Sacramento State University
Budget development and analysis; contract and grant monitoring and negotiation;
systems design and implementation.
Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation: Analyst, 1982 to present.
Contra Costa County Health Services Business Office: Senior Accountant, 1978-81
Contra Costa County Social Services Administration: Department Accountant, 1974-78
Contra Costa County Auditor-Controller Internal Audit Division: Staff Auditor, 1973-
74
Auditing and Accounting Experience: Performed fmancial and management audits
of probation and public works departments, library system, tax collector's and
treasurer's offices, special districts and special trusts; performed general accounting
and bookkeeping activities; designed and implemented accounting system; analyzed
and evaluated department annual budgets and day-to-day fiscal activity.
Management Audits (Senior Analyst): Milpitas Unified School District; Peralta
Community College District; Jefferson School District (financial audit); Port of San
Francisco; Solano County Fire Department; San Francisco Medical Center Outpatient
Improvement Program; Recreation Center for the Handicapped; Santa Clara County
Department of Correction
Other Experience: Performed compliance audit of mental health subcontractors,
audited central supply, stores, and pharmacies, prepared monthly financial
statements; responsible for hospital, mental health and substance abuse budgets and
cost reports required by state; prepared financial and statistical reports required by
funding and regulatory agencies, performed accounting and budgeting functions for
grants, contracts, capital equipment and rate setting.
Other Experience: Performed operations audits of General Assistance,
conservatorship and ward of the court programs, monitored and negotiated service
contracts, developed accounting systems for conservatorship and child care
programs; developed a proposal for a regional governmental agency, analyzed
budgets and performance of child placement facilities in order to establish standard
rates for use by Northern California Counties.
44
-
o
-
~ .....
:>
-
o
:>
V. References
Walter A Abernathy
Former Executive Director
Port of Oakland
14 Sereno Circle
Oakland, California 94619
(510)832-7409
Richard Abl'SlhSlm
Chairman, Public Works Committee
1990-91 San Bernardino County Grand Jury
995 West Marshall Blvd.
San Bernardino, California 92405
(714) 883-0707
Brent Andrew
Foreman, 1991-92 San Francisco County Grand Jury
Room 158-B City Hall
San Francisco, CA 94102
(415) 387-6978
Martha Argue
Chairperson, County Administration Committee
1982-83 Ventura County Grand Jury
3905 Mayfield Street
Newbury Park, California 91320
(805) 4984831
Jack Baird
Member, 1981-82 Kern County Grand Jury
1504 Duke Drive
Bakersfield, California 93305
(805) 871-8068
David L Ballati
Foreman, 1992-93 San Francisco County Grand Jury
City Hall, Room 313
San Francisco, California 94102
(415) 554-5057
Dr. Rena Merritt Bancroft
Vice Chancellor Administrator
San Francisco Community College District
33 Gough Street
San Francisco, California 94103
(415) 241-2234
-45-
o
o
Paul Baxter
Acting City Manager
City of Modesto
P.O. Box 642
Modesto, California 95353
(209) 577-5223
DoreenBaylus
Foreman, 1986-87 San Bernardino County Grand Jury
661 East Jackson Street
Rialto, California 92376
(714) 875-{)969
James T. Beall, Jr.
Member, San Jose City Council
801 North First Street, Room 600
San Jose, California 95110
(408) 277-5275
Albert P. Beltrami
Chief Administrative Officer
Stanislaus County
Administration Building
1100 H Street
Modesto, California 95354
(209) 525-6333
L Jack mock
Foreman, 1984-85 San Francisco County Grand Jury
555 California Street
San Francisco, California 94104
(415) 989-1000
Gil Boreman
Director, Public Forum Services
9012 Immelmann Court
Fair Oaks, California 95628
(916) 966-9431
Robert Brownstein
Director of Public Policy & Budget
City of San Jose
801 N. First Street, Room 200
San Jose, California 95110
(408) 277-5W5
-46-
o
Q
Charles Budinger
Chair, Audit Committee
1984-85 San Bernardino County Grand Jury
P.O. Box 7430
Victorville, California 92392
(619) 245-1390
Sue Burrows
Foreman, 1987-88 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury
165 La Verada Road
Santa Barbara, California
(805) 969-4441
Richard P. Byrne
Judge, Superior Court
County of Los Angeles
County Courthouse
III North Hill Street
Los Angeles, California 90012
(213) 974-5600
William Cain, Chair
Aclm;n;stration and Audit Committee
1990 Marin County Grand Jury
14 Summit Drive
Corte Madera, California 94925
(415) 924-8439
Kenneth R. Campo, CPA
Finance Director
City of Vallejo
555 Santa Clara St. P.O. Box 3068
Vallejo, CA 94590
(707) 6484592
Marvin E. Cardoza
Foreman, 1982-83 San Francisco County Grand Jury
901 Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco, California 94109
(415) 776-7700
-47-
o
.:)
Scott Catlett
Director of Parks and Recreation
City of Alameda
Room 201,City Hall
2263 Santa Clara Avenue
Alameda, California 94501
(510) 748-4565
Donald L Clark
Judge, Santa Clara County Superior Court
191 North 1st Street
San Jose, California 95113
(408) 299-2074
BobColiJ
Foreman, 1981-82 Merced County Grand Jury
P.O. Box 2188
Merced, California 95340
(209) 383-1511
Betty Cook
Foreman, 1990-91 San Bernardino County Grand Jury
844 Edgehill Dr.
Colton, California 92324
(714) 825-2422
Julius Defosset
Foreman, 1983-84 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury
933 Windsor Street
Santa Cruz, California 95060
(408) 423-8674
Joseph DiGeronimo
Superintendent, Jefferson School District
101 Lincoln Avenue
Daly City, California 94015
(415) 991-1277
Donald J. DeMartini, EdD.
Superintendent, Retired
Ukiah Unified School District
1640 Wildwood Road
Ukiah, California 95482
(707)462-1797
-48-
-
o
"
....."
RodDiridon
Member, Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors
County Government Center, East Wing
70 West Hedding Street
San Jose, California 95110
(408) 299-2323
Dr. EvanDobelle
Chancellor, San Francisco Community College District
50 Phelan Ave.
San Francisco, California 94112
(415) 239-3303
Alice T. Dresel
Foreman, 1983-84 Lassen County Grand Jury
925 Cherry Terrace
Susanville, California 96130
(916) 257-2978
Helen Dunn
Forewoman, 1982-83 Sonoma County Grand Jury
3640 Chanat.e Road
Santa Rosa, California 95404
(707) 575-8389
Fred R. Dukes
Foreman, 1981-82 Kern County Grand Jury
733 Del Mar Drive
Bakersfield, California 93307
(805) 831-4383
Leonard Edwards
Judge, Santa Clara County Superior Court
191 North 1st Street
San Jose, California 95113
(408) 299-2074
John Farrell
Controller, Retired, City and County of San Francisco
2990 24th Avenue
San Francisco, California 94132
(415) 564-5516
-49-
o
"'""
'...,.I
Dianne Feinstein
Former Mayor, City and County of San Francisco
909 Montgomery St., Suite 400
San Francisco, California 94133
(415)433-1333
David G. Finigan
Assistant City Manager
City of Vallejo
555 Santa Clara St. P.O. Box 3068
Vallejo, California 94590
(707) 648-4575
JeremyF~
Judge, Santa Clara County Superior Court
191 North 1st Street
San Jose, California
(408) 324-2370
Henry L Gardner
City Manager, City of Oakland
1 City Hall Plaza
Oakland, California 94612
(510) 273-3302
Anita Gindes
Chairman, Health and Welfare Committee
1986-87 Kern County Grand Jury
9000 Andrieu Court
Bakersfield, California 93311
(805) 831-6218
Isla M. Gipson
Foreman, 1984-85 Amador County Grand Jury
P.O. Box 992
Jackson, California 95642
(209) 223-1191
Robert E. Gonzales
Former Member, San Francisco County Board of Supervisors
Attorney-at-Law
100 Van Ness Avenue, 19th Floor
San Francisco, California 94102
(415)431-3200
-50-
.
o
~
.~
Ron Gonzales
Member, Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors
70 West Hedding Street
San Jose, California 95110
(408) 299-2323
Mmjorie Goold
Chair, Audit and Finance Committee
1987-88 Amador County Grand Jury
11511 Gold Strike Road
Pine Grove, California 95665
(209) 223-0394
Daniel M. Hanlon
Judge, San Francisco Superior Court
Room 411, City Hall
San Francisco, California 94102
(415) 554-5003
Leonard Harris
Foreman, 1988-89 Ventura County Grand Jury
2891 Circle View Drive
Simi Valley, California
(805) 522-9492
Thomas W. Hayes
Director of Finance
Former Treasurer and Former Auditor General
State Capitol
Room 1145
Sacramento, California 95814
(916) 445-4141
Mike Henry
Chief Administrative Office
Public Safety Division
County of Los Angeles
713 Hall of Administration
Los Angeles, California 90012
(213) 974-1138
David Horowitz
Judge, Superior Court
County of Los Angeles
6230 Sylmar Avenue, Department Z
Van Nuys, California 91401
(818) 374-3108
-51-
-
c'
')
......
Tom Hsieh
Member, San Francisco County Board of Supervisors
Room 235, City Hall
San Francisco, California 94102
(415) 554-5015
IIaITy L Hufford
Former Chief Administrative Officer, County of Los Angeles
Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, California
(213) 229-7000
Daniel O. Ikemoto
Auditor-Controller
County of Los Angeles
525 Hall of Administration
500 West Temple Street
Los Angeles, California 90012
(213) 974-8301
Fred L Johnson
Chairman, Administrative Committee
1985-86 Kern County Grand Jury
405 Ash
Tehachapi, California 93561
(805) 822-5789
Jerome Johnson
Chairman, AuditlFiscal Committee
1990-91 San Bernardino County Grand Jury
1366 Shelley Avenue
Upland, California 91786-3245
(714) 982-0513
Donna Kelsey
Foreman, 1987-88 San Bernardino County Grand Jury
P. O. Box 1010
Big Bear Lake, California 92315
(714) 585-6931
-52-
-
o
o
George KAnm>dy
District Attorney
County of Santa Clara
70 West Hedding Street
San Jose, California 95110
(408)299-7705
Quentin Kopp
State Senator
Room 4062, State Capitol
Sacramento, California 95814
Former Member, San Francisco County Board of Supervisors
Former Member, Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation
District Board of Directors
(916) 445-0503
(415) 952-5666
Greg E. Larson
Deputy City Manager (Former City Policy Analyst)
City of San Jose
801 N. First Street, Room 436
San Jose, California 95110
(408) 277-5723
Margery Levy
Foreman, 1990-91 San Francisco County Grand Jury
1875 - 14th Avenue
San Francisco, California 94122
(415) 681-2745
ByronM.Lewis
Foreman, 1982-83 Siskiyou County Grand Jury
737 West Miner
Yreka, California 96097
(916) 842-2678
Fred L Lincoln
Member, 1982-83 Sonoma County Grand Jury
P. O. Box 1177
Santa Rosa, California 95402
(707) 545-7962
-53-
-
o
o
RobertF. Locke
Finance Director
444 Castro Street
P. O. Box 7540
Mountain View, California 94039
(415) 966-6314
Maurice Long
Member, 1986-87 San Bernardino County Grand Jury
18549 Cocqui Road
Apple Valley, California 92307
(619) 242-2868
Hulda R. Magnus
Chairperson, Special Services Committee
1981-82 Kern County Grand Jury
2001 Baker Street
Bakersfield, California 93305
(805) 322-2209
Jamie Jacobs-May
Judge, Santa Clara County Municipal Court
200 West Hedding, Department 16
San Jose, California 95110
(408) 299-2260
Mr. David Meyer
Assistant Public Defender
County of Los Angeles
Van Nuys Branch Office
14400 Erwin Street Mall, 10th Floor
Van Nuys, California 91401
(818) 374-2350
Leo G. McCarthy
Foreman, 1989-90 San Francisco Grand Jury
2320 Funston Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94116
(415) 661-2377
J. Tyler McCauley
Assistant Auditor-Controller for Operations
County of Los Angeles
Room 525, Hall of Administration
500 West Temple Street
Los Angeles, California 90012
(213) 974-8303
-54-
-
o
.........
v
Katherine Miller
Chairman, Education Committee
1987-88 Santa Babara County Grand Jury
1169 Hill Road
Santa Barbara, California 93108
(805) 969-4761
Thomas Mit.chell
Member, 1982-83 Siskiyou County Grand Jury
Tulelake, California
(916) 667-5285
EmestMobley
Chair, Audit Committee
1984-85 Fresno County Grand Jury
16023 East Belmont Avenue
Sanger California 93657
(209) 787-2717
Mary Moore
Council Member
City of Oakland
1 City Hall Plaza
Oakland, California 94612
(510) 273-3266
SidMoore
Chairman, Audit Committee
1988-89 Ventura County Grand Jury
1114 Paseo Del Robles Court
OJ ai, California
(805) 640-0650
Casper Offutt, Jr.
Foreman, 1989 San Mateo County Grand Jury
38 Austin Avenue
Atherton, California 94027
(415) 369-6666
Maria Oms
Acting Division Chief
Welfare Financial Services Division
Los Angeles County Auditor-Controller
9150 East Imperial Highway
Downey, California 90242
(310) 940-2342
-55-
-
o
I:)
Martha Padve
Chair, Audit Committee
1986-87 Los Angeles County Grand Jury
80 N. Euclid
Pasadena, California 91101
(818) 796-4716
Phyllis Perez
Assistant, Clerk of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors
70 West Hedding Street
San Jose, California 95110
(408) 299-2323
Glenn Quillin
Chair, Audit Committee
1983-84 Los Angeles County Grand Jury
5221 Shenandoah Avenue
Los Angeles, California
(213) 645-6018
Harry J. Quinn
Foreman, 1987 San Mateo County Grand Jury
74 Westpark Drive
Daly City, California 94015
(415) 558-3591
Carleen RWlRnI)vich
Foreman, 1985-86 Kern County Grand Jury
21800 Stockdale Highway
Bakersfield, California 93311
(805) 58!u)898
Donald M. Rains
Clerk of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, Retired
135 Calle Larga
Los Gatos, California 95030
(408) 370-5740
Jerri F<mldn..
Chairman, AuditlFiscal Committee
1987-88 San Bernardino County Grand Jury
1155 East 45th Street
San Bernardino, California 92404
(714) 882-0551
-56-
...
c
--.
\...,./
Gerard M. Rastello
Chair, Audit Committee
1986-87 Los Angeles County Grand Jury
6490 Surrey Drive
Long Beach, California 90815
(310) 598-5700
Howard Rhodes
Foreman, 1988-89 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury
3302 Montecielo Road
Santa Ynez, California
(805) 688-0244
Edward E. Roseman
Foreman, 1986-87 Los Angeles County Grand Jury
5023 Ventura Canyon Avenue
Sherman Oaks, California 91423
(818) 789-9337
Frank J. Schlessinger
Member, 1986-87 San Francisco County Grand Jury
333 Kearny Street
San Francisco, California 94108
(415) 982-6936
C. Randall Schneider
Judge, Santa Clara County Municipal Court
200 West Hedding Street
San Jose, California 95110
(408) 299-2281
Thomas Seeburger
Member, 1989 San Mateo County Grand Jury
307 Ranelagh Road
Hillsborough, California 94010
(415) 342-2544
John B. Shea
Foreman Pro Tern, 1987-88 San Francisco County Grand Jury
141 Wawona Street
San Francisco, California 94127
(415) 564-3273
-57-
-
o
o
.
Gerald A. Silva
City Auditor
City of San Jose
151 West Mission St.
San Jose, Califomia 95110
(408) 277-4601
Thomas C. Sinclair
City Manager
City ofOrinda
26 Orinda Way
Orinda, California 94563
(510) 254-6130
Jeny Snyder
Foreman, 1989-90 Tulare County Grand Jury
2517 West Vassar
Visalia, Califomia 93277
(209) 732-7573
Dick Spees
Council Member
City of Oakland
1 City Hall Plaza
Oakland, Califomia 94612
(510) 273-3266
Geraldine B. Spencer
Member, 1982-83 Ventura County Grand Jury
790 Poindexter Avenue
Moorpark, California 93021
(805)529-4466
Walter Staley
Foreman, 1984-85 Fresno County Grand Jury
2737 Olive Avenue
Selma, California 93662
(209) 896-3329
Daniel Sturt
Chair, Audit Committee
1988-89 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury
3232 Campanil Drive
Santa Barbara, California 93109
(805) 687-2176
-58-
,..,
o
o
.
John Trotti
Chair, Natural Resources Committee
1986-87 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury
629 B Firestone Road
Goleta, California 93117
(805) 967-2120
Robert Varni
Member, Governing Board
San Francisco Community College District
Ten Miller Place
San Francisco, California 94108
(415) 397-3599
Dorotbyvon Beroldingoo
Judge, San Francisco Municipal Court
Hall of Justice, Department 9
850 Bryant Street
San Francisco, California 94103
(415) 554-4521
DorisM. Ward
Assessor, City and County of San Francisco
Room 101, City Hall
San Francisco, California 94102
(415) 554-5502
James F. Ware
Foreman, 1986-87 Kern County Grand Jury
14816 Vista Grande
Bakersfield, California 93306
(805) 872-8480
Susanne WIlson
Fonner Member, Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors
50 West San Fernando Street, Suite 420
San Jose, California 95113
(408) 998-7320
Dr. Tim Wolfred
Member, Governing Board
San Francisco Community College District
975 Duncan Street
San Francisco, CA 94131
(415) 647-5265
-59-
e
o
~
v
.
Roy L Wonder
Judge, San Francisco Superior Court
Supervising Judge of the Juvenile Court
375 Woodside Avenue
San Francisco, California 94127
(415) 753-7755
Grace K. Yamakawa
County Clerk/Court Executive Officer
Superior Court
County of Santa Clara
191 No. First Street
San Jose, California 95113
(408) 299-2074
DoddR. Young
Foreman, 1986-87 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury
958 Alamo Pintado Road
Solvang, California
(805) 688-5290
-60-
...
-
-
-
-
-
-
o
-
:)
-
o
o
VI. Det.Al1ed DescriOD.on..q of OoeratinnAl Mnns:umment and FiQPRl RYAminJltionq
of GoVlWl1111ental M~nMpg
GENERAL ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCE
Budl!'et An..lysis
Client:
Project:
Agencies:
Period:
Board of Supervisors, City and County of San Francisco
Budget Review
All City and County Departments
1971-present
As Budget Analyst for the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, HMR
provides independent review and analysis of proposed budgets and on-going
supplemental appropriation requests. These reviews span the entire range of
public sector service delivery systems, including public protection, social services,
public works, parks and recreation, health services (including hospitals),
planning, and all general government departments. HMR has examined the
following functional budget areas: personnel, supplies, equipment, training, food
services, education, telephone use, and travel, among others. As a result, HMR
staff have extensive working knowledge of all functions in city and county
governments. These analyses have yielded $10-20 million in annual savings.
Client:
Project:
Agencies:
Period:
************
Board of Supervisors, Santa Clara County
Budget Analysis
Selected County Agencies
1987-present
Under contract to the Board of Supervisors, HMR conducts an annual mid-
year and full-year budget review. This analysis covers the budget's salary savings
projections, revenue estimates for all departments and proposed department
expenditures. HMR staff recommendations has resulted in annual General Fund
savings adopted by the Board of Supervisors of between $3-$6 million.
Client:
Project:
Agencies:
Period:
************
Office of the Mayor, San Jose
Review of Revenue Projections and Detailed Budget Estimates
Mayor and City Manager
1992 and 1991
For the previous two years, HMR has reviewed the projections for the City of
San Jose's 70 largest revenue accounts, analyzed the General Fund surplus that
would be available for the next fiscal year, and evaluated expenditure estimates
related to salary and fringe benefit costs. For 1992, we identified a total of
$3,284,517 in understated revenues in the proposed 1992-93 budget.
-61-
-
Client:
Project:
Agencies:
Period:
o
o
************
Chief Administrative Officer, Stanislaus County
Evaluation of Budget Process and Preparation of
Model Budget Document
Office of Policy Analysis
1992
The Chief Administrative Officer requested an evaluation of the current
budget process and the budget document used to support that process in
Stanislaus County. Our analysis indicated that Stanislaus County could make
improvements in both its budgeting process and procedure and its budget
document. We recommended a budget calendar outlining the steps to adopting the
budget for each fiscal year and recommended significant modifications to improve
the format and content of the budget document.
Client:
Project:
Agencies:
Period:
************
City Manager, City of Modesto
Property Tax Administration and Booking Fees Administered
by Stanislaus County
Various County Departments
1991
HMR was retained by the City of Modesto to review the County budgets,
financial audits, indirect cost plan and all other reports and workpapers related
to the determination of the cost of the anm;n;stration of the property tax system.
Review the basis used by the County for the apportionment of these costs to the
Cities and Special Districts. This review also included a review of the methodology
and accuracy of the County calculation of the cost of booking inmates at County
detention facilities. This task would also include a review of Coun,ty workpapers
and other records to determine the reasonableness of any assumptions and the
accuracy of the data used to calculate the separate costs of male and female
bookings. In addition, the accounting for any State, Federal and other revenues
which should be offset against costs was also reviewed.
Client:
Project:
Agencies:
Period:
.
************
Governing Board, San Francisco Community College District
Evaluation of Current Budget Formulation, Preparation and
Approval Process
San Francisco Community College District
1990 and 1991
This project was to review, monitor and evaluate the San Francisco
Community College District budget process and the specific budgetary impact of
the recently negotiated bargaining agreement with certificated employees.
Provide an analysis of the cost impact and revenue benefits resulting from the
new collective bargaining agreement with certificated employees. Develop a
-62-
no
o
:)
comprehensive report, or series of reports, to improve the District's budgetary
process, increase Governing Board involvement and knowledge of the District
budget, and comply with collective bargaining commitments to increase the
union's understanding of and involvement with the budget process.
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
************
City Manager, City ofOrinda
Analysis of the Costs Incurred by the County of Contra Costa
in Providing Various Services to the Citizens ofOrinda
City Manager
1990-91
At the direction of the Orinda City Manager, HMR conducted an analysis of
the costs incurred by the County of Contra Costa during FY 1983-84 in providing
various public services to citizens residing in the geographic area subsequently
incorporated into the City of Orinda. Included in this analysis was a review of the
County's financial, budget and other relevant records.
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
************
Oakley Sanitary District
City Incorporation Study
Proposed City of Oakley
1990
Compile necessary data and prepare an independent opinion regarding
County costs, property tax as a percentage of revenue generally available, and
property tax to be transferred from the County to the new proposed City of Oakley
in the event of its incorporation as specified in State Government Code Section
56842.
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
************
Discovery Bay Property Owner's Association
City Incorporation Study
Proposed City of Discovery Bay
1990
Compile necessary data and prepare an independent opinion regarding
County costs, property tax as a percentage of revenue generally available, and
property tax to be transferred from the County to the new proposed City of
Discovery Bay in the event of its incorporation as specified in State Government
Code Section 56842.
-63-
-
Client:
Project:
Agencies:
Period:
o
J
************
San Jose City Auditor
Review of the Work Management System in the Planning
and Police Departments
Planning and Police Departments
1989
The subject of this review was the two Departments' objectives and their
performance measures included in the City Manager's Tri-Annual Work
Management System (WMS) reports. This review's focus on these two
Departments solely concerned the efficacy of the WMS. This study did not concern
the performance of the two Departments.
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
************
Butte County
Review of County Budget Projections
All County Departments through the County Counsel's Office
working with the Law Offices of Ephraim Margolin
1989
HMR conducted trend analyses of the County's budget for Fiscal Years
1986-87 through 1987-88 for the purpose of projecting revenues and expenditures
for subsequent years. An independent analysis was conducted of the County's
budget projections in order to determine if the County would be able to meet all of
its projected expenses, including the County's share of Federal and State
subventions, through Fiscal Year 2000-01.
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
************
1987-88 Grand Jury of Amador County
Management Audit of the City of lone
City of lone (Amador County)
1988
The Grand Jury retained our firm to review the overall management and
finances of the City of lone because of concern about the City's financial and
management practices stemming from, among other things, problems
encountered by a developer in seeking approval to construct a housing project in
the City. We found that the City was facing a deficit in 1987-88 based, in part, on
poor fiscal controls. We recommended that the City establish a City Manager
position on at least a part-time basis to centralize management control in the City,
improve budget procedures and the budget document, improve expenditure
controls and cash flow management, invest in the California Local Agency
Investment Fund or some comparable investment instrument to improve their
investment earnings and change the procedures used in reviewing and approving
development project applications. Implementation of our recommendations
-64-
....
o
(""'1
-.....I
would improve the City's overall management and increase interest earnings by
an estimated $17,000 per year.
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
************
City Manager of the City of East Palo Alto
Review of City of East Palo Alto's 1987-88 Budget
All City Department
1987
At the request of the new City Manager, we reviewed the City of East Palo
Alto's 1987-88 budgeted revenues, expenditures, cash flow, budget process, legal
services expenditures and other revenue enhancement issues. We recommended
a $1.9 million reduction from the City's 1987-88 budget based on our analysis of
projected revenues for the fiscal year. We also recommended an improved budget
process, centralized control in the City Manager's Office over departmental
staffing and the City's purchasing process, a reduction in the City's expenditures
for legal services, an improved rate of return on City investment earnings and a
number of other revenue enhancement suggestions for consideration by the City
Manager. Had our recommendations been in effect in 1986-87, the City would
have saved over $220,000 and would not be facing the full $1.9 million deficit that
we projected. Better control over City expenditures would also be realized through
implementation of our recommendations.
Client:
Project:
Agencies:
Period:
************
City Auditor, City of San Jose
Analysis of Fiscal Impact of City Council Actions and Analysis
of Two Departments' Proposed Budgets
Selected City Agencies
1986-87
At the request of the San Jose City Council, HMR analyzed selected items
from their weekly agenda to determine their fiscal impact. Our analyses covered
diverse topics such as approval of public works projects and contractors, approval
of increased employee benefits, approval of increased sewer service charges, land
acquisition agreements and other items.
As part of this project, HMR also analyzed the cost-effectiveness of the
Public Works and Finance Department's proposed 1986-87 budgets. We found that
$2.5 million worth of requests from the Public Works Department and $20,000
worth of requests from the Finance Department were not sufficiently justified or
cost-effective and we recommended corresponding reductions in their funding
level.
-65-
~
Client:
Project:
Agencies:
Period:
o
(""\
V
************
City Manager, City ofEI Segundo
Program Budget Development
All City Departments
1985-86
The City Manager retained HMR to train and coach City staff and to
coordinate the development of a results-oriented program budget for all City
Departments. HMR staff developed and conducted training sessions for
department heads and other key staff; counseled and advised the City Council on
the use and benefits of program budgeting; coordinated intra- and
interdepartmental meetings of the City's program budget development staff;
provided examples of performance indicators for identified program units;
counseled, guided and monitored the efforts of City staff in identifying program
units and in developing program purposes and descriptions of principal activities,
program objectives, and indicators for measurement of results; and developed
proposed budget formats, forms and presentations.
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
************
City Council, City of San Jose
Review the City's Budget and Auditing Procedures
City Clerk, City Council, City Manager, City Auditor
1985
The City Council of the City of San Jose retained HMR to review and
analyze its budget and auditing policies and procedures following its $60 million
investment loss. .This report recommended several major changes to the City's
fiscal, budgetary and auditing procedures which are currently being
implemented by the City Council. Included is the establishment of a
management audit program, major revisions to the budget document, calendar,
and process, and the establishment of an independent legislative analyst office.
Client:
Project:
Agencies:
Period:
************
Grand Jury, Lassen County
Budget Analysis of the 1983-84 Lassen County Budget
All County Departments
1984
The Lassen County Grand Jury selected HMR to conduct an analysis of the
1983-84 Lassen County budget. This analysis will include a review of existing
procedures for budget preparation, determination of the accuracy of budget data,
analysis of agency expenditures to recommend possible budget reductions,
evaluation of expenditures relative to workload statistics, analysis of revenues,
fees and charges, and evaluation of feasibility of centralizing some services (such
as purchasing or printing) used by all agencies.
-66-
....
o
C)
************
Client:
Project:
Agencies:
Period:
Board of Supervisors, Santa Clara County
Budget Preparation Procedures
All County Departments
1982
The Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors retained HMR to review and
analyze the County's budgeting procedures. HMR's report recommended that the
budget preparation process be improved by integrating budgetary and financial
reporting. HMR also recommended improvements to the annual budget review
process.
Other Burnmt AnRl.y>ris Exnerience:
Client
AgencylProject
Year
Mayor, City of San Jose
Budget Review of All
City Departments
Analysis of the Impact of
Proposition 13
1980
Board of Supervisors, City
and County of San Francisco
1978
-67-
-
o
o
Revenue Source Amll",i..tF.nhsmcement Stratelrles
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
Office of Policy Analysis, City of San Jose
Review of Revenue Projections and Detailed Budget Estimates
City Manager
1991
HMR was retained to review the process by which revenues are projected
and budgeted. The City's General Fund revenues was reviewed as well as
restricted revenue sources used to fund the City's Capital Improvement Program.
The review was divided into two stages. The first stage addressed the "Base
Budget" detailed revenue estimates provided by the City Manager's Office to the
Mayor and City Council at the beginning of 'PHASE 2' of the budget process. This
stage involved a review of the accuracy and reasonableness of the initial revenue
estimates developed by the City Manager's Office. The second stage of the project
provided the City with a detailed review of the final, 'PHASE 3' Proposed Budget
Revenues. The review of PHASE 3 budgeted revenues included a detailed analysis
and report with recommendations concerning the estimated revenues for the City
of San Jose's FY 1991-92 budget.
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
************
City Manager, City of Vallejo
Review of the City's General Fund Projections and Assessing
the General Fund Reserve Policy
City Manager
1990-91
HMR was retained by the City Manager to review the City Manager's "Five.
Year City General Fund Projections for 1989-90 through 1993-94". Our review
found that the assumptions employed in the report were suitably explained and
presented and that the report's recommendations to balance ongoing costs with
ongoing reserve and to establish a reserve policy were appropriate given the fiscal
uncertainty indicated by the five-year projections.
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
************
City Manager, City of Oakland
Review of Implementation of Previously Approved
Management Audit Recommendations Prepared by the Harvey
M. Rose Accountancy Corporation Certified Public
Accountants
17 City agencies that we conducted management audits of
between 1982 and 1987
1988
HMR was retained by the City Manager to determine the status of all
recommendations that we had made in the 17 management audits of Oakland
City agencies that we had conducted between 1982 and 1987. These management
-68-
-
o
o
audits covered the Oakland Police Department, Fire Department, General
Services, Finance Department, Business License Tax collection procedures,
Public Works and Office of Parks and Recreation, among others. We found that
many, though not all of the recommendations in our report, had been
implemented and, as a result, the City had realized savings of approximately
$13.6 million, an amount significantly in excess of our costs for these seventeen
management audits.
************
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
Grand Jury, Lassen County
Management Audit - Revenue Collection Procedures
TreasurerlI'ax Collector
1984
The Lassen County Grand Jury retained HMR to conduct a management
audit of the revenue collection procedures including the TreasurerlI'ax Collector
of Lassen County. The audit included an analysis of collections and deposits and
review of investment policies, procedures and performance. Property tax
collection procedures were evaluated to determine possible efficiencies through
improved coordination among County agencies. The audit also included an
analysis of staffing and use of other resources in the TreasurerlI'ax Collector's
Office. We recommended that the County create a Chief Administrative Officer
position, establish salary savings to allow for attrition in its personnel budget,
purchase its phone system, improve its Workers Compensation Program,
improve controls and procedures in the Auditor-Recorder's Office and contract
out for vehicle maintenance and repair. In the fiscal area, we recommended
additional revenue producing staff for the Treasurer and Tax Collector's Office,
some additional user fees, imposition of a hotel-motel occupancy tax and
improved investment analyses. Altogether, implementation of our
recommendations would provide a net reduction in expenditures of $142,800
annually, increased net revenues of $374,500 annually and one time savings of
$26,000.
************
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
City Manager, City of Belmont
Management Audit--City Revenues
Finance Department
1983
Belmont's City Manager retained HMR to review the City's collection efforts
for the following taxes and revenues: business license tax, hotel tax, cable
television franchise, and other taxes or fees as they compare to other
jurisdictions. HMR discovered several areas where the City had not made all
collection efforts possible. Consequently, HMR made recommendations to
improve these efforts, raise net annual revenues by $22,000, and generate one-
time revenues of$17,500.
-69-
-
...
o
8
************
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
City Manager, City of Oakland
Management AuditnCity Revenues
Office of Finance
1982-83
Oakland's City Manager retained HMR to perform a management audit of
the City's tax collection efforts, with the objective being to determine whether the
City was adequately collecting all taxes from those liable for such taxes. This
audit included a review of revenue collection methods for the transient occupancy
tax, franchise tax, business license tax, real estate transfer tax, and property tax.
HMR also reviewed the City's investment procedures, cash management
procedures, and the disposition of delinquent accounts. HMR identified $4.2-5.1
million in potential annual revenues, and additional one-time revenues of $2.3
million from unpaid taxes.
************
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
City Manager, City of Oakland
Management Audit--Refuse Collection Fees
Office of Finance, Mandatory Garbage Section
1982-83
Oakland's City Manager retained HMR to assess the City's revenue
collection efforts (see above). While performing this revenue audit, HMR
discovered that the Mandatory Garbage Section had been operating inefficiently
and had developed three year backlogs of its work. HMR developed
recommendations to modernize and computerize the collection of garbage fees,
eliminate the existing backlog, and ensure the collection of delinquent accounts.
Implementation of these recommendations would generate one-time revenues of
$350,000-500,000 and $1.1-1.3 million annually.
Other Revenue Source AnAlysiAlRnhAn.....mAnt StrateDi_ F.xnAriAn.....:
Client
Agency/Project . Year
Analysis of Social Security 1980
Costs for the Public Employee
Retirement System
Analysis of Social Security 1978
Costs
Board of Supervisors, Santa
Clara County
Board of Supervisors, City
and County of San Francisco
-70-
-
o
o
Fin.,"cetrreasurer. Aqgessor
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors
Review of the County's System to Process Assessment Appeals
Board of Supervisors and Assessor
1991-92
The scope of this aumt was to analyze operating policies and procedures
used in the Clerk's Office, the Assessor's Office and by the Assessment Appeals
Boards. The audit also included an analysis of workload and staffing, an
evaluation of data processing and management information systems, a review of
the organization of assessment appeals activities, and an evaluation of fees and
revenues. It was estimated that implementation of the report's recommendations
would increase revenue reimbursement of costs by over $80,000 annually and
result in improved timeliness of service, increased efficient of appeal processing,
and an enhanced managerial control over workload.
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
************
City of Mountain View
Preparation of Financial Procedures Manual
Finance Department
1990-91
HMR was retained to prepare a comprehensive financial procedures
manual documenting all major activities of the City's Finance Department.
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
************
Grand Jury, San Mateo County
Management Audit -- Treasurer
Treasurer and County Retirement System
1987-88
HMR was retained by the 1987-88 San Mateo County Grand Jury to conduct
a management audit of the investment policies, practices and controls employed
by the San Mateo County Treasurer and Retirement Board. We found that the
Treasurer employed unorthodox investment practices and was not competitively
bidding the purchase of investment securities, which resulted in underrealized
investment earnings in 1986-87 of approximately $7.8 million. We made a number
of recommendations in the areas of the Treasurer's investment operations and
procedures, administrative organization, efficiency of staff utilization, use of
computers, improved cash flow analysis and other areas that would result in
increased investment earnings of at least $4.15 million annually for the
Treasurer's portfolio and $0.56 million for the Retirement Fund portfolio.
-71-
-
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
-
o
o
************
Grand Jury, Kern County
Management Audit
Assessor's Office
1986
This management audit included an analysis of the Assessor's Office's
management practices, organizational structure, equipment, proposed computer
systems and relationships with the private sector. HMR recommended
implementation of a new computerized system and a corresponding reduction in
the Office's staffing, development of performance standards, improved
supervisory training, more clearly defined rates for management staff,
installation of computer assisted drafting equipment and increased revenue from
private sector users of the Assessor's data. Implementation of these
recommendations would result in estimated savings of $1.8 million annually and
one time costs of $4.1 million.
Client:
Project:
Agencies:
Period:
************
Executive Director, Port of Oakland
Management Audit .. Finance Department
Finance Department, Port of Oakland
1985-86
HMR reviewed the management and operations of the Port's Finance
Department. We recommended improvements in staff supervision, improved
interest earnings on bond issue proceeds through improved capital project
plann;ng,. improved accounts receivables procedures and more clearly divided
authority between Finance and other Port departments. If our recommendations
had been in place at the time the report was prepared, the Port would have
increased its annual revenues by $108,000.
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
************
City Manager, City of Oakland
Management Audit -- Grants Management
Grants Accounting and Management Divisions of the Finance
Office
1985
Together, these divisions had operating budgets of over $1 million at the
time of this management audit. We recommended modifications to the City's
redevelopment project accounting procedures, utilization of standard City
budgeting procedures for grant funded projects, improved record. keeping and
cash balance monitoring and other improvements. Altogether, implementation
of the recommendations contained in the report would generate an annual
savings of $370,346 for grant-funded programs and $83,035 for the Oakland
Redevelopment Agency.
-72-
-
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
o
o
************
Grand Jury, Fresno County
Management Audit
Auditor-Controller/Treasurer
1985
The 1984-85 Grand Jury of Fresno County retained HMR to conduct a
comprehensive management audit of the Auditor-Controller/Treasurer. Areas of
focus included the appropriateness of combining the Auditor-Controller and
Treasurer function, interactions between the six divisions of the department,
audit and EDP activities, financial reporting activities, contract administration,
collections, billing, accounting procedures, processing of warrants and
investment policies and procedures for County short-term and retirement
investments. Implementation of our recommendations would result in increased
revenues to Fresno County and its pooled investment fund of at least $679,000 less
implementation costs of $80,000 annually and a one-time cost of $10,000.
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
************
Board of Supervisors, City and County of San Francisco
Management Audit--Treasurer
Treasurer's Office
1984
The Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco requested
HMR to review the investment policies, procedures and practices of the
Treasurer's Office. At the time of this audit, the City's investment portfolio was
just over $1 billion. We investigated the Office's reporting practices, portfolio
analyses, cash flow analyses, staff training and work environment. While the
City's investment instruments were found basically sound, recommendations
were made to change some policies and procedures to improve operating
efficiency and increase the City's interest earnings. These recommendations
included increasing the number of staff people trained to make investment
decisions so that more than one employee, the Chief Investment Officer, would be
capable of making investments, employing outside independent consultants
experienced in investments to review the City's portfolio on a regular basis,
increasing the amount and quality of information on the City's investments
provided to the Board of Supervisors including an annual investment policy and
improving the Office's work space. Implementation of the audit
recommendations would result in increased interest earnings of at least $110,000
annually less estimated annual costs of $20,000 and one-time costs of $15,000 and,
more importantly, would provide the Board of Supervisors with essential
information about the City's investments.
-73-
-
o
o
************
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
County Administrator, Mendocino County
Management Audit--Tax Collection
Treasurer-Tax Collector's Office
1982
Mendocino's County Administrator retained HMR to perform a
management audit of the Treasurer-Tax Collector's Office. This audit included a
review of revenue collection methods and procedures, investment and cash
management functions, internal policies and controls, delinquent account
procedures, and internal audit programs. HMR made recommendations to
revise staffing patterns, amend payment and collection procedures, and increase
investment opportunities. Implementation of the recommendations in this audit
would result in annual savings or revenues of $2.1 million and one-time savings
of$113,OOO.
Other FinAncelI'rea....'l1lrer. Tax 'CAlllector. Aqsessor RYnPrience:
Client
AgencylProject
Year
Grand Jury, Merced County
Management Audit
of the Treasure-Tax
Collector's Office
1981-82
Board of Supervisors, City
and County of San Francisco
Board of Supervisors, City
and County of San Francisco
Management Audit of
Tax Collector's Office
1981-82
Management Audit of
Treasurer's Office
1971
-74-
-
-
o
o
Auditor..("Alntroller
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
Grand Jury, San Mateo County
Management Audit -- Controller
Controller's Office
1989-90
The scope of this audit included the Controller's organization and staffing,
the internal audit function, physical property accountability and control, and
space planning and facilities. In addition to these areas of concern, HMR
identified other areas where the Office's efficiency, effectiveness and economy
could be improved. HMR found that the Controller has not demonstrated the
ability to address the deficiencies of his Office. Most significant of these
deficiencies are that the County's accounting systems are improperly designed
and undocumented; that the County's accounting records are often inaccurate
and incomplete and are open to fraud, misuse, and mismanagement; and that
there are weaknesses in the control systems which hinder the Controller's ability
to safeguard the County's assets. We recommend that the County Manager assist
the Controller in developing the management systems, plans and procedures
required to correct these and other deficiencies.
************
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
Grand Jury, Fresno County
Management Audit
Audi tor-Controller/Treasurer
1985
The 1984-85 Grand Jury of Fresno County retained HMR to conduct a
comprehensive management audit of the Auditor-Controller/Treasurer. Areas of
focus included the appropriateness of combining the Auditor-Controller and
Treasurer function, interactions between the six divisions of the department,
audit and EDP activities, financial reporting activities, contract ailrn;n;stration,
collections, billing, accounting procedures, processing of warrants and
investment policies and procedures for County short-term and retirement
investments. Implementation of our recommendations would result in increased
revenues to Fresno County and its pooled investment fund of at least $679,000 less
implementation costs of $80,000 annually and a one-time cost of $10,000.
-75-
-
o
c>
Civil Service and Personnel
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
Board of Supervisors, City and County of San Francisco
Review of the Salary Standardization Process for
Miscellaneous Employees for Fiscal Year 1991-92
Civil Service Commission
1991
HMR performed an analysis of the Civil Service Commission's salary
standardization process for adjusting the salaries of miscellaneous employees in
the City and County of San Francisco. Our recommendation was that the Board of
Supervisors reject the proposed schedule of compensations for miscellaneous
employees until the Civil Service Commission obtains reasonable verification as to
the accuracy and comparability to San Francisco classes of the private sector
wage and salary data which is now being used to determine salary
standardization rates. Additionally, we recommended that changes be made to
the City Charter regarding the salary standardization process and that the Civil
Service Commission direct its staff to develop and implement sound internal
control procedures to insure the accuracy of its salary standardization survey
data.
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
************
Board of Directors, Bay Area Air Quality Management District
Classification Study, Salary Survey and Comparable Worth
Analysis
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
1986-87
HMR performed an analysis of all of the District's classifications, a salary
survey of comparable jurisdictions and a comparable worth analysis assessing all
of the District's classifications' worth relative to an originally developed set of
criteria. We recommended updates to each of the District's classifications and
creation of new classifications in some cases, a competitive salary schedule based
on the results of our survey and some salary adjustments based on our
comparable worth analysis.
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
************
Executive Director, Port of Oakland
Management Audit
Personnel Department
1985
The Executive Director retained HMR to evaluate the operations of the Port
of Oakland's Personnel Department. Recommendations included in this report
included establishment of performance standards for the Department to increase
the number and of examinations and classifications performed each year,
development of a system to track all requests for new positions, streamlining of
-76-
-
o
o
the recr.uitment and examination process, increasing clerical staff productivity
through automation and elimination of duplicative procedures and improving the
Port's personnel and payroll system links with the City of Oakland.
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
************
Board of Supervisors, City and County of San Francisco
Management Audit--Job Training Programs
Private Industry Council
1984
This management audit of the San Francisco Private Industry Council, a
non-profit organization that is responsible for administering federally funded job
training programs, was requested by the Board of Supervisors to determine if
modifications in the organization, funding, contractual arrangements or
administration would result in improved efficiency, effectiveness and economy.
HMR recommended utilizing more flexible contracting arrangements to
maximize benefits for trainees, reducing administrative expenses and increase
funds allocated to job training, elimination of certain duplicative positions, and
improve its record-keeping. When implemented, these recommendations would
result in savings of approximately $80,000 annually and increases in the level of
training provided by the program.
Client:
Project:
Agencies:
Period:
************
Grand Jury, Ventura County
Management Audit--Personnel
Personnel Functions
1982-83
For this management audit, HMR reviewed the following personnel topics:
classification, recruitment, testing, selection, temporary employment, sick leave,
vacation, administrative leave, personnel management information systems,
position control, employee political activity, training, performance evaluation,
and affirmative action. The report contained recommendations to reduce staff
size, improve and clarify recruitment and selection procedures, increase
employee training, enhance affirmative action compliance, and increase worker
productivity and morale. These recommendations carried a net annual benefit of
$404,000. Additional savings would be possible if the County were to reconsider
the purchase of a computerized information system estimated to cost $500,000.
Othp.r Civil Service and Pen7U\nn~l ExtlArienoo:
Client
AgencylProject
Year
Grand Jury, Kern County
Management Audit of
all County Personnel
Functions
1981
-77-
.
o
Board of Directors, Golden Gate
Bridge, Highway, and Trans-
portation District
Grand Jury, Marin County
Board of Directors, Golden Gate
Bridge, Highway, and Trans-
portation District
Board of Supervisors, City
and County of San Francisco
Board of Supervisors, City
and County of San Francisco
o
Developing an Employee 1980-81
Personnel Appraisal Program
Management Audit of Some 1980
County Personnel Functions
Personnel Classification and 1979
Salary Survey
Management Audit of the 1978
Salary Standardization
Procedures
Management Audit of 1978
Selected Private, Non-profit
CETA Projects
-78-
.
o
o
Refi..."mp..nt Svst~m!;! and Pen'lion PI"n!;!
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
Board of Supervisors, City and County of San Francisco
Budget Analysis--Investment Management
Employee Retirement System
1971-present
Since 1971, HMR has annually reviewed the operating budgets of the San
Francisco Employee Retirement System. HMR identifies areas where the System
could be operated more efficiently. In general, HMR has identified annual budget
reduction recommendations in the amount of $100,000.
Client:
Project:
Agencies:
Period:
************
Grand Jury, San Mateo County
Management Audit -- Retirement System
Treasurer and County Retirement System
1987-88
HMR was retained by the 1987-88 San Mateo County Grand Jury to conduct
a management audit of the investment policies, practices and controls employed
by the San Mateo County Treasurer and Retirement Board. We found that the
Treasurer employed unorthodox investment practices and was not competitively
bidding the purchase of investment securities, which resulted in underrealized
investment earnings in 1986-87 of approximately $7.8 million. We made a number
of recommendations in the areas of the Treasurer's investment operations and
procedures, administrative organization, efficiency of staff utilization, use of
computers, improved cash flow analysis and other areas that would result in
increased investment earnings of at least $4.15 million annually for the
Treasurer's portfolio and $0.56 million for the Retirement Fund portfolio.
Other R&l!tlTPrnent Svst.l1!m~ and p~n~nn plAn~ Exneripnce:
Client
AgencylProject Year
Management Audit of the 1977
Employee Retirement System
Board of Supervisors, City
and County of San Francisco
Joint Legislative Audit
Committee, California State
Legislature
Performance Audits 1973-75
San Diego Transit Corp.
Pension Plan, Public Transit
Operators' Pension Plans,
State Treasurer, Pooled Money
Investment Board
-79-
.
o
o
General.Government
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
Board of Supervisors, City and County of San Francisco
Budget Analysis--City Attorney's Office
San Francisco City Attorney's Office
1979-Present
Each year as part of HMR's ongoing contractual services for the San
Francisco Board of Supervisors, we reviewed the San Francisco City Attorney's
proposed budget and recommend which items should actually be funded. This
requires assessing the office's workload, staffing needs, changes in internal office
procedures, changes in laws affecting the agency's operations and space and
equipment needs. We also review any requests for supplemental funding
requested during the fiscal year after the annual budget has been adopted.
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
************
Board of Supervisors, City and County of San Francisco
Analysis and Fiscal Impact
All City Offices including the City Clerk and Board of
Supervisors
1979-present
The analysis and fiscal impact function has been conducted for the City and
County of San Francisco by HMR since 1979. This function involves the review
and analysis of all items agendized on the Board's calendars. In addition, the
annual budget is reviewed in detail for the Board of Supervisors and specific
recommendations are prepared for their consideration. These annual budget
reviews have produced from $10-20 million in savings each year. Finally, the
legislative analyst performs management audits of all City departments and
special studies at the request of the Board. The continuous review and analysis of
departmental operations described above include the office of the City Clerk, the
City Attorney, the Board of Supervisors, the Mayor's Office, the Office of the Chief
Administrative Officer, the Police Department, Fire Department, Airport,..Port,
Public Works Department, Recreation and Parks Department, etc.
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
************
Board of Supervisors, City and County of San Francisco
Review and Analysis of the Deputy Mayor Function
Mayor
1990
Review and analysis of the seven Deputy Mayor positions in the San
Francisco Mayor's Office; comparative cost and positions analyses; survey of
prevailing practices in Mayors' Offices nationwide.
-80-
.
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
o
o
************
Grand Jury, Tulare County
Management Audit of the County's Decision Making Function
Board of Supervisors, County Executive, and Elected
and Appointed Department Heads
1990
This management audit was conducted during February and March 1990 to
review the relationships among the Board of Supervisors, County Executive, and
elected and appointed department heads concerning budgetary, fiscal and
programmatic operations and whether there is complete disclosure of the costs,
benefits, alternatives, priorities and needs of the County.
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
************
Board of Supervisors of Santa Clara County
Management Audit - County Counsel
County Counsel's Office of Santa Clara County
1988
At the request of the County Counsel the Board of Supervisors directed our
firm to conduct a comprehensive management audit of the County Counsel's
office including an analysis of staffing, workload, the costs and benefits of
contracting out for legal services, use of clerical staff, policies and procedures and
management information. In addition, conservatorship accountings, bail bond
forfeitures, DSS child dependency services and other functional responsibilities of
the County Counsel's Office were reviewed. As a result of this review, several
areas were identified where significant opportunities exist to increase revenues,
reduce costs and improve the quality of services provided. By implementing the
recommendations contained in this report the County could realize approximately
$1,129,000 to $1,137,000 of additional revenues and reduced expenditures annually.
In addition, one-time revenues estimated at $1,861,000 to $2,399,000 would be
realized by the County.
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
************
Board of Supervisors, City and County of San Francisco
Management Audit - City-wide Compliance with City and
County's Minority, Women, Local business Enterprises
Ordinance
All City and County of San Francisco Departments
1988
At the request of the Board of Supervisors, we reviewed each department's
compliance with the City and County of San Francisco's Minority, Women, Local
Business Enterprises Ordinance. We found that a number of departments were
out of compliance and that the agency responsible for monitoring compliance, the
Human Rights Commission, was ineffective in carrying out this function. We
-81-
o
o
recommended a number of changes in procedures to ensure improved
compliance and monitoring of agency activity by the Human Rights Commission.
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
************
1986-87 Grand Jury, Los Angeles County
Management Audit
All County Agencies Providing Services to Undocumented
Aliens
1986-87
HMR was retained to report on Los Angeles County procedures for
identifying the level and cost of services provided to undocumented aliens. Our
report summarized and described the effect of the undocumented alien population
on the County's Services. The report focused on evaluating the capabilities of
several County departments to compile statistics and costs associated with
services to undocumented aliens and presented recommendations for expanding
and enhancing the current and future capabilities of these departments to develop
this information. We also examined the role of the County's Chief Ailrn;n;strative
Officer in coordinating and monitoring departmental efforts and of the Auditor-
Controller in assisting departments with appropriate statistical analysis and
costing of services. We found that because of the high concentration of
undocumented aliens in Los Angeles County, the County was bearing a
disproportionate share of the costs of providing services to this group even though
their presence was part of a federal problem. We made specific recommendations
for procedures that could be employed by each County department to better
determine the extent of the costs of their services provided to undocumented aliens
with the goal of obtaining federal reimbursement for some or all of these costs.
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
************
1986-87 Grand Jury, Los Angeles County
Management Audit -- Contract Monitoring Practices and
Results
Countywide Analysis
1986-87
We reviewed Los Angeles County's contract monitoring practices from a
countywide perspective and reviewed the experience of three departments selected
for detailed analyses: the Departments of Public Social Services, Facilities
Management and Health Services. We also reviewed contracts that were being
developed at the time covering physicians at the Los Angeles CountylUniversity of
Southern California (LACIUSC) Medical Center to assess the sufficiency of
provisions needed to monitor their contracts. We found that the extent and quality
of contract monitoring varies considerably among County departments. We made
recommendations for countywide improvements to this process and for the three
departments that were individually analyzed to correct identified deficiencies and
to strengthen the County's contract monitoring.
-82-
.
Client:
Project:
Agencies:
Period:
o
..-.
,....)
************
Director, Internal Affairs Department, City of Cerritos
Financial Analysis -- Agreement Payment Provisions
Cerritos Redevelopment Agency
1986
The Director of Internal Affairs retained HMR to evaluate what, if any,
amounts may be owed to the Cerritos Community College District under
agreements entered into in 1975 and 1977 among the Cerritos Community College
District, the Cerritos Redevelopment Agency and the City of Cerritos. HMR staff
reviewed the agreement provision and records of payments made to the
Community College District by the Redevelopment Agency; determined from
review of the County Auditor - Controller's records the amount of incremental
taxes received by the Redevelopment Agency for each of the years 1980-81 through
1985-86 and the amount thereof that would be allocable to the College District
under the agreements; contacted representatives of the State Chancellor of
Community Colleges and the Los Angeles County Superintendent of Schools to
determine the extent to which the Community College District may have received
funds from the State to offset decreased revenues allocated to the District after
passage of Proposition 13, and that might reduce the amount otherwise allocable
to the District- under the agreements; and calculated the amount due to the
College District under terms of the agreements.
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
************
Executive Director, Port of Oakland
Management Audit - Legal Department
Port Attorney
1986
The Executive Director retained HMR to review the operations of the Port
Attorney's Office. Staffmg, distribution of workload, office procedures and the
potential for streamlining the development of leases were analyzed as part of this
project. We recommended more extensive use of computers, paralegal and
clerical staff, a reallocation of workload between existing staff attorneys rather
than hiring additional staff and a more clear delegation of authority for claims
administration.
Client:
Project:
Agencies:
Period:
************
Grand Jury, Amador County
Management Audit
Selected Amador County Departments
1984-85
This management audit reviewed the General Services Administration's
<GSA) Purchasing, Motor Vehicle Pool, Printing, and Mail departments, the
County ClerklRecorder's Office, the Building Inspector, Civil Engineer, County
-83-
o
o
road maintenance management methods of the Public Works Department and the
respective roles of the County Water Agency and the Water Resources Department
in the planning and development of water and wastewater projects. The County's
fixed asset inventory procedures and controls were also reviewed.
The full implementation of our recommendations would result in a net
savings in County expenditures of at least $379,600 annually, and an additional
net estimated increase in County benefits of at least $95,000 annually, for a total
benefit of at least $474,600 annually. Additionally, there would be a one-time
revenues of approximately $33,450. We also recommended that the County incur
one-time costs of $54,300 and additional costs of$5,700 annually.
************
Client:
Project:
Agencies:
Period:
City Manager, City of Oakland
Management Audit--City Clerk and City Council Offices
City Clerk's Office and City Council Office
1983
Oakland's City Manager retained HMR to perform a management audit of
the Offices of the City Clerk and City Council Secretary. HMR discovered
numerous areas of duplication of effort, unnecessary procedures, and inefficient
deployment of resources. In addition, HMR determined that existing staff were
inappropriately classified, given their job duties. Finally, HMR reviewed the City
elections process, and made recommendations to increase the efficiency of
conducting elections. HMR's recommendations would consolidate the two offices
and improve operating efficiency.
Other f'-.flln......1 Government ExtlArience:
Client
AgencylProject
Year
Board of Supervisors, City
and County of San Francisco
Management Audit
of the Registrar of Voters
1981
-84-
-
Data ~qjn~
Client:
Project:
Agencies:
Period:
-
o
o
Board of Supervisors, City and County of San Francisco
Membership - Electronic Information Processing Steering
Committee (EIPSC)
All City and County Agencies Requesting Data Processing
Equipment and Software
1982-present
HMR has served as one of the members of the City and County of San
Francisco's Electronic Information Processing Steering Committee (EIPSC) since
1982. This committee is responsible for review and approval of the City's
management information systems master plan, setting policies and priorities for
acquisition of data processing hardware and software, establishing citywide
priorities for systems and enhancements and evaluating implementation and
performance of previously approved electronic information processing projects.
Client:
Project:
Agencies:
Period:
************
Grand Jury, Kern County
Management Audit - Assessor
Kern County Assessor's Office
1986
The 1985-86 Kern County Grand Jury retained HMR to conduct a
comprehensive management audit of the County Assessor. One of the major
areas of focus was a proposed new $4 million integrated property information
system and how it would be implemented by the Assessor's Office. We reviewed
the planning by the Assessor's Office for implementation of this new
computerized system and the effect the system would have on stRffing, procedures
and practices of the Office. The HMR staff found that the Assessor's Office did not
have a good understanding of the full capabilities of the proposed new system, and
that they had done little planning for its implementation which was scheduled to
start in a few months. We made several specific recommendations which, if
implemented, would improve the organization and procedures of the Office,
results in a reduction of staffing by as many as 46 positions, and save $1.4 million
annually after the system was fully operational.
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
************
Executive Director, Port of Oakland
Management Audit - Data Processing
Data Processing Department
1985
At the request of the Executive Director of the Port of Oakland, we reviewed
the operations and management of the Port's Data Processing Department. This
included an assessment of the computer hardware used throughout the Port as
well as the service provided by the Department to all other Port Departments. We
-85-
-
y
o
o
made a. number of recommendations aimed at expediting the level of service
provided by the department and improving overall management and coordination
of data processing throughout the Port.
Client:
Project:
Agencies:
Period:
************
County Administrative Officer, Mendocino County
Development of computer software for a parking and traffic
citation management system.
Ukiah Justice Court, Mendocino County
1985
HMR developed the software necessary to automate the Ukiah Justice
Court's parking and traffic citation management system. This computerized
system replaced the Court's manual system and resulted in a reduction in the
time required to perform the Court's functions amounting to approximately 1,255
person-hours per year, or .6 of a Full Time Equivalent (FTE) with an annual value
of$12,228.
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
************
Board of Supervisors, City and County of San Francisco
Management Audit -- Municipal Court
Municipal Court
1983
At the direction of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, HMR performed
a management audit of the Municipal Court's Simplified Automated Traffic
System (SATS). SATS is a computer-based system for tracking and processing 2.5
million traffic citations issued annually. The purpose of the project was to
determine whether the system was functioning efficiently and effectively. Based
on this analysis, we recommended rescheduling some shifts, establishing
performance standards and redeploying window staff. We also recommended
that the Municipal Court reestablish procedures for issuing warning letters and
court warrants for individuals who have outstanding traffic hearing process to
reduce the court's resources allocated to this function. HMR found that SATS had
been working well in the first year of operations; however, HMR found potential
system modifications which could produce a one-time benefit of $850,000 and
annual savings of $256,000.
-86-
-
-
c
..-
'-....J
PI..nnilll! and Permit Processinl!
Client:
Project:
Agencies:
Period:
City Manager, City of Oakland
Management Audit of the Permit Processing, Construction
Inspection and Code Enforcement Functions of City of Oakland
Departments
Public Works, Development Services Department
Planning, Development Controls Division
Community Development, Housing Conservation Division
General Services (cable under-grounding)
Parks and Recreation (tree removal)
Police (abandoned vehicle enforcement)
Fire (fire marshal activities)
City Attorney (code enforcement)
1991
This management audit included a review of the functions provided by each
of the involved departments and staffs, to evaluate the current organization of
services and identify methods for improving coordination of permit processing,
construction inspection and code enforcement activities. Included in this review
was an evaluation of the potential for consolidating construction inspection,
complaint response, and other activities now performed independently by each of
the departments. An assessment of staffing levels, activities and mix of personnel
by classification for each of the studied departments was made. A review of the
current procedures and practices was made to assess mechanisms for insuring
that the public receives prompt, courteous and responsive services (particularly
as related to telephone requests for service, construction inspections, and
assisting persons wishing to accomplish the permit and construction inspection
processes); to evaluate methods which have been established for enforcing
compliance with Oakland City codes; and to. determine whether enforcement
methods are appropriately utilized by staff. An evaluation was made of the need
for staff training, to insure a consistent interpretation of the City of Oakland
Municipal Code, Oakland Housing Code, the Uniform Building Code, and other
applicable laws and regulations; to insure courteous and responsive services; and
to effeatively communicate code requirements and permit processing steps to the
public. A review was made of the City of Oakland Municipal Code, Oakland
Housing Code, the Uniform Building Code, and other applicable laws and
regulations, to determine whether code sections are clearly and consistently
presented, whether existing Municipal Code sections meet community
expectations, and whether codes are enforceable.
-87-
-
Client:
Project:
Agencies:
Period:
o
......,
c..;
************
Board of Supervisors, City and County of San Francisco
Management Audit - Permit Process
Departments of City Planning and Public Works
1989
The Board of Supervisors has requested HMR to conduct a management
audit of the Planning Department and to review the City of San Francisco's
permit process in an effort to help streamline the process and improve
coordination between the various agencies involved in processing and issuing
permits for development.
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
************
Grand Jury, Santa Barbara County
Management Audit - Resource Management Department
Resource Management Department
1988-89
The findings and recommendations pertain to both the internal
management of the department as well as broader planning and land use policy
matters directed to the Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission.
HMR found that the planning process in Santa Barbara County suffers from a
number of problems including: inconsistent treatment of discretionary permit
applications with similar circumstances;. ambiguous and sometimes
contradictory land use and growth management rules and regulations; excessive
staff and decision maker latitude in interpreting land use policies and
regulations, resulting in a perception by applicants that the process is arbitrary;
absence of a single manager with overall responsibility for the department's
permit process; unnecessarily lengthy permit processing time which could be
reduced through procedural changes without sacrificing the integrity of the
process; duplicative staff analyses of the same issues in the permit process, which
lengthens processing time and generates additional expense for applicants;
limited zoning and permit condition enforcement efforts.
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
************
Board of Supervisors, City and County of San Francisco
Management Audit - Planning Department
Planning Department
1988
At the direction of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, HMR performed
a management audit of San Francisco's Planning Department. This
management audit disclosed that the Master Plan is outdated and inconsistent,
the Planning Code, due to its complexity, is not easily understood either by the
general public or the Department's own planning staff, there is a current backlog
of over 4,500 zoning violations, there are over 1,600 nonconforming uses, the
-88-
-
.
o
o
public information services are untimely and insufficient, the Planning
Commission uses its discretionary authority in a questionable manner, the
personnel and procedures manuals are outdated, normal working hours are not
adhered to, fees are not being fully recovered, and 35% of the administrative
positions were not needed for administration. HMR concluded that the
management of the Department had been deficient in fulfilling numerous of its
planning and administrative responsibilities and has allocated and managed its
personnel resources ineffectively. Based on these findings, HMR made a series of
recommendations to improve the Department's efficiency, effectiveness and
economy, including a recommendation that independent management assistance
should be provided to the Director of City Planning to improve the overall
management of the Department.
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
***********
1986-87 Grand Jury, Santa Barbara County
Management Audit -- Planning and Permit Processing
Resource Management Department
1987
The Grand Jury retained HMR to conduct a management audit of Santa
Barbara County's Resource Management Department, excluding the Energy
Division. The department's functions included in the analysis were
comprehensive planning, permit processing, environmental review, public
services, the department's overall staffing and organizational structure and
revenue collection procedures and opportunities. We recommended allocating
additional resources to long term planning to clarify the County's land use and
development policies, a number of procedural changes to expedite the permit
process, an increase in permit processing fees and development of time standards
regarding amount of staff time allocated to permit processing and a consolidation
of the department's permit processing divisions. Implementation of our
recommendations would reduce permit processing time by approximately 52
days, increase revenues by approximately $296,000 annually and a more efficient
utilization of staff.
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
************
Grand Jury, Santa Cruz County
Management Audit--Planning
Planning Department
1983
The Santa Cruz County Grand Jury retained HMR to perform a
management audit of the Planning Department. The Department had a $2.8
million budget and 82 employees in FY 1982-83. This audit included analyses of
the Department's organizational structure, budget, productivity, staffing, and
compliance with all applicable State laws. The audit also included assessments of
permit processing time, financial records, and cash management procedures.
The report included recommendations to alter current practices and procedures,
-89-
o
o
reduce permit processing time by an average of 33 days, decrease departmental
costs, and improve overall operating efficiency. Implementation of these
recommendations would represent a net annual savings of approximately $80,000
(less a one-time expenditure of $19,500).
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
************
Grand Jury, Siskiyou County
Management Audit--Planning
Planning Department
1983
The Siskiyou County Grand Jury selected HMR to conduct a management
audit of the Planning Department, which had a $300,000 budget in FY 1982-83.
The audit included an examination of the following issues: fee levels, processing
procedures, zoning permits, organizational structure, staff levels, and the
relationship between the Department's planning efforts and its permit process.
HMR made recommendations to improve staffing, streamline the permit process,
and improve internal procedures. Implementation of these recommendations
would result in a more efficient delivery of services and an annual savings of
$53,000. (The report also identified potential revenues of $42,000-136,000, should
the County choose to raise permit fee levels.)
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
************
Grand Jury, Sonoma County
Management Audit--Planning
Planning Department
1982-83
The Sonoma County Grand Jury retained HMR to conduct a comprehensive
review and evaluation of all functions in the Planning Department. In FY 1982-
83, the Department employed 37 staff and had a budget of approximately $1.4
million. The Grand Jury instructed HMR to recommend alternatives that would
improve the Department's operational efficiency, improve the level of service, and
reduce operational costs. Implementation of the recommendations contained in
this report would result in more expeditious permit processing, resolution of
inconsistencies among several of the County's planning and land use laws, more
efficient graphics and drafting services, and an annual savings of approximately
$122,000 (less a one-time expense of$5,000).
-90-
o
o
************
Client:
Project:
Agencies:
Period:
City Manager, City of Oakland
Management Audit--Permit Processing
Planning and Public Works Departments
1982
Oakland's City Manager retained HMR to perform a comprehensive review
of Oakland's permit processing procedures for various types of construction,
development, and renovation projects. HMR developed flow charts that depicted
departments involved, personnel resources expended, and elapsed time incurred
for all steps in the application process. HMR also developed cost estimates for
processing the various permits, including the costs of plan checking, hearings,
and field inspections. HMR recommended changes in the permit fee structure
that would more accurately reflect the costs of processing individual permits.
-91-
o
o
Redevelonment. HnllmnO" and Economic Develonmpnt Asmncies.
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
Board of Supervisors, City and County of San Francisco
Budget Analysis--Community Development
Mayor's Office of Housing and Community Development
1976-present
Since 1976, HMR has conducted annual analyses of San Francisco's
Community Development (CD) budgets as proposed by the Mayor's Office of
Housing and Community Development. Various programs receiving CD funds
include the following: Redevelopment Agency; Public Housing Rehabilitation
Program; Housing Development Corporations; Housing Site Acquisition,
Community Housing Rehabilitation, and Code Enforcement; Fair Housing
Counseling and Technical Service; Neighborhood Facilities Improvement
Program; Neighborhood Centers; Public Space Improvement; Public Services
Program; Economic Development Program Administration; and Programming
and Management. These annual analyses have yielded up to $1.2 million in
savings that were reallocated to other needed programs.
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
************
Board of Supervisors, City and County of San Francisco
Management Audit
San Francisco Redevelopment Agency
1991
The Board of Supervisors directed HMR to conduct a management audit of
the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency including the Agency's use of tax-
increment financing, project management skills, level of reporting to the Board of
Supervisors and economic development activities. Our recommendations
included approximately $400,000 in staff salary reductions. From a performance
perspective, HMR recommended. that the agency adopt better procedures for
project management, align senior staff salaries to comparable City positions, and
provide more detailed information to the Board of Supervisors.
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
************
Grand Jury, San Bernardino County
Management Audit - Economic Development
Economic Development Department
1986-87
HMR found that San Bernardino County's contract with an economic
development firm was not in the best interests of the County. The contract was
found deficient in that the County was paying the firm a fixed fee but did not
require the contract firm to provide a specific number of hours of service and
related hourly rates or any other measurement of the company's efforts on behalf
of the County. We also found that the contractor's travel, entertainment,
-92-
o
o
professional service and special departmental expenses were not adequately
monitored by the County allowing for a potential conflict of interest with the
contractor authorizing their own expenses, that the contractor had overstated
their accomplishments and that the economic development program as a whole
was weakly administered. We recommended several changes in the contract and
changes in the County's overall approach to economic development including a
reduction in the use of the contract firm.
Client:
Project:
Agencies:
Period:
************
Director, Internal Affairs Department, City of Cerritos
Financial Analysis -- Agreement Payment Provisions
Cerritos Redevelopment Agency
1986
The Director of Internal Affairs retained HMR to evaluate what, if any,
amounts may be owed to the Cerritos Community College District under
agreements entered into in 1975 and 1977 among the Cerritos Community College
District, theCerritos Redevelopment Agency and the City of Cerritos. HMR staff
reviewed the agreement provision and records of payments made to the
Community College District by the Redevelopment Agency; determined from
review of the County Auditor-Controller's records the amount of incremental
taxes received by the Redevelopment Agency for each of the years 1980-81 through
1985-86 and the amount thereof that would be allocable to the College District
under the agreements; contacted representatives of the State Chancellor of
Community Colleges and the Los Angeles County Superintendent of Schools to
determine the extent to which the Community College District may have received
funds from the State to offset decreased revenues allocated to the District after
passage of Proposition 13, and that might reduce the amount otherwise allocable
to the District under the agreements; and calculated the amount due to the
College District under terms of the agreements.
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
************
City Manager, City of Oakland
Management Audit -- Economic Development
Office of Economic Development and Employment
1985-86
HMR conducted a management audit of this agency, which administers
Oakland's redevelopment efforts, economic development and employment and
training programs under one administrative umbrella. We recommended
pooling clerical staff and deleting some duplicative positions through attrition,
implementing new budget procedures, contracting out certain employment and
training functions, deletion of three underutilized administrative functions
through attrition, improved budgeting and monitoring procedures for federal and
other economic development funds and other improvements. The benefits
resulting from implementation of these recommendations will include improved
services and cost reductions of approximately $1.3 million annually.
-93-
-
Client:
Project:
Agencies:
Period:
o
o
************
Grand Jury, Los Angeles County
Management Audit--Redevelopment
Community Redevelopment Agencies of Los Angeles County
1984
The Corporation conducted a review of all community redevelopment
agencies (CRAs) in Los Angeles County in 1984 for the Los Angeles County Grand
Jury. For this study, we identified and surveyed each CRA in Los Angeles
County, reviewed all existing and pending state laws governing CRAs and
interviewed numerous state and County officials with jurisdiction over CRAs.
Issues identified as a result of this study included the lack of accountability of
CRAs, the drain on County property tax revenue resulting from CRA project
financing mechanisms, the lack of regional coordination and planning between
the individual CRAs and the lack of adequate standards for determining blight.
We also conducted case studies of six CRAs in the County and analyzed and
reported on their alternative approaches to municipal redevelopment.
Client:
Project:
Agencies:
Period:
************
Board of Supervisors, City and County of San Francisco
Management Audit--Rent Arbitration Board
San Francisco Residential Rent Stabilization and Arbitration
Board
1984
The San Francisco Residential Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Board is
responsible for administering the provisions of San Francisco's residential rent
stabilization ordinance. The Board is staffed by 13 employees and, at the time of
the audit, had a proposed total budget of $743,257. In our audit, we reviewed the
operational policies and procedures at the Rent Board in addition to evaluating
present and proposed staffing levels. We made recommendations in the fOllowing
areas: clerical staffing, use of sick leave and compensatory time off, the capital
improvement certification process, hearing officer pay, procedures for handling
case documents and the mechanism for the City's publishing of allowable annual
rent increases. We recommended a number of changes that would produce
savings and benefits worth approximately $214,000 per year.
-94-
-
.
o
o
************
Client:
Project:
Agencies:
Board of Supervisors, City and County of San Francisco
Management Audit--Economic Development
Neighborhood Economic Development Organizations (NEDOs)
and the Mayor's Office of Economic Development (MOED)
1982
Period:
This audit reviewed the use of Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) funds used by NEDO and MOED. The major goals of this audit were to
quantify the need for economic development, to evaluate the City's overall plan for
economic development, and to determine the impact that economic development
had in upgrading communities, increasing or improving small businesses,
increasing low and moderate income employment, and increasing the City's tax
base. HMR made recommendations to improve coordination of existing economic
development activities between the public and private sectors, and to produce a
more cost-effective economic development program. In addition, HMR
recommended' implementation of a centralized loan packaging program that
would save $288,000 in annual operating costs.
nth..... Redevelonment. Hou..<rinl!' and Economic DevelQument A_n..tes Exnerience:
Client
AgencylProject Year
Board of Supervisors, City
and County of San Francisco
Management Audit of 1981
Eight Housing Development
Corporations
Board of Supervisors, City
and County of San Francisco
Management Audit of 1978
Housing Authority and
Redevelopment Agency
-95-
Remstrar of Voters
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
o
o
Board of Supervisors, City and County of San Francisco
Annual Budget Review of Registrar of Voters
Registrar of Voters
1971-present
As Budget Analyst to the Board of Supervisors, we have reviewed, analyzed
and recommended reductions to the budget of the Registrar of Voters on an
annual basis. Since staffing costs and related expenses vary widely with the level
of election activity, detailed knowledge of the department's operations is required
to make sound recommendations. In this capacity, we have achieved savings of
over $1.0 million.
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
************
Board of Supervisors, City and County of San Francisco
Management Audit - Registrar ofVoter.s
San Francisco Registrar of Voters
1987
The Board of Supervisors requested a management audit of the Registrar of
Voters because of numerous complaints received from voters regarding the
November 6,1986 election. We found that the preparation for and execution of the
election was marked by a lack of planning, the absence of a policy and procedures
manual, inattention to detail, lack of advertising to the public, late mailing of
voter pampWets and other problems. We recommended preparation of a written
plan for future elections, development of a comprehensive written policy and
procedures manual, earlier recruitment of poll workers, procurement of a
micrographics system and other procedural charges.
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
************
City Manager, City of Oakland
Management Audit - City Clerk and City Council Offices
City Clerk's Office and City Council Office
1983
Oakland's City Manager retained HMR to perform a management audit of
the Office of the City Clerk and City Council Secretary. HMR discovered
numerous areas of duplication of effort, unnecessary procedures, and inefficient
deployment of resources. In addition, HMR determined that existing staff were
inappropriately classified, given their job duties. Finally, HMR performed a
comprehensive review of the City elections process, with specific emphasis on
ballot management and voter registration procedures. HMR's recommendations
would consolidate the two offices and improve operating efficiency.
-96-
o
other Relrl..'ltrar of Voters Exoerience:
Client
Board of Supervisors, City
and County of San Francisco
Board of Supervisors, City
and County of San Francisco
-97-
o
AgencylProject
Year
Management Audit of
the Registrar of Voters
(Part II)
1981
Management Audit of
the Registrar of Voters
(Part 1)
1980-81
o
o
Convention and Visitor's Bureau
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
City Manager, City of Oakland
Management and Organizational Study of the
Convention and Visitor's Bureau and the Northern
California Black Chamber of Commerce
Convention and Visitor's Bureau and Chamber of Commerce
1989
This study reviewed the operations of these contractors and the Oakland
Convention Center Management concerning convention and visitors sales and
promotion activities, and analyzed the organization of these services within
Oakland.
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
************
Board of Supervisors, City and County of
San Francisco
Management Audit of San Francisco Convention and
Visitors Bureau
Convention and Visitor's Bureau
1985
Our recommendations relate primarily to marketing the City's convention
facilities and to methods by which the City's contract with the Convention and
Visitors Bureau is monitored by the Chief Administrative Officer.
-98-
o
o
CULTURE AND RECREATION
LIbrari_
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
City Manager, City of Oakland
Management AuditnLibrary
Public Library System
1982
Oakland's City Manager retained HMR to perform a management audit of
the City'/! Public Library System. The purpose of the audit was to identify areas
where the City could improve efficiency and/or raise revenues. The report
addressed a number of concerns including the following: bookmobile service,
kiosk service, personnel classifications, security, inter-jurisdictional contracts,
and public use of meeting rooms. Altogether, the audit identified increased
revenue sources or decreased costs ranging from $199,000 to $339,000 annually.
nth_ LihrarleA RrnAri.........:
Client
AgencylProject
Year
Board of Supervisors, City
and County of San Francisco
Management Audit of
the Public Library
1973
-99-
-
o
o
Cahlp. Tp.levision
Client:
Project:
Board of Supervisors, City and County of San Francisco
Management Audit -- Cable Television Franchise Oversight
Committee
San Francisco Citizens Telecommunications Policy Committee
1985-86
Agency:
Period:
As requested by the Board of Supervisors, HMR conducted a management
audit of the San Francisco Citizens Telecommunications Policy Committee
(CTPC), an advisory group charged with reviewing cable television services
provided by Viacom International, Inc., San Francisco's cable television
franchise. After reviewing the management, financial and budgetary practices of
the CTPC, we recommended that the organization develop a master plan
outlining priorities and timeliness, improve cable subscriber complaint and
compliance procedures, consolidate and improve its budgeting and budget
monitoring procedures, standardize franchise payment dates, and clarify the
franchise provisions in Viacom's contract with the City. The benefits of
implementing our recommendation would include improved efficiency and
effectiveness and annual savings of approximately $14,000.
-100-
,
o
o
Museu,ms
Client:
Project:
Agencies:
Period:
Board of Supervisors, City and County of San Francisco
Management Audit--Museums
Fine Arts and Asian Art Museums
1980
San Francisco's Board of Supervisors directed HMR to perform a
management audit on the Fine Arts and Asian Art Museums. HMR determined
that the museums needed to reallocate resources to improve security, inventory
controls, conservation, and budgeting procedures. HMR also revealed that the
museums would be facing serious financial difficulties in the future if new
revenue raising measures were not implemented. The report included
recommendations to strengthen these areas, resulting in improved operations.
-101-
o
o
Parks and Recreation
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
Recreation and Parks Department, City of Alameda
Conduct a Time and Motion Study of the City's
Park System
Recreation and Park Department
1990-91
The purpose of this study was to determine the appropriate staffing level of
the Parks Division necessary to adequately maintain the City's existing and
proposed park system. We recommended that existing staff levels were
insufficient to meet maintenance needs and that additional staff should be hired.
We also reported on a deficiency in the direct management of the park
maintenance function and recommended increased field supervision through the
designation of land maintenance personnel.
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
************
Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors
Analysis of Ballpark Financing Strategies and Funding
Options
Board of Supervisors
1990
The Board of Supervisors requested HMR to prepare a report pertaining to
stadium operating revenues and expenses, financing strategies and funding
options. We recommended, based on discussions with bond counsels, mortgage
banking firms and an investment rating firm, that the Santa Clara County
Stadium Joint Powers Agency could reduce projected interest costs by
approximately $73.9 million by financing the stadium construction rather than
accepting the private financing proposed by the San Francisco Giants.
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
************
Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors
Review of the Santa Clara County Combined Park Charter
Funds Balance and the Parks and Recreation Departments
Current Park Revenue and Expenditure Plans
Parks and Recreation Department
1990
The subject of this review was an analysis of the Park Charter Funds
balance and the current revenue and expenditure plan of the Parks and
Recreation Department. Proposed park acquisition, development and operations
costs were analyzed to FY 1997-98 to calculate closing Park Charter Funds
balance for the period.
-102-
-
,
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
o
o
************
Board of Supervisors, City and County of San Francisco
Review of the Downtown Ballpark and Arena Proposals
Mayor
1989
HMR was retained to examine all of the fiscal aspects of the ballpark and
arena proposals. Under the best care cost/benefit estimate, the City would incur
total costs in excess of $71.6 million over the 40-year term of the ballpark lease.
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
************
City Manager, City of Oakland
Management Audit - Parks and Recreation
Oakland Office of Parks and Recreation
1985
The City Manager of Oakland retained our firm to conduct a
comprehensive management audit of the Office of Parks and Recreation (OPR).
We recommended reorganization of divisions within the Parks Department, a
more equitable redistribution of workload, modified operating procedures in the
Recreation Department, increased recreation center programs utilizing existing
staff more effectively and creation of a new administrative unit to provide overall
management to OPR and allow for an elimination of the Visitor Services
Department. Altogether, implementation of our recommendations would result
in annual savings of approximately $500,000.
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
************
Board of Supervisors, City and County of San Francisco
Review of "Stadium Feasibility Analysis: Task Force Report to
the Mayor"
Mayor's Stadium Task Force
1983-84
Early in 1982, the San Francisco Giants published a report entitled "The
Future of Candlestick Park" and submitted it to the Mayor for the City's
consideration. In response, the Mayor appointed a Task Force to evaluate the
issues raised by the Giants concerning the stadium. . In October 1983, the Task
Force issued its report which recommended the City pursue the construction of a
new stadium. HMR was directed by the Board of Supervisors to review the Task
Force report and the supporting research and data. HMR found that the
information and conclusions presented in the Task Force report were not
sufficient to point out a clear course of action with regard to either refurbishing
and doming Candlestick Park, building a new stadium on the Candlestick site, or
building a new downtown domed stadium.
-103-
o
o
.*.*.*******
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
City Manager, City of Oakland
Management Audit--Park Rangers
Office of Parks and Recreation
1982-83
Oakland's City Manager retained HMR to perform a management audit of
the Office of Parks and Recreation's Park Rangers. HMR found that while the
Park Rangers were providing a valuable service to the community, they were
deployed at times inconsistent with the demand for their services. The report
. contained recommendations that would concentrate and improve the effectiveness
of the Park Rangers.
Other Park'! And Recreation RYnPriA11l'.A!
Client
AgencylProject
Year
Board of Supervisors, City
and County of San Francisco
Management Audit of
Park and Recreation
Facilities
1980-81
-104-
.
- -
-
o
"
--
HRAT,TH. WELFARE AND SOCIAL SERVICES
Public Hfi'mitSll~
Client:
Project:
Agencies:
Period:
Grand Jury, Los Angeles County
Management Audit -- Medical Records
Martin Luther King, Jr. Hospital (Los Angeles County
Hospital)
1986-87
In our review of this hospital's Medical Records Division, we found several
significant deficiencies in its operations. We found that proper staff planning was
impeded by a lack of accurate records listing budgeted staff for the hospital, that
sick leave and leave without pay was a significant problem with some employees
averaging approximately 20 sick days per year, that an estimated 45,000 active
medical chart files, or 9 percent of the hospital's total, could not be located by staff
and we found that the hospital had a billing backlog with a value of approximately
$4.8 million, resulting in lost interest earnings of approximately $384,000 per
year. In addition to some improvements in these areas planned by the hospital,
we recommended several changes in the Division's operations to increase
revenues and improve the processing, control and security of the hospital's
medical records.
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
************
Grand Jury, Merced County
Management Audit--Hospital Food Services
Merced County Medical Center Dietary Division
1983
The Merced County Grand Jury retained HMR to conduct a management
audit of the Medical Center's Dietary Division. This study included a review of
patient and cafeteria meal costs, hospital pricing policies, direct and indirect
costs associated with the provision of meals to employees and visitors, and
internal controls over the Department's assets and disbursements. The report's
recommendations included: the disallowance of free meals to employees and
visitors, the setting of cafeteria meal prices to recover operating costs, and the
improvement of internal purchasing controls. Implementation of these
recommendations would result in a net annual benefit of $217,000-310,000.
-105-
.
o
o
************
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
Board of Supervisors, Santa Clara County
Management Audit--Hospital
Valley Medical Center (VMC)
1982-83
In FY 1982-83, VMC had a budget of over $100 million and a staff of over
1,800. HMR analyzed the following issues: room rate levels, charge procedures,
patient billing, claims processing, security, physician group contracts, pathology,
radiology, anesthesiology, medical services to the hospital, establishment of a
nurses registry, cafeteria food pricing policies, and various other administrative
and management issues. Implementation of the recommendations contained in
this audit would result in a net annual benefit of $5.5-6.5 million, and a one time
savings of $1.9 million.
************
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
Board of Supervisors, City and County of San Francisco
Management AuditnHospital
San Francisco General Hospital (SFGH)
1981-82
In FY 1981-82, SFGH had over 2,000 staff and a $76 million budget. This
management audit included analyses of the billing, payroll, and accounting
systems; space utilization; equipment purchases; staffing patterns (including use
of temporary personnel);' vacation and sick leave; inpatient and outpatient
services; purchasing practices; and medical records. This study examined not
only the hospital, but also its related psychiatric and drug abuse programs.
Additionally, the audit included a revenue analysis that considered Medicare,
MediCal (Medicaid), Federal grants, State funding, and private party payments.
Implementation of the recommendations contained in this report would generate
approximately $7 million in net annual benefits (savings plus additional
revenues) while improving hospital services.
-106-
..
Children's Services
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
o
o
Board of Supervisors, County of Santa Clara
Review of the Operations of the Family Support Division of the
Office of the District Attorney
Office of the District Attorney
1990-91
HMR conducted a comprehensive management audit of the Family Support
Division of the Office of District Attorney to evaluate opportunities to improve the
quality of services provided to custodial as well as absent parents and their
dependent children. Our report recommendations included that a child support
modification unit be implemented that would result in annual revenues to the
County of $600,000, that increased compliance with State regulations be achieved
and that management information be improved.
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
************
Board of Supervisors, Santa Clara County
Review of the County's System of Services for the Protection
of Abused and Neglected Children
Social ServicesIProbation Department
1990
. The scope of this audit included management, organizational, fiscal and
administrative support issues, as well as operational issues dealing with
emergency response, continuing child welfare services and adoptions. As a
result of this review, numerous areas were identified where significant
improvements in the quality, availability and delivery of services can be achieved.
These opportunities would strengthen the management of critical social service
programs, facilitate the efforts of County staff who are responsible to deliver direct
public services, enhance the quality of services provided to abused and neglected
children and their families and reduce State, federal and County program costs
by more than $1.5 million.
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
************
Auditor-Controller, Los Angeles County
Evaluation of the Department of Children's Services
Planning and Implementation Efforts Related to the Adoptions
Division Corrective Action Plan
Department of Children's Services - Adoption Division
1989
The Adoptions Division Corrective Action Plan is intended to produce
significant changes in the management, organization, staffing and operation of
the Adoptions Division. HMR found that the Department is actively making these
changes but it must take care to act in appropriate and well coordinated
-107-
,
o
o
increments. Extensive planning and written documentation of all aspects of the
process are essential to the success of such an undertaking.
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
************
Auditor-Controller, Los Angeles County
Management Audit - Children's Services
Los Angeles County Department of Children's Services
Adoptions Division
1988
The Corporation was retained by the Los Angeles County Auditor-
Controller to review the Adoptions Division's goals and organizational structure
and to identify the impact or effect of program, management and operational
issues. We assessed the links between the organization's accountability,
objectives and activities and analyzed actual performance to determine if the
Division's operations were in need of improvement. We found a lack of a clear
and common understanding of the purpose of the organization and an effective
accountability structure, a need for improved case management procedures, a
need to more fully integrate adoptions with other Children's Protective Services
and other changes. The Auditor-Controller has since retained our firm to
determine the status of our recommendations implemented by the Adoptions
Division.
Client:
Project:
Agencies:
Period:
************
1986-87 Grand Jury, Kern County
Management Audit - Procedures to Protect Abused Children
Kern County Child Protection Services, Sheriff, District.
Attorney, County Counsel, Bakersfield Police Department
1987
HMR was retained by the 1986-87 County Grand Jury to review and evaluate
the role, responsibilities and accountability of the Kern County Child Protective
Services in protecting the health, safety and welfare of allegedly abused children.
We found that Kern County ranked first and second among medium sized
counties in California in terms of number of arrests and number of cases of child
sexual abuse. In spite of this, we found that insufficient resources were allocated
to County agencies to provide adequate services to this population and that
cooperation and coordination between the various agencies that provide services
needed strengthening. We recommended the use of an existing non-profit
organization to serve as a forum for coordinating the County's efforts including
fund raising from the private sector. We also recommended enhancement of the
County's data collection and analysis efforts to assist County management in
understanding the magnitude of child sexual abuse and neglect in the County
and to determine the appropriate level of funding and other resources needed to
deal with this problem.
-108-
-
.~
o
:>
************
Client:
Project:
Agencies:
Period:
Grand Jury, San Bernardino County
Management Audit
All County Agencies Providing Children's Protective Services
1985
The Grand Jury retained HMR to conduct a comprehensive management
audit of Children's Protective Services in San Bernardino County. These services
are provided by a number of agencies including the Department of Public Social
Services, the Public Health Department, the Juvenile Court, the Probation
Department, the Sheriff, the District Attorney and the Public Defender. Among
other things, the Corporation recommended that coordination between these
agencies be vastly improved, contracting procedures strengthened, and certain
county facilities converted to private, State-licensed group homes.
Implementation of the recommendations in our report would allow the county to
save approximately $950,000 per year.
-109-
J
~..I Services
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
c
o
Board of Supervisors, City and County of San Francisco
Budget Analysis--Senior Services
Commission on Aging (COA)
1977-present
Since FY 1977-78, HMR has annually reviewed COA's budget request. This
review entails thorough analyses of the many contractors who apply for and
spend COA funds. HMR provides analyses on the following types of senior
services: legal, transportation, nutrition, and multi-purpose. HMR's
recommendations have resulted in increased service delivery, reduced unit costs,
and improved budgetary control.
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
************
Board of Supervisors, City and County of San Francisco
Limited Management Audit of the Department of Social
Services
San Francisco Board of Supervisors
1992
This limited management audit of the Department of Social Services
reviewed organization and staffing levels, administrative and management goals,
and the maximization of administrative cost recovery from State and Federal
sources. The preliminary report conclusions noted that the Department of Social
Services has continually reduced administrative costs and produces an annual
report on goals_and objectives. The final report will include an evaluation of the
homeless programs offered by the Department of Social Services as well as other
City agencies.
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
************
Board of Supervisors, City and County of San Francisco
Management Audit of the Senior Escort Program
San Francisco Board of Supervisors
1991-92
This management audit reviewed the Senior Escort Program as
administered by the Police Department. The primary purpose of the audit was to
assure that, for the funds allocated, the City is providing the highest level of crime
prevention, escort, and transportation services possible for the City's senior
citizens. The report recommended that the Senior Escort Program be transferred
from the Police Department to a combined Municipal Railway Paratransit and
Commission on Aging Program in order to increase program efficiency. In
addition, the report provided two policy alternatives for expanded program
service.
-110-
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
o
()
************
Board of Supervisors, City and County of San Francisco
Survey of Senior Citizen Programs Offered by the City and
County of San Francisco and the private sector (Phase 1) and
the Identification of Gaps in Services
San Francisco Board of Supervisors
1991
HMR conducted a Phase I survey of all programs for senior citizens
provided by the City and County of San Francisco and private sector agencies
operating within San Francisco. The survey includes data on senior citizen
demographics, type and scope of programs, economic needs of participants,
source of funds and cost of programs. Phase II of the study included the
identification of service gaps in senior citizen programs and possible solutions to
closing those gaps.
Client:
Project:
Agencies:
Period:
************
Grand Jury, San Bernardino County
Management Audit
All County Agencies Providing Children's Protective Services
1985
The Grand Jury retained HMR to conduct a comprehensive management
audit of Children's Protective Services in San Bernardino County. These services
are provided by a number of agencies including the Department of Public Social
Services, the Public Health Department, the Juvenile Court, the Probation
Department, the Sheriff, the District Attorney and the Public Defender. Among
other things, the Corporation recommended that coordination between these
agencies be vastly improved, contracting procedures strengthened; and certain
county facilities converted to private, State-licensed group homes.
Implementation of the recommendations in our report would allow the' county to
save approximately $950,000 per year.
Client:
Project:
Agencies:
Period:
************
City Manager, City of Oakland
Management Audit
Social Services Department of the City of Oakland
1984-85
At the request of the City Manager, we conducted a management audit of
Oakland's Social Services Department. Our analysis covered the Department's
administrative unit, its governing boards and. commissions and its various
operating programs, which included senior programs, elderly and disabled
programs, energy programs and other services and programs. We recommended
the elimination of some unnecessary administrative positions, improved training,
a revised organizational structure, transfer of some of the Department's functions
-111-
o
()
to other more appropriate City departments, transference of the Department's
energy programs to a private sector provider and improved program application
procedures and record-keeping.
************
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
Board of Supervisors, City and County of San Francisco
Management Audit--General Assistance (GA)
Department of Social Services
1983
San Francisco's Board of Supervisors directed HMR to perform a
management audit of the Department of Social Services' locally-funded GA
program. In FY 1982-83, the program had a caseload of approximately 5,900
recipients who received approximately $14 million in benefits. The management
audit reported that the program was administratively overstaffed, eligibility rules
were misinterpreted, and record keeping practices resulted in excessive worker
error. The report recommended revised staffing patterns, uniform interpretation
of program eligibility rules, increased internal controls for disbursement of
funds, and streamlined administration of the workfare program (which requires
public aid recipients to perform public service jobs). Implementation of these
recommendations would reduce program costs by approximately $2.6 million
annually.
Oth_ RoA..l Services ~~n.-
Client
AgencylProject Year
Board of Supervisors, City
and County of San Francisco
Management Audit of 1981
Senior Citizen Nutrition
Services Programs
Board of Supervisors, City
and County of San Francisco
Analysis of Juvenile Out- 1980-81
of-Home Placement Services
Board of Supervisors, City
and County of San Francisco
Management Audit of 1979
AFDC Programs
Management Audit of 1977
Commission on Aging
Programs
Board of Supervisors, City
and County of San Francisco
Board of Supervisors, City
and County of San Francisco
Management Audit of 1971
General Assistance
Programs
-112-
-
1
Homel~q SeIViPPQ
Client:
Project:
Agencies:
Period:
o
o
Grand Jury, San Bernardino County
Management Audit - Homeless Assistance Component
Aid to Families with Dependent Children Program
Department of Public Social Services
1989
The report contains findings and recommendations to improve the
Department's efficiency and effectiveness and which will help to continue to
contain Homeless Assistance Program expenditures. Additionally, our
recommendations could eventually result in reduced Homeless Assistance
Program expenditures. Most significant of our recommendations is that the
County develop a program with State assistance to prevent AFDC recipients from
being evicted and becoming eligible for Homeless Assistance Program payments.
Client:
Project:
Agencies:
Period:
************
Board of Supervisors, City and County of San Francisco
Analysis of all Homeless Costs in County
All City and County Departments providing services to the
homeless including the Departments of Social Services and
Public Health
1989
HMR surveyed key City and County Departments to identify the costs for
providing services to the homeless in San Francisco for fiscal year 1988-89. As a
result of this survey, HMR identified an estimated $57 million in costs for primary
homeless programs and services. Approximately 63 percent of the total $57
million, or $36 million of the costs identified for primary homeless services, are
attributed to San Francisco General Hospital based on the Hospital's estimate of
their discharged patients who need to find shelters. HMR also identified $554,800
in other 1988-89 costs for regular City services not specifically directed to the
homeless but that are being incurred due to the presence of the home!ess in San
Francisco. In many cases, these other costs do not result in additional City
expenditures, but rather require the diversion of existing City services to
homeless activities instead of other activities (e.g., Police Department and
Recreation and Park Department). Additionally, some non-quantified costs being
incurred by City departments are described in the report.
-113-
.-I
o
.......
\...1
C'.ommnnitv Mental Hp.JIlth And SuhstSln~ AhllQ1:1! Services
Client:
Project:
Agencies:
Period:
Board of Supervisors, City and County of San Francisco
Budget Analysis and Performance Monitoring
Health Department Contract Programs
1975-present
As Budget Analyst for the Board of Supervisors, HMR provides ongoing
review and analysis of Health Department contract programs (including 32
mental health contracts and 30 drug and alcohol abuse agency contracts totaling
approximately $31.8 million annually). In addition, HMR conducts semi-annual
performance reviews of all mental health and drug abuse programs. HMR has
made recommendations that have streamlined program administration,
maximized Federal and State subventions, and increased direct services without
increasing local costs.
Client:
Project:
Period:
************
Board of Supervisors, County of Santa Clara
Management Audit -- Health Dept., Bureau of Mental Health
Agency: Acute (Psychiatric) Services Subsystem
1984-1985
For FY 1984-85, Acute Services had an authorized budget of $9.9 million; for
the most recent prior period, the service levels provided were: 7,245 patient days
for hospital inpatient psychiatric services; 16,003 patient days for non-hospital
acute psychiatric services; and 6,310 client visits for crisis intervention services.
HMR made recommendations to improve the Department's performance related
to: the use of overtime and extra help; vacation scheduling; census and acuity
based staffing methodology; employee time reporting; employee licensing;
contracting for services with Valley Medical Center; contracting for laboratory
services; the generation of additional interest income; the generation of additional
federal Medi-Cal revenue; fee setting policies and procedures; and patient billing
and collections. Implementation of these recommendations would result in
increased annual revenues of approximately $507,000, reduced annual
expenditures of about $219,000, and one-time net revenues of $376,000.
Client:
Project:
Agencies:
Period:
************
Board of Supervisors, County of Santa Clara
Management Audit--Alcoholism Services
Health Department, Bureau of Alcoholism Services: Rancho
Laguna Seca contract
1984
At the request of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, HMR
conducted this management audit to determine the efficiency, effectiveness and
economy of the operations of Rancho Laguna Seca, the largest of 7 contract
alcoholism recovery programs operating in Santa Clara County. At the time of
-114-
-
,
o
,-.,
'v
our audit, the agency received approximately $512,000 for services for services
from the County. In general we found that the overall management, utilization
and cost effectiveness of the agency was performing well. However, we
recommended several amendments to the contract between the agency and the
County, improvements in the agency's accounting and revenue generating
procedures, adjustments to the existing fee structure and modifications to the
agency's supply purchasing and vehicle acquisition procedures. .
************
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
Board of Supervisors, City and County of San Francisco
Management Audit -- Mental Health Services
San Francisco Medical Center Outpatient Improvement
Programs, Inc.
1984
At the direction of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, HMR conducted
an audit of San Francisco Medical Center Outpatient Improvement Programs,
Inc. (SFMCOIP). The purpose of the audit of the mental health programs
provided by this non-profit corporation under contract to the Public Health
Department of the City and County of San Francisco was to determine compliance
with their contract and the propriety and reasonableness of the agency's
expenditures. We found two areas of noncompliance; the method used by
SFMCOIP to allocate indirect costs and certain questionable indirect costs
charged to the mental health contract. As a result, we recommended disallowing
$33,000 in previously made payments to this organization as well as
recommending a revised indirect cost allocation method for the proper allocation
of indirect costs.
Oth~r ~s:ll Servil'ACl R1rnP"~n~
Client
AgencylProject
Year
Board of Supervisors, City
and County of San Francisco
Management Audit of
Mental Health Services
Contractor
1976-77
Board of Supervisors, City
and County of San Francisco
Management Audit of
Mental Health Services
1976
-115-
-
o
C>
PUBLIC PROTECTION
CA)Wlnpr.
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
Auditor-Controller, County of Los Angeles
Management Audit of the Chief Medical Examiner - Coroner
Chief Medical Examiner - Coroner Department
1990
Detailed Management Audit and technical review (forensic pathology and
toxicology) of entire Los Angeles County Medical Examiner - Coroner's
operations. Final report presented over 150 recommendations for improvement to
management practices and operations of the Department.
-116-
-
o
()
Fire SlIfetv
Cllent:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
Grand Jury, Solano County
Management and Financial Audits - Fire District
Elmira Fire Protection District
1984
The Solano County Grand Jury retained HMR to examine certain
management operations and functions of the Fire District including service
delivery, analysis of fire and emergency response data, revenues, insurance
coverages, internal controls, maintenance procedures and equipment. HMR also
audited the District's books and records for the eighteen month period ended
December 31, 1983. HMR identified numerous deficiencies in the management of
the district and made recommendations directed toward improving the cost-
effectiveness and overall quality of fire protection services. Implementation of
these recommendations would increase employee productivity, improve
accountability, improve coordination of expenditures, strengthen cost and
inventory controls, and improve assessment of maintenance and equipment
needs and costs.
Othm- Fire ~fetv RYnPriA11I'P:
Client
AgencylProject
Year
Board of Supervisors, City
and County of San Francisco
Management Audit of
the Fire Department
1979-80
-117-
-
o
'0
Police. Sheriff and ('Alrrection Denartments
Client:
Project:
Agencies:
Period:
Board of Supervisors, City and County of San Francisco
Budget Analysis--Police and Sheriff Departments
Police Department and Sheriffs Office
1971-present
Since 1971, HMR has analyzed the Police and Sheriff Department budgets.
These reviews have considered a wide variety of program and fiscal issues--from
staffing levels, to program development, to capital project requests. In addition,
HMR reviews supplemental appropriation requests on a weekly basis. These
budget analyses and reports typically result in $1.5 million in annual savings.
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
***********
Board of Supervisors Santa Clara County
Management Audit
Department of Correction
1991-1992
The scope of this comprehensive audit included Departmental
management and administration; Departmental organization; fiscal and
personnel management; custody operations including Main Jail, Elmwood
Correction Center for Women and North County Jail; support functions including
transportation, food services and maintenance; medical and mental health
services; and corrections programs and program screening. The report contained
19 findings which identified opportunities. to improve Department organization,
staffing, and operational practices; to increase cost effectiveness; and to
strengthen internal controls. Once implemented, the recommendations would
result in reduced costs and increased revenues estimated to amount to over $2
million annually.
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
***********
Board of Supervisors City and County of San Francisco
Management Audit -- 911 Emergency System
Police Department
1991
HMR worked with the Controller of the City and County of San Francisco to
audit the 911 Emergency System. In addition to the analysis of statistics, the audit
focused on a number of operational and management issues which were
developed into findings and recommendations. In general, the auditors found
that there is low morale within the Communications unit; that the 911 and Police
Dispatch Center facilities are below the standards of other similar jurisdictions;
that there is no official performance criteria established in which to evaluate the
performance of the unit as a whole or individuals within the unit; that the
management structure of the Communications Section needs to be augmented
and fully civilianized; and that the discipline process used within the unit needs
to be totally revised for more efficient and effective results.
-118-
-
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
-
.. -
o
o
************
Board of Supervisors, City and County of San Francisco
Jail Policy and Overcrowding Committee
San Francisco Sheriffs Department
1988-present
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors has appointed an inter-agency task
force to review the overcrowded conditions at San Francisco County's jails and to
devise programs to reduce overcrowding with State bonds funds available in 1989.
Our firm was asked by the Board of Supervisors to analyze the cost and policy
impacts of the various strategies and alternatives devised by this committee before
a decision is made regarding the allocation of the State funds.
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
***********
Board of Supervisors, City and County of San Francisco
Management Audit--Police Related Services
San Francisco Office of Citizen Complaints
1987
The San Francisco Office of Citizen Complaints is responsible for
investigating complaints of police misconduct or allegations that a member of the
Police Department has not properly performed a duty. The purpose of our
management audit was to determine if the Office was operating in the most
efficient, effective and economical manner. We found that 58 percent of the
Office's current active cases were over 90 days old, that the Office was not using
its staff as efficiently as possible, that the complaint process was unnecessarily
time consuming and unwieldy and that case files were inadequate. We
recommended a reorganization of staff, weekly case reviews by the Office's
Director and management staff, improvements in case file management, a lifting
of a City Charter imposed cap on the Office's budget to allow for hiring additional
staff and more use of the Police Department's sworn officers for investigations of
minor complaints.
Client:
Project:
Agencies:
Period:
************
Grand Jury, Kern County
Review of public complaint procedures
Bakersfield Police Department
1987
We reviewed the Police Department's procedures for receiving, recording
and maintaining complaints from the public, especially those complaints made in
person concerning Police Department personnel. We examined Department
records and documentation and surveyed three Police Departments in other
jurisdictions for comparison purposes.
-119-
..
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
o
o
************
Board of Supervisors, Santa Clara County
Review of Santa Clara County Sheriffs Department's 1986-1987
Budget to Identify Areas where Expenditures could be Reduced
or Revenues Increased
Santa Clara County Sheriffs Department
1987
We examined the Sheriffs Department's revenues and expenditures and
identified the following areas where revenues could be increased and expenditure
reduced: implementation of an alternative staff utilization methodology (a five
eight-hour day patrol work plan instead of a four ten hour day work plan);
charging increased fees based on actual costs to the cities in Santa Clara County
receiving Sheriffs Department services on a contractual basis; timely collection of
fee payments from contract cities to increase interest earnings; improving follow-
up on unpaid traffic citations; enforcing a more equal distribution of vacation;
reduced overtime through more efficient utilization of staff.
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
************
City Manager, City of Fullerton
Management Audit, Police Department Property Room
Police Department
1986
The City Manager retained HMR to evaluate the internal controls over
property held by the Police Department as evidence, especially cash and other
"liquid" property, such as drugs and firearms, and to evaluate the effectiveness,
efficiency and economy of the Department's property room procedures and
practices. HMR staff found the property room personnel generally were
performing effectively and efficiently, compared to other police departments
visited. To further improve operations, the report made recommendations related
to the responsibility for storage, control and destruction of narcotics and
dangerous drugs; short and long-term solutions to a storage facilities problem;
and cash handling procedures.
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
***********
City Manager, City of Oakland
Management Audit--Police Department
Police Department
1982-83
In FY 1982-83, the Oakland Police Department had a $53 million budget, 634
sworn officers, and 297 non-sworn personnel. The audit focused on the following
areas: the utilization of Department staff by function; property management;
overtime and vacation policies; permit and license issuance; park security; and
interaction with other City agencies. The City Manager endorsed the
recommendations in this report which would generate $2.5 million in net annual
benefits.
-120-
-
o
o
Other Police. Sheriff. and ('AlITeCDOn Denartment ExtlArience:
client
AgencylProject Year
Board of Supervisors, Santa
Clara County
Analysis of Potential for 1981
Substituting Civilian
Personnel for Badge Personnel
in the Santa Clara County
Sheriffs Complaint Desk
Board of Supervisors, City and
County of San Francisco
Grant Monitoring of Law 1979-81
Enforcement Assistance
Administration Grant
Recipients
Board of Supervisors, Santa
Clara County
Board of Supervisors, City and
County of San Francisco
Management Audit of 1980
the Sheriffs Department
Management Audit of 1979-80
the Police Department
-121-
-
.
o
o
Court and JlP.t~ntion Services lnclnrlln... Public Defender
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
Board of Supervisors, City and County of San Francisco
Budget Analysis--Municipal Court and Superior Court
Municipal Court and Superior Court
1971-present
As part of the Corporation's contractual role as Budget Analyst to the San
Francisco Board of Supervisors, we have reviewed the San Francisco Municipal
Court's and Superior Court's requested budgets each year since 1971. To
determine the justification for all requests made in the budget, Corporation staff
must analyze court staffing, space utilization, caseload management systems,
use of data and word processing equipment, calendaring systems and relations
with other criminal justice agencies.
Client:
Project:
Agencies:
Period:
************
Los Angeles County Steering Committee consisting of Auditor
Controller, Chief Administrative Officer, Municipal Court and
Superior Court
Evaluation of the Los Angeles County Split Court Session
Program
Municipal and Superior Courts
1990 and 1991
HMR was retained by the County Auditor-Controller in July 1990 to
evaluate the cost effectiveness of the Split Court Session Pilot Program and to
determine whether the Program has been successful in meeting its intended
goals. During the performance of the study, and pursuant to instructions from
the Auditor-Controller, consultant staff reported to an ad hoc steering committee
to receive direction and provide information with which the progress of the study
could be monitored. The Split Court Pilot Program Evaluation Steering Committee
included the following active participants: Chief Administrative Officer, Auditor-
Controller, the Superior Court's Presiding Judge, Assistant Presiding Judge,
Supervising Judge, Criminal Courts, Executive Officer/Clerk of the Court, the
Municipal Court's Presiding Judge, Assistant Presiding Judge, Court
Administrator/Clerk and the Chair of the County of Los Angeles Municipal
Courts Judges Association.
Client:
Project:
Agencies:
Period:
************
Auditor-Controller of Los Angeles County
Management Audit--Los Angeles County Public Defender
Public Defender's Office
1989
This management audit was requested to determine if the Investigation
Division of the Law Offices of the County Public Defender is achieving the
purposes for which it is authorized and funded; if Public Defender attorneys are
provided with accurate and timely investigations; if the Division is operating
efficiently and effectively and, if not, the causes for inefficient or ineffective
practices; if the Division has considered alternative methods of operations that
-122-
-
._~
o
o
will yield the desired results at lower cost, such as assigning investigators
directly to deputy attorneys, contracting for investigator services and reviewing
the operations of other public defender offices. The total combined effect of all
recommendations included in this report result in net increased revenues and
decreased expenditures of $36,305, and provide the Investigation Division with
significant additional resources to provide services for attorneys, including a
modified and strengthened management structure, more efficient provision of
investigative services, controls on the quality and quantity of work performed by
staff through automation and analytical processes, and increased ability to claim
State reimbursement for the cost of some services.
************
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
Auditor Controller, Los Angeles County
Management Audit
Investigation Division of the Public Defender's Office
1989-90
This audit was requested by the Public Defender after the Auditor-
Controller had conducted a limited review of the Investigation Division in
conjunction with the investigation of a personnel matter and found a need to
improve management practices within the Division. Through our review, we
determined if the Division was achieving the purposes for which it is authorized
and funded, if the Division was providing attorneys in the Public Defender's Office
with accurate and timely investigation reports, if the Division was operating
efficiently, effectively and economically. We recommended: changing the
organization and management of the Division, including restructuring of certain
positions; decentralizing the Juvenile Services Division staff throughout the
County; improving the Division's quality control methods and procedures to
ensure greater consistency in investigations reports; broadening the
qualifications and hiring practices of the Division, establishing a greater
connection between investigator performance evaluations and promotions;
improving the investigator workload data collected and initiating a system for
analyzing this data and assigning staff accordingly; creating an Investigator
Aide classification to handle some of the routine assignments performed by
Investigators; improving the policies and procedures manual; automating
timekeeping records; improving and improving controls over contract
investigative services and increasing State reimbursement amounts for certain
murder cases. Altogether, no additional costs would be incurred from
implementing our recommendations and revenues would be increased by $61,073
annually.
-123-
-
..
client:
Project:
Agencies:
Period:
o
o
************
Board of Supervisors, Santa Clara County
Management Audit
County Clerk and Superior Court of Santa Clara County
1986
HMR was retained by the Board of Supervisors to review the operations and
management of the County Clerk and Superior Court of Santa Clara County. The
scope of the County Clerk audit included policies and procedures, personnel
issues, financial issues, management issues and equipment and facility issues.
The Superior Court audit scope included accounting practices and controls, fee,
bail and court deposit collections procedures, certain aspects of facility utilization
and employee use of sick leave. We recommended several changes in
organizational structure and supervision, accounting controls, improved cash
management and a more efficient utilization of space.
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
************
Board of Supervisors, County of Santa Clara
Management Audit -- Municipal Court
Santa Clara County Municipal Courts
1985-86
At the request of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, HMR
conducted a management audit of the Santa Clara County Municipal Court. Our
analysis covered the Court's operations, ailrn;n;stration and management, traffic
and parking citation systems and procedures, bail and other revenue collections,
inter-agency coordination and other issues. We recommended increases in
staffing, modernization of some equipment, automation of selected procedures
such as bail setting, increased fee collection and other changes. The estimated
value of the efficiencies, increased revenues and cost savings resulting from
implementation of our recommendations was approximately $3.7 million
annually.
Client:
Project:
Agencies:
Period:
************
Grand Jury, San Bernardino County
Management Audit
All County Agencies Providing Children's Protective Services
1985
The Grand Jury retained HMR to conduct a comprehensive management
audit of Children's Protective Services in San Bernardino County. These services
are provided by a number of agencies including the Department of Public Social
Services, the Public Health Department, the Juvenile Court, the Probation
Department, the Sheriff, the District Attorney and the Public Defender. We
determined that coordination between these agencies could be improved and that
program funding could be utilized more cost-effectively.
-124-
-
"
CIlent:
Project:
Agencies:
Period:
-
o
o
************
Grand Jury, Los Angeles County
Management Audit - Criminal Justice System
Agencies in County that provide services to the Los Angeles
County Municipal Courts
1983-84
This management audit reviewed all agencies in Los Angeles County that
provide services as part of the Municipal Court Criminal Justice System. This
included the District Attorney, Public Defender, Probation Department, Sheriff,
Department of Collections and City Attorneys in selected cities in the County. The
audit concentrated on the organization and coordination of services provided by
these agencies including the following issues: staffing, court calendaring
procedures, use of facilities, transporting of inmates, revenue enhancement, use
of court appointed private counsel, accounting and budgeting practices and
overall municipal court accountability. Implementation of the recommendations
contained in the report will allow the county to save approximately $9.8 million
annually from current and future operating costs and will also provide additional
revenues of approximately $6.57 million annually.
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
************
Board of Supervisors, City and County of San Francisco
Management Audit--Municipal Court
Municipal Court
1983
At the direction of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, HMR performed
a management audit of the Municipal Court's Simplified Automated Traffic
System (SATS). SATS is a computer-based system for tracking and processing 2.5
million traffic citations issued annually. The purpose of the project was to
. determine whether the system was functioning efficiently and effectively. Based
on this analysis, we recommended rescheduling some shifts, establishing
performance standards and redeploying window staff. We also recommended
that the Municipal Court reestablish procedures for issuing warning letters and
court warrants for individuals who have outstanding citations not traced by the
DMV. Finally, we recommended guidelines for the instant traffic hearing
process to reduce the court's resources allocated to this function. HMR found that
SATS had been working well in the first year of operations; however, HMR found
potential system modifications which could produce a one-time benefit of $850,000
and annual savings of $256,000.
-125-
-
-"
o
o
************
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
Board of Supervisors, City and County of San Francisco
Financial Statement--Receipts
Municipal Court
1982
At the direction of San Francisco's Board of Supervisors, HMR conducted a
financial audit examining the Municipal Court's Receipts Statement for the fiscal
year ended June 30, 1982. Using standard accounting practices, HMR
determined that except for its failure to maintain its account receivable balance,
the Municipal Court Receipts Statement presented fairly the financial
transactions of the Municipal Court.
Other Police. Sheriff. and CoITeCti.on Denartment ExtlAriAnt'P.:
Client
Board of Supervisors, City and
County of San Francisco
Board of Supervisors, City and
County of San Francisco
Board of Supervisors, City and
County of San Francisco
Board of Supervisors, City and
County of San Francisco
AgencylProject Year
Review of Career 1981
Criminal Unit of the
District Attorney's Office
Management Audit of the 1980
Legal Assistance to the
Elderly Program
Management Audit of the 1980
Law Enforcement Assistance
Agencies Incarceration
Programs
Management Audit of two 1977
Community Legal Aid
Organizations
-126-
-
.
o
o
Adult and Juvenile Probation
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors
Management Audit
Santa Clara County Probation Department
1990
The scope of the management audit of the Probation Department was
comprehensive and included a review of its organization and administration, fees
collections and revenue, adult and juvenile investigation and supervision services
and institutions. This review led to the development of 16 findings and related
recommendations concerning increased Department efficiency and additional
revenues while improving the Department's level of services.
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
************
Grand Jury, San Bernardino County
Management Audit
San Bernardino County Probation Department
1987-88
The scope of this management audit of the Probation Department was
comprehensive and included a review of its organization and administration, fee
collections and revenues, adult and juvenile investigation and supervision
services and the operations of the juvenile institutions. From this review, ten
findings and related recommendations were developed which would generate
between $2.9 and $3.4 million in savings resulting from increased efficiency,
reduced operating expenses and additional revenues while maintaining or
improving the Department's level of services.
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
************
Board of Supervisors, City and County of San Francisco
Management Audit--Juvenile Probation
Juvenile Probation Department, Juvenile Court
1983
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors directed HMR to perform a
management audit on the Probation Services Division of San Francisco's Juvenile
Court. The Divisionis responsible for the intake, supervision, and placement of
approximately 7,000 minors per year. In FY 1983-84, the Division had a staff of
approximately 105 employees and a budget of approximately $5.8 million. The
management audit included a review of the Division's organization, staffing level,
staffing mix, management practices, revenue potential, and efficient use of a
youth detention facility. Implementation of the recommendations in this audit
would reduce costs or increase revenues by a minimum of $900,000 annually.
-127-
...
o
o
************
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
Board of Supervisors, City and County of San Francisco
Management Audit--Juvenile Detention
Youth Guidance Center (YGC)
1982
YGC is San Francisco's short-term juvenile detention facility. In FY 1982-
83, YGC had a $4.1 million budget to provide detention services for an average of
120 juveniles. HMR discovered the following: the juvenile hall and business office
were overstaffed, record keeping procedures were antiquated, and many planned
capital project requests were unnecessary. Implementation of recommendations
to remedy these problems would generate annual savings of $644,000 and one-time
savings of$770,000.
-128-
-
.
o
o
Animal Control
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
City Manager, City of Oakland
Management Audit--Animal Control
Police Department
1992
The scope of this management audit included an evaluation of
management policies and procedures and performance measures; an evaluation
of the organization's placement within the Police Department; a review of the
proposed new animal shelter and possible alternatives; and an evaluation of the
customer service provided by the Animal Control Unit. Preliminary report
recommendations included alternatives for providing a new animal shelter at a
reduced cost and improvements to management structure and operating
efficiency.
************
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
City Manager, City of Oakland
Management Audit--Animal Control
Police Department
1982
Oakland's City Manager retained HMR to perform a comprehensive review
of the Police Department's responsibilities with regard to animal control services
(including the operation .and maintenance of an animal shelter). The primary
purpose of this study was to ascertain whether present services were being
provided in the most efficient, effective, and economical manner, and whether
such services could be provided in a less costly manner through an outside
contract. The report uncovered two areas where revenues could be increased over
current operations. Implementation of recommendations to increase these
revenues would raise $101,000-144,000 annually.
OthAr AnhnAl Control 'RYnP"';pn~
Client
AgencylProject Year
Feasibility Study of 1981
Expanding Animal
Control Services
Santa Clara Valley Humane
Society
Board of Supervisor, Santa
Clara County
Management Audit of 1980-81
the Animal Control Division
-129-
-
....
o
o
PUBLIC WORKS. TRANSPORTATION AND PURCHASING
Public Work'!. PIIrr.hR~n~ and General Service Agencies
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
Board of Supervisors, City and County of San Francisco
Budget Analysis--Public Works
Department of Public Works (DPW)
1971-present
Since 1971, HMR has conducted analyses of the DPW's annual budget
request. HMR reviews the following program areas: Administration,
Architecture, Building Inspection, Building Repair, Engineering, Clean Water
Program, Street Repair, Traffic Engineering, and Water Pollution Control. In
addition, HMR prepares weekly reports for the Board of Supervisors regarding all
issues of a financial or policy nature affecting the Department. These analyses
have yielded up to $500,000 in annual savings.
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
************
Auditor-Controller, Los Angeles County
Management Audit
Internal Services Department
1991-92
The Auditor-Controller retained HMR to conduct a series of management
studies of the Internal Services Department (lSD), a department with a budget of
$400 million and almost 3,800 employees. The first study was a review of lSD's
overall organization, overhead charges, and billing operations; the second study
reviewed the Facilities Operations Service of ISD; and the third study
benchmarked both FOS and ISD activities against both public and private
organization. Report recommendations included significant organizational
changes and improvements to operational efficiency.
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
************
Chief Arlm;nistrative Officer, Stanislaus County
Management Audit
Purchasing Division
1991-92
The scope of this management audit included each of the functional areas
within the Purchasing Division: Purchasing, Garage, and Central Services.
HMR's review focused upon the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of services
provided by these functional areas and also assessed compliance with applicable
laws, ordinances, and internal operating policies. The ten findings developed for
this report included recommendations to strengthen administrative and financial
controls, and to improve the timeliness and cost-effectiveness of services provided.
-130-
-
o
o
If all recommendations are implemented, the Purchasing Division would realize
annual savings of$196,000.
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
**.*******.*
Board of Supervisors, County of Santa Clara
Limited Management Audit of the Building Operations
Division of the General Services Agency
General Services Agency
1991
HMR performed a limited management audit of the Building Operations
Division of the General Services Agency that included a review of the operations of
six separate building maintenance units. Recommendations included that staff
productivity could be increased by reducing travel and administrative time, the
development of comprehensive policies and procedures and having County staff
perform inspections of all County elevators instead of the current practice of
contracting out a portion of such work.
Client
Project:
Agency:
Period:
************
Board of Supervisors, City and County of San Francisco
Management Audit of the Purchasing and Storekeeping
Functions as Administered by the Purchasing Department
Purchasing Department
1991
This management audit disclosed that the purchasing system was not in
compliance with the City and County Charter, that competitive bidding was not
utilized to the maximum extent, thereby resulting in excessive costs. of at least $2
million annually, and poor management and inadequate security of the City and
County storerooms.
Client
Project:
Agency:
Period:
************
Grand Jury, Ventura County
Management Audit
Ventura County Purchasing Department
1988-89
We audited the purchasing function of the county through interviews with
Ventura County Purchasing Department and other County personnel,
comparisons with prevailing practices in other similar jurisdictions and
reviewing purchasing documentation and paperwork. We recommended
improving the County's purchasing practices through: establishing uniform
vendor selection and bidding practices; adopting a policy to develop and
implement a requisition schedule; developing a performance monitoring system;
developing an annual procurement plan; and, pre-qualifying vendors. We also
recommended automating a purchasing system, improving blanket purchase
-131-
o
o
order administration and control, establishing standards of quality, expediting
the accounts payable function to take greater advantage of discounts, improving
internal controls, more oversight and coordination by the Chief Administrative
Officer and improved management of buyers. Implementation of our
recommendations would result in savings of $500,000 annually.
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
************
1986-87 Grand Jury, Kern County
Management Audit -- Public Works
Department of Public Works
1987
The 1986-87 Kern County Grand Jury retained HMR to conduct a
comprehensive management audit of the County's Department of Public Works.
Areas reviewed included the department's organizational structure and
planning, operational management, fiscal management, management
information system and management of contracts, agreements and business
activities. We recommended a revised organizational structure, development of
measurable goals and objectives, improved use of automated equipment including
increased use of personal computers, development and implementation of a'
structured road maintenance and a vehicle fleet management system and
development of a multi-year capital improvement project plan. We also
recommended deletion of one unnecessary position, improved budgeting
techniques, development of an overhead rate so the department recovers its total
actual costs through fees, establishment of fees for encroachment permits and
. other improvements. Implementation of our recommendations would improve
the level of service provided by the department and result in reduced costs and
increased revenues amounting to approximately $1 million annually.
Client
Project:
Agency:
Period:
************
Board of Supervisors, Santa Clara County
Management Audit
Santa Clara County Department of Weights and Measures
1986-87
The purpose of HMR's management audit of Santa Clara County's
Department of Weights and Measures was to evaluate the efficiency, effectiveness
and economy of the department's. operations with a focus on compliance with
State and County laws. We identified several areas needing strengthening,
including: updating the department's policy and procedures manual, more staff
training; development of specific enforcement policies since violations were, for
the most part, not being cited or referred to the District Attorney; enhancement of
the educational component of the department's enforcement program;
development of time standards for inspections and testing; development of more
equitable workload assignments, and; modifications to records and time sheet
forms and procedures.
-132-
-
o
o
************
Client:
Project:
Agencies:
Period:
City Manager, City of Oakland
Management Audit -- Public Works
Department of Public Works
1986
HMR was retained to review the operation of the City of Oakland's Public
Works Department. Areas of investigation included organizational structure,
staff and equipment utilization, contract administration and compliance,
property management, appropriateness of fees and fee collection procedures. off-
street parking operations, permit issuance procedures, and accounting and
budgetary procedures. At the outset of this audit, the department had a budget of
over $26 million and a staff level of approximately 525 positions. We
recommended a number of changes in procedures and operations. One finding in
particular, dealing with the processing of vehicle parking citations, identifies
approximately $1.7 million in potential collections which were not collected in
1984-85 and 1985-86 due to the failure of a City contractor to successfully place
vehicle registration holds with the State Department of Motor Vehicles.
Implementation of our other findings and recommendations in this report would
result in additional revenues of over $700,000 per year.
************
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
1985-86 Grand Jury, Kern County
Management Audit
General Services Department
1986
The 1985-86 Kern County Grand Jury retained HMR to review the
management, operating policies and procedures and other practices of the
General Services Department, which had a 1985-86 budget of $22.6 million.
Recommendations in this report included automating and consolidating the
purchasing process, development of a new vehicle fleet management system,
downsizing of. the current fleet, reorganization of the County garage
administration, reclassification of certain positions and establishment of a
preventive maintenance program. Administrative recommendations included
discontinuation of duplicate record maintenance, development of overhead rates
for charges to other departments for services and centralization of office
automation planning. Implementation of all the recommendations in the report
would result in one-time net savings of approximately $350,000 and annual
savings of approximately $1.5 million.
-133-
-
Client:
Project:
Agencies:
Period:
- - -
.
-
o
o
************
Grand Jury, Amador County
Management Audit
Selected Amador County Departments
1984-85
This management audit reviewed the General Services Administration's
(GSA) Purchasing, Motor Vehicle Pool, Printing, and Mail departments, the
County ClerkJRecorder's Office, the Building Inspector, Civil Engineer, County
road maintenance management methods of the Public Works Department and the
respective roles of the County Water Agency and the Water Resources Department
in the planning and development of water and wastewater projects. The County's
fixed asset inventory procedures and controls were also reviewed. The full
implementation of our recommendations would result in a net savings in County
expenditures of at least $379,600 annually, and an additional net estimated
increase in County benefits of at least $95,000 annually, for a total benefit of at
least $474,600 annually. Additionally, there would be a one-time revenues of
approximately $33,450. We also recommended that the county incur one-time
costs of $54,300 and additional costs of$5,700 annually.
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
************
City Manager, City of Oakland
Management Audit--General Services
Office of General Services
1983-84
Oakland's City Manager retained HMR to conduct a management of three
departments in the Office of General Services: Municipal Buildings Department,
Purchasing Department, and the Electrical Department. In addition, HMR
reviewed general administrative and organizational concerns. The audit report
contained recommendations to eliminate duplicative efforts, decentralize certain
responsibilities, institute inventory procedures and economic ordering, eliminate
unnecessary telephone services, and to reformulate budgeting policies.
Altogether, implementation of HMR's recommendations would generate annual
savings of over $758,900.
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
************
Grand Jury, Siskiyou County
Management Audit--Public Works
Department of Public Works
1983
The Siskiyou County Grand Jury selected HMR to conduct a management
audit of the Department of Public Works, which had a $17 million budget in FY
1982-83. The purpose of the audit was to identify methods of increasing the
Department's operational effectiveness and efficiency. HMR examined the
-134-
-
- - -
o
o
following areas: organizational structure and staffing levels, ratios of fees to
service costs, equipment utilization, and contracting policies. The report included
recommendations to improve the quality and efficiency of road maintenance and
other operations while producing a net annual benefit of $1.4 million.
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
************
Board of Supervisors, Santa Clara County
Management Audit--Purchasing
Purchasing Department
1982
In FY 1982-83, Santa Clara County had annual purchases of approximately
$40 million in services, supplies, and equipment. The purpose of this audit was to
review the Department's existing and proposed procedures, and to compare them
with procedures used in other jurisdictions. HMR performed numerous field
tests which identified problems in the following areas: ordering procedures,
timing of payments, surplus property management, internal control, and
potential conflict of interest. The report contained recommendations to improve
purchasing practices and procedures that would generate approximately $385,000
in annual savings and $475,000 in one-time savings.
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
************
Grand Jury, Kern County
Management Audit--Purchasing
Purchasing Department
1982
The Kern County Grand Jury retainedHMR to conduct a comprehensive
review of the Purchasing Department. In FY 1982-83, the Department employed
29 staff and was responsible for approximately $3.5 million in expenditures. HMR
reviewed the following areas: procurement practices, fixed asset price
forecasting, stores inventory, food service contracts, and food subsidies at Kern
Medical Center. In addition, HMR investigated possible improvements to
internal operating efficiency and procurement cost control. Implementation of
the recommendations presented in this audit would produce benefits, savings,
and increased revenues of $1.1-1.4 million annually and one-time savings
estimated at $500,000.
Other Public Workc;;.. PtI1"rhAmn~ and r~nA1'"Jll ~rviP.P!.fiiZ Exoerience:
Client
AgencylProject Year
Board of Supervisors, City and
County of San Francisco
Management Audit of 1972
the Bureau of Buying of
the Purchasing Department
-135-
o
r-
V
Wastewater. Sewer and Solid Waste ProP'rRrn!;!
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
Grand Jury, San Bernardino County
Management Audit of the County's Solid Waste Disposal
Contracts and the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund Balances
Solid Waste Management Department
1991
The scope of the management audit included a detailed review of all
activities of the Solid Waste Management Department contracts as well as the
County's administrative and oversight policies and procedures. This review also
included the County's procedures used for the selection of contractors and the
contractors' compliance with contract terms and conditions. Additionally, the
financing of and financial planning for the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund
operations were analyzed. Report recommendations included requiring increased
compliance and improved performance for contract land fill operators, improved
management over the vendor selection process, improving estimates for future
funding requirements and using county employees instead of private contractors.
Implementation of audit recommendations would result in minimum annual
savings of $766,000 and over $1 million in equipment purchases savings over the
next ten years (valued in 1991 dollars).
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
************
Chief Administrative Officer, City and County of
San Francisco
Review of Norcal Solid Waste Systems, Inc. Intercompany
Charges to San Francisco Solid Waste Collection and
Disposal Companies
Solid Waste Management Program
1990 and 1991
HMR performed an analysis of cost elements, incurred by Norcal Solid
Waste Systems, Inc., and allocated as indirect costs, for services provided, to the
three operating companies (Sunset Scavenger, Golden Gate Disposal and Sanitary
Fill). This analysis included a review of Norcal's detailed supporting schedules
and financial reports for the budgeted amounts contained in the rate application.
HMR reviewed and verified expenditures related to Salaries and Employee
Benefits, Professional Services, Office Rentals, Office Supplies, Telephone,
Insurance and Other Costs, and Equipment Lease Costs.
-136-
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
o
8
************
Chief Administrative Officer, City and County of
San Francisco
Review of Rate Setting Methodology for Refuse Collection
and Disposal Companies (Phase 1)
Refuse Collection Functions
1989
This HMR report presents the review, analysis, conclusions and
recommendations regarding the question of whether the City and County of San
Francisco should continue to employ current methods for refuse collection and
disposal rate regulation or consider alternative methods recommended by certain
previous consultants who have reviewed this issue.
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
************
City Manager, City of Oakland
Utility Rate Determination--Sewer Project
Office of Public Works
1982
Oakland's City Manager retained HMR to establish an appropriate
financing structure for the City's sewer system. This analysis consisted of
determining the maintenance and replacement needs of a rapidly deteriorating
sewer system. HMR developed a rate structure based upon actual usage and
replacement costs, and developed a mechanism by which the City could more
efficiently collect its sewer service charge, thereby lowering the amount of the
charge. HMR recommended the adoption of a rate structure that equitably
distributed costs to all sewer users.
Other Wa..qt.ewater. Sewer SInd SoHd Waste PrnD'rsI111Q ~An~
Client
AgencylProject
Year
Board of Supervisors, City
and County of San Francisco
Management Audit and
Scientific Review of the
Wastewater Program
1979-80
-137-
o
o
Buildinl! Tn<ll1Pl'f:lon
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Board of Supervisors, City and County of San Francisco
Management Audit--Building Inspection
Department of Public Works, Bureau of Building Inspection
(BBI)
1981-82
Period:
HMR reviewed BBI's operations in the following areas: internal
organization, staffing, and procedures; permit processing; code enforcement;
abatement appeals; special programs; permit fee structures; and, the Bureau's
interaction with the City Planning and Public Works Departments. The
recommendations i~ the report addressed operational and procedural
improvements; inspector supervision; employee evaluation standards;
preparation of informational pamphlets; and consolidation of building permit
applications from eight to four categories. Implementation of these
recommendations would increase operational efficiency and streamline
procedures.
-138-
-
-
o
o
Central Garmte and VAhi..IA Fleet
Client:
Project:
Agencies:
Period:
Grand Jury, Marin County
Audit of Marin County Garage Internal Controls
Marin County Garage
1990
This review consisted of an evaluation of the Marin County Garage internal
inventory control structure and the assessment of control risk. The review
included an examination of the internal controls or control structure including
the controls established to ensure compliance with laws and regulations that have
a material impact on the financial matters and performance; the reportable
conditions, including the identification of material weaknesses, identified as a
result of the auditor's work in understanding and assessing the control risk.
Internal controls include the plan of organization and methods and procedures
adopted by management to ensure that its goals and objectives are met; that
resources are used consistent with laws, regulations, and policies; that resources
are safeguarded against waste, loss and misuse; and that reliable data are
obtained, maintained, and fairly disclosed in reports.
************
Client:
Project:
Agencies:
Period:
Grand Jury, Amador County
Management Audit
Selected Amador County Departments
1984-85
This management audit reviewed the General Services Administration's
CGSA) Purchasing, Motor Vehicle Pool, Printing, and Mail departments, the
County ClerklRecorder's Office, the Building Inspector, Civil Engineer, County
road maintenance management methods of the Public Works Department and the
respective roles of the County Water Agency and the Water Resources Department
in the planning and development of water and wastewater projects. The County's
fixed asset inventory procedures and controls were also reviewed.
The full implementation of our recommendations would result in a net
savings in County expenditures of at least $379,600 annually, and an additional
net estimated increase in County benefits of at least $95,000 annually, for a total
benefit of at least $474,600 annually. Additionally, there would be a one-time
revenues of approximately $33,450. We also recommended that the County incur
one-time costs of $54,300 and additional costs of $5,700 annually.
-139-
-
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
o
,....
u
************
Santa Clara County Transit District (SCCTD)
Management Analysis-- Vehicle Procurement
Urban Transit Development Corporation (UTDC-USA)
1981-1985
Under subcontract with UTDC-USA, HMR provided technical assistance,
financial analyses, and on-site representation for this project, the purpose of
which was to identify and quantify major life cycle cost factors that are used in
procuring transit rolling stock. The project team monitored articulated buses for
verification of life cycle cost strategies under normal revenue operating
conditions. Life cycle cost strategies are recommended for inclusion in
procurement documents for transit buses. HMR monitored the feasibility of using
life cycle cost factors for four years in order to complete this Federal
demonstration project.
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
************
City Manager, City of Oakland
Management Audit--Vehic1e Fleet
Fire Department
1982
Oakland's City Manager retained HMR to review the Fire Department's
vehicle acquisition and replacement policies. HMR recommended a vehicle
replacement schedule that would produce a more reliable fleet and eliminate one-
time appropriations for vehicle replacement. HMR also. recommended that the
Department purchase economy-size vehicles instead of full-size vehicles,
implement a maintenance schedule, and upgrade certain vehicles,all of which
would generate savings of $250,000 in immediate acquisition costs and $55,500
annually in operation and maintenance costs.
Oth_ Central ('..aratte and VAhip.IA Fleet RYnPM.....-
Client AgencylProject Year
Grand Jury, Merced County Management Audit of 1981-82
the County Vehicle Fleet
Board of Supervisors, Santa Management Audit of 1981-82
Clara County the Central Garage
Santa Clara County, General Development of Procedures 1981-82
Services Agency Manual for Central Garage
Board of Supervisors, City and Management Audit of 1979
County of San Francisco the Central Garage
-140-
,
Parkim!'.Control
Client:
Project:
Agencies:
Period:
o
...
V
City Manager, City of Oakland
Management Audit -- Public Works
Department of Public Works
1986
HMR was retained to review the operation of the City of Oakland's Public
Works Department. Areas of investigation included organizational structure,
staff and equipment utilization, contract administration and compliance,
property management, appropriateness of fees and fee collection procedures, off-
street parking operations, permit issuance procedures, and accounting and
budgetary procedures. At the outset of this audit, the department had a budget of
over $26 million and a staff level of approximately 525 positions. We
recommended a number of changes in procedures and operations. One finding in
particular, dealing with the processing of vehicle parking citations, identifies
approximately $1.7 million in potential collections which were not collected in
1984-85 and 1985-86 due to the failure of a City contractor to successfully place
vehicle registration holds with the State Department of Motor Vehicles.
Implementation of our other findings and recommendations in this report would
result in additional revenues of over $700,000 per year.
Client:
Project:
Agencies:
Period:
************
City Manager, City of Oakland
Management Audit--Parking Enforcement
Office of Public Works, Office of Finance, Office of General
Services, and Office of Parks and Recreation
1982-83
Oakland's City Manager retained HMR to determine whether the City's
parking enforcement operations were being operated in the most efficient and
effective manner, and to determine whether parking fine revenues were being
collected at a reasonable level. HMR recommended a complete reorganization
and consolidation of all parking functions, with an integrated approach towards
parking control. Implementation of these recommendations would improve
internal control of parking citations as well as generate over $1.6 million in net
annual revenues.
-141-
_. -
- -
o
o
1'...m~t and P"1'lItrsln~t Services
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
Board of Supervisors, City and County of San Francisco
Budget AnalysisnTransportation
Municipal Railway
1971-present
Since 1971, HMR has conducted analyses of the Municipal Railway (Muni)
budget requests. These annual reviews have considered a wide variety of
program and fiscal issues, including staffing levels, program development, and
capital project requests. Muni's operating budget exceeds $150 million, of which
more than $50 million is provided with local general funds. Muni employs a staff
of over 3,000 employees and has a fleet of over 1,000 vehicles, including motor and
trolley coaches, light rail vehicles (LRVs) and cable cars. In addition to these
annual reviews, HMR analyzes all fare increases, supplemental appropriation
requests, and grant requests for Federal, State and regional funds. HMR has
recommended savings of over $1 million on an annual basis.
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
************
County of Marin, 1990 Grand Jury
Limited Review of Golden Gate Bridge Gift Center and Friends
of the Golden Gate Bridge
Golden Gate Bridge Highway and Transportation District
1990
HMR performed a limited review of the operations, organization and
current financial status of the Friends of the Golden Gate Bridge, a non-profit
organization originally formed to plan and conduct the 1985 Bridge Celebration.
In this connection, we reviewed financial operations and results of the Golden
Gate Bridge Gift Center, whose net revenues are partially allocated to retire the
debt of the Friends of the Golden Gate Bridge.
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
************
Board of Supervisors of Santa Clara County
Management Audit - Transit Marketing
Santa Clara County Trans. Agency Marketing Division
1988
We conducted a comprehensive review of the operations of the Marketing
Division at the direction of the Board of Supervisors Audit Committee. We
reviewed the Division's operations, telephone and satellite information and bus
schedule distribution units, administrative procedures and overall organization.
We made a number of recommendations in the areas of administration,
contracting procedures and operations that, if implemented, would save the
District over $230,000 annually. In addition, recommendations were made to
correct procedural and other problems which contributed in excess of $2 million of
-142-
-
-
o
o
underrealized, disputed and lost revenues related to the District's advertising
contract during the period between 1984 and 1988.
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
......******
Santa Clara County Transit District Board (SCCTD)
Feasibility Analyses of Transportation Program
Transit District
1986-87
The SCCTD retained HMR to conduct a formal feasibility analysis of its
Transportation Now funding program, which consisted of a number of
multimodal transportation projects that could be financially feasible over a
projected 15 to 25 years. The purpose of the project was to assess existing County
cost and revenue projections based upon assumptions, past trends, current and
projected economic conditions, coupled with an analysis of various financial
factors for each project's allocation of debt service and bond financing potential.
We developed a financial master plan which brought together capital projects
from the District's five year Short Range Transit Plan, the Transportation 2000
Final Plan and Transportation Now, a concept and action plan for the county.
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
************
Board of Supervisors, County of Santa Clara
Management Audit--Transit
Santa Clara County Transit District (SCCTD)
1984
This extensive analysis of the SCCTD, performed at the request of the
Board of Supervisors, was conducted in two phases. The first phase concentrated
on the District's overall administration; the second phase concentrated on issues
of an operational nature and a number of policy matters. The results of the audit
allowed HMR to identify opportunities to make operational improvements in a
number of areas including contracts and purchase ordering, pension plan
investments and operations, and intra-county charges. In the operational area,
HMR recommended changes in the areas of routes, coach operator policies,
employee supervision, mechanic productivity, coach size, fares, non-revenue
vehicles and grant reimbursements. Altogether, implementation of the
recommendations would result in savings of approximately $5.3 million.
Client:
Project:
Agencies:
Period:
************
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)
Performance Audit--Transit Operators
Ten Bay Area Transit Operators
1983
MTC selected HMR to perform State-mandated Transportation
Development Act performance audits of ten San Francisco Bay Area transit
-143-
-
-
o
- - -
o
operators. HMR analyzed the following factors in these audits: verification of five
specific performance measures, analysis of various management issues (such as
financial planning), service delivery, marketing and planning, vehicle
maintenance, revenue levels, and routing patterns. HMR made
recommendations to achieve State-mandated and internal management
objectives, increase farebox revenues, and improve operating efficiency.
************
Client:
Project:
Agencies:
Period:
Santa Clara County Information and Referral Services, Inc.
Performance Audit--Paratransit Services (Two Parts)
County Paratransit Operators
1982-83
In FY 1982-83, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) spent
approximately $1.6 million in Santa Clara County for transit services to the
elderly and handicapped. This study analyzed these paratransit services and
made recommendations to the Santa Clara County Para transit Coordinating
Council to improve program operations by coordinating or consolidating the
services of the various providers. HMR utilized the following research methods:
development of common data collection methods, surveys of service users, and
census tract data analysis.
Oth~r '1'rs:Inmt and PAnltrRnmt 'RrnAriAn~
Client
Board of Directors, Golden Gate
Bridge, Highway, and Trans-
portation District
Board of Directors, Golden Gate
Bridge, Highway, and Trans-
portation District
Board of Directors, Golden Gate
Bridge, Highway, and Trans-
portation District
Board of Directors, Golden Gate
Bridge, Highway, and Trans-
portation District
Board of Supervisors, City and
County of San Francisco
AgencylProject
Year
Management Audit of
the Ferry Division
1981
Analysis of the Transit
Cost Allocation Formula
1980
Budget Analysis of the
Transportation District
1979-80
Management Audit of the
Transportation District
1979
Management Audit of the
Municipal Railway Transit
System
1974
-144-
o
o
PUBLIC SERVICE EN'rnRPRJ~S AND SPECIAL DI..'ITR.JCTS
Airoort'l
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
1991-92 Grand Jury, San Bernardino County
Management Audit
San Bernardino County Department of Airports
1992
HMR retained to perform a limited management audit of Chino Airport
property leasing functions managed by the County Department of Airports. The
scope of our review was to evaluate the development project that resulted in the
lease of four airport hangers by Lockheed Aircraft Service Company and to
evaluate the management and administration ofleased property at Chino Airport
by the Department of Airports. The result of our analysis concluded that it was
unlikely that San Bernardino County would realize a revenue benefit from its
leases with Lockheed. HMR recommended that future policy deliberations
regarding the investment of County funds to attain direct and indirect economic
benefits should be accompanied by a rigorous evaluation of the long term costs
and benefits.
************
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
1986-87 Grand Jury, San Bernardino County
Management Audit - Airports Division
San Bernardino County Airports Division
1987
HMR was retained to review the administration of San Bernardino
County's Airport Division, which maintains and operates six County-owned
airports. We recommended a complete restructuring of the administration,
staffing, organization, accounts and financing of the Division. We found the
Division operating at a $450,000 annual deficit and recommended a $57.6 million
capital improvement and facility development program at Chino Airport, to be
funded through a combination of a bond issue and private sector funding, that
would enable the Division to become a self-sustaining operation, eliminating its
reliance on the County's General Fund and producing net income of $5.8 million
per year within a 16 year period.
Other Airnort Env>.n",nce:
Client
AgencylProject
Year
Board of Supervisors, City
and County of San Francisco
Management Audit
of San Francisco
International Airport
1972
-145-
-
....
Harbors .
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
-
o
o
Board of Supervisors, City and County of San Francisco
Management Audit - Port of San Francisco
San Francisco Port Commission
1985
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors directed HMR to perform a
management audit of the San Francisco Port. The Port had a 1985-86 operating
budget of approximately $30 million and 229 employees. In addition, the Port's
current capital improvement program involves projects estimated to cost in
excess of $100 million. We recommended that the Port develop and implement a
strategic plan, create a property management division, establish a cost
accounting system to track costs and revenues by facility, develop and install new
collection procedures, develop a comprehensive collections manual, begin
conducting regular audits of the Port's lease agreements, billings and payments,
begin awarding leases on the basis of competitive bidding procedures, update
rental payments for restaurants on the wharf and numerous other
improvements. We estimate that implementation of our recommendations would
increase the Port's revenues and decrease expenditures by approximately $1
million annually.
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
************
Executive Director, Port of Oakland
Management Audit - Port of Oakland Administrative
Departments
City ofO..ldand - Port
1985
The Executive Director of the Port of Oakland hired HMR to review certain
management functions of the Port including its data processing operations, its
personnel, finance and legal departments. The Port's 1985-86 operating budget is
$29.7 million and includes 472 positions. Descriptions of each of these studies are
included in the following sections of this State of Qualifications: Data Processing,
Civil Service and Personnel; Finance/Treasurer, and General Government.
-146-
-
-
..
o
o
Water SInd Powpx
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
Grand Jury, Nevada County
Management Audit - Public Utility
Truckee-Donner Public Utility District
1984
HMR was retained by the Nevada County Grand Jury to investigate and
report on certain management operations and functions of the Truckee-Donner
Public Utility District, which provides water and power within Nevada County.
We recommended changes in management practices, staffing levels, billing,
collection and payment processing procedures, equipment and vehicle utilization,
capital improvement plans and, use of outside consultants and contractors.
Implementation of our recommendations would produce savings or additional
revenues amounting to $146,100 per year.
OthAr Water and Power F..mP.riA11I'IP.:
Client
AgencylProject Year
Board of Supervisors, City and
and County of San Francisco
Management Audit of 1978
Limited Divisions of the
Public Utilities Commission
Board of Supervisors, City and
and County of San Francisco
Management Audit of 1978
the Water District
-147-
-
.
School District'!
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
o
.........
'wi
Board of Supervisors, City and County of San Francisco
Legislative Analysis
San Francisco Unified School District
1971-present
As part of the Corporation's ongoing services provided to the San Francisco
Board of Supervisors, we review and analyze legislation involving the County and
the San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) for its fiscal and policy impact.
Client:
Project:
Agencies:
Period:
************
Governing Board, San Francisco Community College District
Evaluation of Current Budget Formulation, Preparation and
Approval Process
San Francisco Community College District
1990 and 1991
This project was to review, monitor and evaluate the San Francisco
Community College District budget process and the specific budgetary impact of
the recently negotiated bargaining agreement with certificated employees.
Provide an analysis of the cost impact and revenue benefits resulting from the
new collective bargaining agreement with certificated employees. Develop a
comprehensive report, or series of reports, to improve the District's budgetary
process, increase Governing Board involvement and knowledge of the District
budget, and comply with collective bargaining commitments to increase the
union's understanding of and involvement with the budget process.
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
************
Contra Costa County Office of Education
Audit of Joint Powers Agency Health, Dental and Vision
Benefits Program
Contra Costa County Office of Education and a Joint Powers
Agency comprised of 16 school districts
1988
Our firm has been retained to conduct an audit of the finances of this joint
powers agency which is a self-insurance program providing health, dental and
vision benefits for 16 school districts in Contra Costa and Napa counties and the
Contra Costa County Office of Education.
-148-
.....
..
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
-
o
o
************
Board of Education, Jefferson School District
Financial Audit
Jefferson School District (San Mateo County)
1984-85,1985-86,1986-87, and 1987-88
The Board of Education of the Jefferson School District has selected the
Corporation to perform a financial audit of the District for the fiscal years ending
June 30, 1985, 1986, 1987 and 1988. Our audits examined the District's combined
financial statements to determine their accuracy, the District's compliance with
Federal and State regulations and the adequacy of the District's internal
accounting controls. The Corporation recommended that the District record all
audit adjustments, improve documentation regarding its fixed assets, record
liabilities for sick leave and vacation balances and maintain documents
supporting student absences for purposes of calculating average daily attendance.
We also recommended that the District establish improved internal controls and
accountability of student body funds.
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
***********
1987-88 Grand Jury, Santa Barbara County
Management Audit
Offiee of the Santa Barbara County Superintendent of Schools
1988
We analyzed the Office's purchasing practices, budget, budget monitoring
procedures, cash and grants management, indirect cost plans and other
accounting and fiscal issues, personnel issues, management information
systems and special programs provided to the school districts. An evaluation was
also made of all major contracts for services entered into by the Superintendent's
Office to determine if the contractors are in compliance with the terms of their
contracts and conditions and if the contracts are cost-effective. We made a
number of recommendations which, if implemented, would improve the
effectiveness and efficiency of operations and would increase revenues by
approximately $88,000 annually, reduce costs of approximately $23,000 annually
and reduce costs to school districts in the County amounting to approximately
$100,000 annually.
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
***********
Ukiah Unified School District
Management Audit and Budget Analysis
Board of Education, Ukiah Unified School District
1987
We were retained by the Board of Education to review the District's 1987-88
budgeted revenues and expenditures, budget document and budget procedures
and to assess the overall efficiency of the District's Business Services Office. We
-149-
-
-
o
o
found t4at the budgeted revenues and expenditures for 1987-88 were reasonable
and realistic but that the budget process and document were not adequate to allow
the Board to make informed fiscal policy decisions. We recommended a new more
comprehensive budget document format, establishment of a quarterly financial
status report system and revised budget procedures. We also recommended
changes in the organizational structure of the District's administrative office,
establishment of a central purchasing officer and increased use of the Business
Service Office's existing computer equipment. Implementation of our
recommendations would result in annual savings for the District of
approximately $60,000 per year.
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
***********
Milpitas Unified School District Board of Education
Management Audit - School District
Milpitas Unified School District
1987
The Board of Education requested a comprehensive analysis of the
operations, organizational structure and staffing of the Milpitas Unified School
District with an emphasis on personnel, budgeting and accounting and the
relationship between school supervision and curriculum and staff development.
We made recommendations in the areas of business and support services,
instructional support, personnel issues, alternative placement programs and
Board of Education - Superintendent relations. Implementation of our
recommendations would reduce annual costs by $394,000 and would improve
District services and programs.
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
************
Office of the Auditor General, State of California
Management/Financial Assessment
Peralta Community College District
1986
The Auditor General of the State of California retained the Corporation to
assess the management and financial condition of the Peralta Community
College District and to evaluate the District's proposed expenditure reduction
plan. Our review revealed that the District had not adjusted staffing in
accordance with its declining ADA, that its management procedures did not
facilitate adjusting budgeted expenditures to correspond with actual revenues
received, and that the District's proposed expenditure reduction plan was
insufficient to create a surplus for the District. As a result, we recommended that
the District reduce 1985-86 expenditures by approximately $1 million, partly by
adjusting its staffing in accordance with declining ADA, and review its
expenditure and revenue projections so that they accurately reflected the fiscal
condition of the District.
-150-
-
..~
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
o
~.
.'
'.
************
Grand Jury, Los Angeles County
Fiscal Management Audit--School District
Lynwood Unified School District (Los Angeles County)
1983-84
The Los Angeles County Grand Jury requested HMR to conduct a follow-up
audit of three previously completed financial audits and one management review
of the Lynwood Unified School District. The follow-up audit included a review and
analysis of the District's purchasing procedures, cash handling, accounting,
budgeting and payroll procedures to determine if the District was operating at full
efficiency and if prudent fiscal practices were in place. Implementation of our
audit recommendations would strengthen the District's internal controls and
protect District cash and other assets from misappropriation. The District's
revenues could also be increased and expenditures reduced as a result of
implementing some of the recommendations in this audit.
Client:
Project:
Agency:
Period:
************
Grand Jury, Merced County
Management Audit--Travel and Telephone Policies
Merced Union High School District
1983
The Merced County Grand Jury retained HMR to perform a management
audit of the travel and telephone policies at the Merced Union High School
District. HMR found that the District lacked written travel policies, did not
require pre-authorization for travel, did not require receipts for expenses, made
reimbursements in excess of the maximum allowable rate, and did not require
logs for personal, long distance phone calls. HMR made recommendations to
improve or institute control procedures in these areas.
0thA.. RP-hnnl DistridR R.m..ri~
Client
AgencylProject
Year
San Francisco Federation of
Teachers
Budget Analysis of
San Francisco Unified
School District
1979
Board of Supervisors, City and
County of San Francisco
Management Audit of the
Children's Center of the
San Francisco Unified
School District
1978-79
-151-
- -
..
. .
1f'
o
:)
REPORf
TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
REVIEW OF THE
OPERATIONS OF THE
COUNTY COUNSEL'S OFFICE
Prepared by the
Harvey M. Rose Acoountancy Corporation
Certified Public Accountants
DECEMBER 1988
-'lc..
-
-
- -
-
"........ ~
o
arvey
:)
MEMBER
ose .A\<e<eOI\lll1\\1'cam\q <ColI'Jp.:O>l!'ii1\ltiiol1\\
Certified Public Accountants
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF
CERTIFIEO PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
CALIFORNIA. SOCIETY OF
CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
1390 Markel Street, Suite 1025 San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 552-9292
December 29, 1988
Honorable Susanne Wilson
Honorable Zoe Lofgren
Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Clara
70 West Hedding Street
San Jose, California 95110
Dear Supervisors Wilson and Lofgren:
This management audit report on the operations of the County Counsel's Office
was prepared at the direction of the Board of Supervisors through the Board's
Audit Committee. The audit is a detailed comprehensive review of the
Department's operations and the services it provides to its many clients.
The scope of our analysis included all organizational and operational functions of
the County Counsel's Office and focused on administrative and financial issues
as well as issues affecting the quality and timeliness of services delivered to
clients. During the course of the audit, eleven of the most populous counties in
California were surveyed regarding various specific aspects of their county
counsel offices. In addition, extensive interviews and analyses of both
Departmental and client records were utilized to identify and evaluate problem
areas and to explore opportunities to improve operations by developing new
methods of operations.
As a result of this review, several areas were identified where significant
opportunities exist to increase revenues, reduce costs and improve the quality of
services provided. By implementing the recommendations contained in this
report the County could realize approximately $1,129,000 to $1,137,000 of additional
revenues and reduced expenditures annually. In addition, one-time revenues
estimated at $1,861,000 to $2,399,000 would be realized by the County.
-
t 'I'~
o
J
Honorable Susanne Wilson
Honorable Zoe Lofgren
Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Clara
December 29, 1988
Page 2
Although several opportunities were identified to improve the administrative and
business map.agement aspects of the County Counsel's Office, it was the
unanimous co'ncensus of the audit staff that the County Counsel's Office has a
quality staff who perform well particularly when consideration is given to the
overall workload and available resources.
Lastly, the cooperation of the County Counsel, the Assistant County Counsel, the
Chief Deputies and the entire legal and support staff must be highlighted. Their
openness and honest desire to improve, as a team of professionals striving
towards a common objective, was apparent. This attitude facilitated our audit
efforts and is very much appreciated.
Complete working papers and other documentation which support our findings,
conclusions and recommendations are available for the review of all interested
persons.
Respectfully submitted,
(0svr' r;ri~_
Roger Mialocq
Management Audit Project Manager
cc: Supervisor Diridon
Supervisor Gonzales
Supervisor McKenna
~:::e:: . "~~__
-
'.,.,
o
J
TABT.F. OF CONTENTS
Section
~
~C1lrI'~ f)~1{..............................................................................i
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. .......1
L ADMlNISI'RA.TIVE AND MANAGEMENT ~UEf)
Ll Administrative Policies and Procedures............................................6
The County Counsel's Office has various documents which
establish administrative policies and procedures for selected areas of
operations. However, many of these documents are outdated, do not
address critical areas of operations and are not organized in a
suitable manner. In addition, some department staff have
independently developed procedures which have not been reviewed or
approved by management. Without establishing comprehensive
policies and procedures which have been formally adopted by the
Department, management inefficiencies and inconsistencies in
operations will continue.
L2 M..n..gement Information f)ystem... ......... .... ........ .......................... 11
The County Counsel's Office lacks an adequate management
information system. Due to insufficient collection and reporting of
financial and programmatic information, the County Counsel has
been unable to exercise the oversight necessary to maintain full
managerial control of the programs for which he is responsible.
Summary judgment collections have backlogged and many
judgments have expired, conservatorship accountings have
backlogged, Civil Code Section 232 petitions are backlogged and not
filed with the court on a timely basis and other operational problems
have existed without coming to the County Counsel's attention in a
timely manner. By identifying, developing and preparing various
management reports, the County Counsel's Office can create an
efficient management information system that will enhance its
ability to identify and address future issues as they arise.
I.3 Support f)taff Organization.... ... ...... ....... .... ....... . .. .. .. . ...... ..... . . .. .. . ... 15
The County Counsel's Office has not clearly defined the
organization and management structure of the Department. In
addition, the Office lacks sufficient administrative and fiscal
management positions needed for the most effective operations of the
Department. By adding one Business and Administrative Services
Manager and one Management Analyst, converting the existing
Administrative Support Officer to an Accountant II, and
reorganizing the administration of the Office along functional lines,
the County Counsel's Office would operate more effectively.
, ...
o
o
Section
~
L4 Support Staff Utilization ................ ................... .................. ........... 22
The number of support staff in the County Counsel's Office is
insufficient, resulting in excessive performance of clerical duties by
attorneys and paralegals. In addition, opportunities exist for
increasing clerical staff efficiency by fully utilizing existing word
processing capabilities and implementing minor system
improvements. By increasing clerical and paralegal staff positions to
a level which insures comprehensive and timely assistance to
attorneys, the County Counsel could realize a net increase in
professional staffproductlvity of approximately $181,857 annually.
L5 Timekeeping Function.................................................................. 31
The timekeeping system used by the County Counsel's Office is
inefficient, includes excessive input verification and auditing, and is
unnecessarily cumbersome for professional staff. In FY 1987-88, the
Department spent over $32,000 in support staff salaries and supplies
in order to utilize this system for management and billing purposes.
By developing, standardizing and utilizing a new timesheet design,
developing formal timekeeping policies and procedures, utilizing
timekeeping computer programs presently owned by the Department
and eliminating certain audit steps, approximately $23,650 could be
saved annually in reduced support staff time and supplies.
1.6 Billing Functions.......................................................................... 37
The County Counsel's Office utilizes various billing
methodologies which operate independently of the Department's
timekeeping system and include excessive and duplicative data
processing input. In FY 1987-88, the Department used over $10,000 in
support staff time in order- to perform these various billing activities.
By integrating the timekeeping and billing functions and utilizing
timekeeping computer programs presently owned by the
Department, approximately $9,600 could be saved annually in
support staff time.
L 7 Charges for Professional Services .................................................. 41
In recent years the County Counsel's Office has significantly
increased its percentage of costs recovered from charges to Non-
General Fund Departments. However, some billable activities have
not been identified and the current billing rate does not accurately
reflect the actual cost of services provided. By pursuing additional
revenue sources and adopting a more precise billing methodology the
County Counsel's Office could increase revenues to the General Fund
by approximately $99,600 annually.
..
o
C)
Section
~
L8 Zoning Investigation Cost Recovery .. .............................................. 48
The operating costs of the Zoning Investigation function,
located within the County Counsel's Office, is inappropriately
included as a component of the County Counsel's hourly billing rate
for legal services. By recovering these costs through Planning
Department permit application fees, penalties on permit applications
and fines and forfeitures, the costs of this necessary enforcement
actiVity can be directly recovered from the violators of the County
Zoning Ordinances and the County could generate increased
revenues estimated to amount to $182,295 annually.
1.9 Organizational Development.......................................................... 52
The processes utilized to determine resources allocated to the
County Counsel's Office and the distribution of staff to areas of
responsibility within the County Counsel's Office is insufficient.
Further, the current organization and centralization of the County
Counsel staff impedes the Department's efficiency and effectiveness
and the responsiveness to client needs. By modifying the current
organizational structure, delineating attorney and support staff
duties, responsibilities- and reporting relationships and relocating
some staff, these problems can be alleviated and the services of the
County Counsel's Office improved.
ll. HUMAN SERVICES DIVISION ISSUES
ll.l Conservatorship accountings.... ......................... ................ .......... 63
Due to periodic staff vacancies, an estimated backlog of over 390
Public Administrator - Guardian (PAG) conservatorship
accountings has' developed in the County Counsel's office. This
backlog has a value of approximately $300,000 in collectable PAG,
County Counsel and Public Defender fees. By temporarily utilizing
paralegal staff from other areas of the office, the County Counsel
could eliminate this backlog. Further, the Board of Supervisors
should approve approximately $46,500 in funding for temporary
staffing in the Superior Court so that legally mandated investigations
and hearings necessary to collect these fees can occur. By
processing these accountings, the County would realize net one-time
revenue of approximately $250,000.
-
-
o
.:)
Section
~
IL2 Decedent Estates .................................................... ....................71
Fees collected for County Counsel services provided to the
Public Administrator (PA) on Decedent Estates have resulted in net
revenue to the County of approximately $25,000 per year. However,
due to workload constraints in FY 1988-89, the County Counsel has
determined that new Decedent Estate case assignments will not be
accepted from the P A; Instead, these legal services will be provided
by - four contract law firms at a cost to estate heirs which could
potentially exceed the amounts charged by County Counsel. By
continuing. to provide legal services on all decedent estates, the
County Counsel could realize additional net revenue of
approximately $25,000 annually and control legal costs for estate
heirs.
II.3 DSS-SSIAdvocacy Program ............. ........... .................................75
The County Counsel's Office has provided legal services for the
Department of Social Services' S.S.I. Advocacy Program since
January 1986. This program utilizes legal and social services to
obtain disability and Medi-Cal benefits for disabled General
Assistance recipients. When a disability claim is approved by Social
Security, the County is reimbursed for its prior General Assistance
payments since the date of application for disability and the County is
authorized to retroactively bill Medi-Cal for Mental Health and
Medical Services provided the applicant during the same period. Due
to inadequate coordination between the Department of Social
Services, Mental Health and Valley Medical Center (VMC), over 90
percent of the reimbursable medical and mental health costs have
not been claimed. By implementing procedures to notify VMC and
Mental Health of all SSI approvals, by processing all retroactive
Medi-Cal. claims and by providing legal representation for more
disabled General Assistance recipients, the County could realize
increased revenues net of costs estimated to amount to approximately
$735,000-$944,000 annually and net one-time revenues of
approximately $1,053,000-$1,591,000.
-
o
o
Section
~
ITA DSS Child Dependency Services ....................................................89
The County Counsel represents the Department of Social
Services in approximately 3400 currently open child dependency
cases heard in Juvenile Court, Superior Court and State Appellate
Court. Due to inadequate staffing, inappropriate office location and
under utilization and development of computerized office
management systems, the County Counsel has been hampered in the
delivery of these services. As a result, inadequate case preparation
occurs, legal advisory services are untimely, over 500 attorney hours
are wasted annually in transit to and from court and the internal
office management of this caseload is inefficient. By authorizing an
additional attorney position, providing sufficient office space for the
County Counsel in the new family courts facility and enhancing the
dependency case tracking system. These problems could be
alleviated at a General Fund cost of about $40,156.
ITL GENERAL GOVERNMENT AND LITIGATION DIVISION ISSUES
III.! Tort Defense Litigation................................................................93
In FY 1987-88, Santa Clara County and the Transit District
purchased approximately $700,000 worth of contract attorney services
to supplement legal services provided by County Counsel for tort
defense. With the exception of approximately $165,000 expended for
contract counsel to represent the County in medical malpractice
claims, these cases did not require special legal expertise to be
successfully litigated, nor did conflict of interest circumstances exist
which would have prohibited County Counsel from providing legal
representation. By adding sufficient County Counsel attorneys,
paralegals and clerical support staff to absorb a major portion of the
contractor workload and establishing procedures for monitoring case
activity, the County and Transit District could achieve net savings of
at least $180,000 per year in legal costs.
-
o
o
Section
~
IV. LAND USE AND TRANSIT DIVISION
IV. I Bail Bond Forfeitures.................................................................l00
The County Counsel is responsible for collecting summary
judgments on bail bond forfeitures for the Superior and Municipal
Courts. Due to inadequate monitoring and record keeping and poor
coordination between the courts and the County Counsel's Office, on
September 30, 1988 97 summary judgments amounting to $434,463
including unpaid interest were uncollected. Twenty-one of these
summary judgments valued at $73,405 had been allowed to go
uncollected for more than two years thereby expiring and making the
collectability of these judgments uncertain. Of more than 200
summary judgments ordered since 1986, thirteen summary
judgments valued at $26,397 had never been transmitted by the
Municipal Court to the County Counsel's Office for collection.
Neither the Superior nor the Municipal Court collects the interest
permitted by State Law on snrnm8ry judgments when they are paid
and both the Courts and the Sheriff continue to accept bail bonds from
bonding companies with outstanding summary judgments in
violation of the Penal Code. By developing and implementing
appropriate procedures and transferring certain collection
responsibilities to the Department of Revenue, the County Counsel
and the Courts can fully collect future judgments resulting in
increased revenues estimated to amount to approximately $48,000
annually and one-time revenues estimated at $560,000 to be
distributed between the County and the local arresting agencies.
WRITTEN RESPONSE OF THE COUNTY COUNSEL.....................................l38
WRITrEN RESPONSE OF THE MUNICIPAL COURT ................................. ..100
WRITrENRESPONSE OF THE DEPARI'MENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES .........172
WRITTEN RESPONSE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT .................................... ..176
WRITrEN RESPONSE OF THE V ALLEY MEDICAL CENTER ...................... .177
-
Table 1
Table 2
Table 3
Table 4
Table 5
Table 6
Table 7
Table 8
Table 9
Table 10
Table 11
Table 12
Table 13
Table 14
Table 15
o
<::J
'"'
L1.'IT OF TABLES
E&re
FY 1988-89 Budgeted County Counsel Revenues and
Expenditures................. ....... ....... ...........................................2
FY 1987-88 Comparison of Cost Recovery for County Counsel
Offices In The Eleven Most Populous California Counties............4
Comparison of Support Staffing Ratios Santa Clara County
Counsel to Nine Other Jurisdictions Surveyed........................... 2A
Increased Productivity of County Counsel Attorneys by Shifting
Workload to Lower Level Staff.................................................. 28
Accuracy of Original timesheets..............................................31
Santa Clara Office of the County Counsel Analysis of
Departmental Cost Recovery FY 1983-84 through FY 1987-88 .......41
Analysis of County Counsel Services Provided to the
Department of Planning and Development in FY 1987-88............42
Major Recipients of Paralegal Services, FY 1987-88....................44
Comparison of County Counsel Direct Charges Versus the
Total Actual Costs of Providing Services ...................................46
Analysis of Revenue From Permit Application Penalty Fees ....... ro
Estimate ofLPS and Probate Fees Which.could Be Collected By
Processing Backlogged Accountings ..........:..-........................... ffi
Proposed Staffing Resources Required to Process Accounting
13acltlog.................................................................................~
General Assistance Recovered by the SSI-Advocacy Program
from January 1986 through August 1988...................................71
Supplemental Security Income (SSl) and Retroactive Medi-Cal
Approvals by Month from January 1986 through December
1988 . ..... ......... .................... ....... ....... ............... ......... ............. 79
Projected Reimbursements from Medi-Cal of Previously
Unclaimed Hospital Costs.... ................ ................. ..... .............81
-
o
o
~
Table 16
Analysis ofthe Costs and Benefits to the County of the SSI-
Advocacy Program Based on the Current Service Level and a
Projected Expanded Level of Program Services .......................... 84
Summary of Projected Increased Revenues and Reduced
Expenditures Resulting from Implementation of the Above
Recommendations ........ ......... ............. ...... .... .... ... ..................88
Table 17
Table 18 Comparison of Uncollected Summary Judgments April 1986 to
. October 1988...................................... .................................... 101
-
o
o
LJsr OF EXHIBITS
~
Exhibit! Organization Chart of County Counsel Responsibilities............... 3
Rrhihit2 Santa Clara County Office of the County Counsel Organization
- December 1988 ......... ..... ............................ ...... ............ ......... 55
RrhihitS-' Santa Clara County Office of the County Counsel Proposed
Organization ..... ............. .............. .......... .... ... ... ....... .............. 59
-
o
o
I.IST OF APPENDICES
~
Appendix I
Snmm..ry of Survey Responses from 12 of the Largest
California Counties... ............ ............. ............ ..................106
Appendix n., "Office Manual for Attorneys", County of Riverside, Table
of Contents ..................................................................... .114
-
Appendix ill Santa Clara County Counsel Proposed Business and
Ailrn;n;strative Services Division Organization ...................122
Appendix IV Examples of County Counsel Timesheets Used in Other
Jurisdictions ...................................................................123
Appendix V Comparison of Rates Currently Charged by County
Counsel with Average Costs for LPS Services ......................125
Appendix VI Proposed Methodology for Determining Charges for
Professional Services................ ......... ..... ..........................126
Appendix vn Analysis of Summary Judgments by Days Remaining to
ExpiratioIl.......................................................................130
o
o
EXECUfIVE SUMMARY
The management audit of the Office of the County Counsel has conducted at
the direction of the Board of Supervisors pursuant to its power .of inquiry granted
by Article III, Section 302 of the County Charter. The audit was initiated at the
request of the County Counsel in June of 1988; field work began in July and a draft
report was submitted to the County Counsel and other County Departments in
November. Following the completion of exit conference procedures with the
County Counsel and other affected County Departments, this final report is
hereby submitted and includes the written response of the County Counsel's
Office and four other departments which chose to respond to issues included in
this report which pertain to their operations. The purpose of this audit was to
evaluate the operations of the County Counsel's Office in order to identify
opportunities to reduce costs, increase revenues and improve the quality of
services provided to the many clients which are served by the County Counsel's
Office. In each of these areas, this audit has served its purpose. Various
operational problems were discovered and recommendations were made to
efficiently alleviate these conditions. Several opportunities to enhance both one-
time and ongoing revenues were identified and the facts and issues relevant to
each were developed and presented. Lastly, issues were identified which impair
the County Counsel's ability to provide the quality and timeliness of service which
they otherwise could achieve.
During the course of this study interviews were conducted with all of the
attorneys on the County Counsel's staff and with many of the support staff. In
addition, clients from many departments were interviewed including the Transit
District, the Department Social Services, the General Services Agency, the
Juvenile Court, the County Executive's Office, various school and special districts
and others.
As part of this study, the County Counsel offices from eleven of the most
populous California jurisdictions were surveyed regarding selected aspects of
their operations. Limited discussions were also held with private law firms
regarding staffing and operational procedures. Further, detailed records
maintained by the County Counsel's Office and client departments were reviewed
and analyzed to develop many of the findings contained in this report.
As a result of this review, several areas were identified where opportunities
exist to reduce costs, increase revenues and improve the quality of services
provided. However, in some instances it will be necessary for the County to fund
certain one-time and ongoing expenditures in order to realize the full benefit of
the recommendations. Once the full implementation of these recommendations
is achieved, the organization and business management capabilities of the County
Counsel's Office would be significantly strengthened, the quality and timeliness of
services provided to clients would be improved and the County would realize
$1,129,000-$1,337,000 of additional revenues and reduced expenditures annually.
In addition, one-time revenues are estimated to amount to approximately
$1,861,000-$2,399,000.
-}-
o
o
A summary of each audit finding, the related recommendations and the
estimated savings or other benefits is presented below:
11 Administrative Policies and Procedures
The County Counsel's Office has various documents which establish
administrative policies and procedures for selected areas of operations. However,
many of these documents are outdated, do not address critical areas of operations
and are not organized in a suitable manner. In addition, some Department staff
have independently developed procedures which have not been reviewed or
approved by management. Without establishing comprehensive policies and
procedures which have been formally adopted by the Department, management
inefficiencies and inconsistencies in operations will continue.
Based on these findings, its is recommended that the County Counsel's
Office:
Utilize policies and procedures from other county counsel offices as a
basis for developing comprehensive policies and procedures for Santa
Clara County;
Assign responsibility for developing comprehensive policies and
procedures to administrative management and analytical staff
recommended in Section 1.3.
The implementation of these recommendations would result in the
development of comprehensive policies and procedures for the office. Adherence
to such policies and procedures would generally improve the efficiency and
effectiveness of operations and would remedy several problems identified in this
report.
12 M..n"l!'ement Infonnation Svst~m
The County Counsel's Office lacks an adequate management information
system. Due to insufficient collection and reporting of financial and
programmatic information, the County Counsel has been unable to exercise the
oversight necessary to maintain full managerial control of the programs for
which he is responsible. Summary judgment collections have backlogged and
many judgments have expired, conservatorship accountings have backlogged,
Civil Code Section 232 petitions are backlogged and not filed with the court on a
timely basis and other operational problems have existed without coming to the
County Counsel's attention in a timely manner. By identifying, developing and
preparing various management reports, the County Counsel's Office can create
an efficient management information system that will enhance is ability to
identify and address future issues as they arise.
-11-
o
:)
Based on these findings, it is recommended that the County Counsel's
Office:
- Analyze its programmatic responsibilities and identify and develop a
series of management reports by which the Office's performance in
these areas can be monitored;
Implement quarterly or semi-annual reporting by each of the Chief
Deputies regarding the general status of services and any specific issues
-currently noteworthy within each division of the County Counsel's
Office.
The implementation of these recommendations would result in improved
managerial control over both financial and programmatic issues affecting the
County and the more timely responsiveness to service needs of the County
Counsel's various clients.
1.3 Sunnort ~tRff On>>-..ni7'-'ltion
The County Counsel's Office has not clearly defined the organization and
management structure of the Department. In addition, the Office lacks sufficient
administrative and fiscal management positions needed for the most effective
operations of the Department. By adding one Business and Administrative
Services Manager and one Management Analyst, converting the existing
Administrative Support Officer to an Accountant II, and reorganizing the
administration of the Office along functional lines, the County Counsel's Office
would operate more effectively.
Based on these findings, its is recommended that the Board of Supervisors:
- Authorize positions and funding for (1) Business and Administrative
Services Manager, (1) Management Analyst and (1) Accountant II;
Delete (1) Administrative Support Officer position and funding through
attrition.
It is recommended that the County Counsel's Office:
Establish a Business Services Division, as described in this report;
Centralize all accounting functions within the Business Services
Division;
Designate the Business and Administrative Services Manager as the
administrative manager for the Department with primary responsibility
for personnel management, budget and analysis and accounting
functions;
-Hi-
o
o
Establish comprehensive accounting procedures as recommended 10
this report.
The implementation of these recommendations would result in the more
effective operation of the County Counsel's Office. Attorney involvement in
administrative activities would be reduced. The Department would be provided
with a strong analytical capability resulting in future management
improvements such as those discussed in this management audit report and the
ability to perform internal ongoing analysis. Basic accounting principals would
be complie<l with and implemented consistently throughout the Department. The
cost to the County of implementing these recommendations would amount to
$105,160 annually.
L4 Sunnort Flt..ffUtilization
The number of support staff in the County Counsel's Office is insufficient,
resulting in excessive performance of clerical duties by attorneys and paralegals.
In addition, opportunities exist for increasing clerical staff efficiency by fully
utilizing existing word processing capabilities and implementing minor system
improvements. By increasing clerical and paralegal staff positions to a level
which insures comprehensive and timely assistance to attorneys, the County
Counsel could realize a net increase in profellsional staff productivity of
approximately $181,857 annually.
Based on these findings, it is recommended that the Board of Supervisors:
Authorize $89,033 in funding for two clerk typist positions and one
paralegal technician position;
Delete one Legal Secretary I position through attrition;
Approve $5,500 for equipment enhancements recommended in this
report.
It is recommended that the County Counsel's Office:
Develop and implement word processing equipment use policies and
procedures as described in this report.
The implementation of these recommendations would result in increased
attorney productivity valued at $181,857 annually, net of additional costs.
-IV-
-
o
()
L5: Timekeenin{! Function
The timekeeping system used by the County Counsel's Office is inefficient,
includes excessive input verification and auditing, and is unnecessarily
cumbersome for professional staff. In FY 1987-88, the Department spent over
$32,000 in support staff salaries and supplies in order to utilize this system for
management and billing purposes. By developing, standardizing and utilizing a
new timesheet design, developing formal timekeeping policies and procedures,
utilizing ~imekeeping computer programs presently owned by the Department
and elimiIl'ating certain audit steps, approximately $23,650 could be saved
annually in reduced support staff time and supplies.
Based on these findings, it is recommended that the County Counsel's
Office:
Improve the design, and expand the number of service codes on the
internal timesheet;
Require timesheets be submitted on a weekly basis by all professionals in
the Office;
Institute policies and procedures regar:ding timesheets;
Eliminate the current timesheet audit process;
Institute the DataEase™ software program;
The implementation of these recommendations would increase efficiency
and provide uniformity within the Office of the County Counsel and would
generate a savings in supplies costs and increased support staff time of $23,650
annually.
L6 BilHn{! Functionc:;
The County Counsel's Office utilizes various billing methodologies which
operate independently of the Department's timekeeping system and include
excessive and duplicative data processing input. In FY 1987-88, the Department
used over $10,000 in support staff time in order to perform these various billing
activities. By integrating the timekeeping and billing functions and utilizing
timekeeping computer programs presently owned by the Department,
approximately $9,600 could be saved annually in support staff time.
Based on these findings, it is recommended that the County Counsel's
Office:
Implement the DataEase TM computer program;
-v-
-
o
o
ModifY GSA and School District billings as described in this report;
Integrate the timekeeping and billing functions within the Department.
The implementation of these recommendations would increase efficiency
and eliminate duplicative effort within the Office of the County Counsel and would
generating a savings of approximately $9,600 annually in increased support staff
availability.
L 7 Ch..nres for ProfM.<rinn..l Servit1P..<l
In recent years the County Counsel's Office has significantly increased its
percentage of costs recovered from charges to Non-General Fund Departments.
However, some billable activities have not been identified and the current billing
rate does not accurately reflect the actual cost of services provided. By pursuing
additional revenue sources and adopting a more precise billing methodology the
County Counsel's Office could increase revenues to the General Fund by
approximately $99,600 annually.
Based on these findings, it is recommended that the County Counsel's
Office:
Directly bill the Planning Department and County Executive's Toxics
and Hazardous waste divisions for professional services rendered. (It
should be noted that the recovery {)f these legal costs through Planning
Department fees is a policy matter for the Board of Supervisors
consideration.}
Continually attempt to i_dentify other General Fund clients which receive
funding from external agencies which may provide reimbursement for
such services.
Adopt the billing methodology proposed in this section in order to charge
for professional services on a more accurate and timely basis.
The implementation of these recommendations would result in additional
revenues of approximately $99,600 annually to the General Fund. In addition, the
County Counsel's clients would be provided more accurate cost data with respect
to legal services received.
-VI-
o
.:)
L8 Zoninl!" Investil!"ation Cost Reooverv
The operating costs of the Zoning Investigation function, located within the
County Counsel's Office, is inappropriately included as a component of the
County Counsel's hourly billing rate for legal services. By recovering these costs
through Planning Department permit application fees, penalties on permit
applications and fines and forfeitures, the costs of this necessary enforcement
activity can be directly recovered from the violators of the County Zoning
Ordinan<;es and the County could generate increased revenues estimated to
amount to-$182,295 annually.
Based on these findings, it is recommended that the Board of Supervisors:
Direct Zoning Investigation and the Planning Department to develop a
method to recover at least 70 percent of the operating costs of the Zoning
Investigation function by using the cost recovery alternatives discussed
in this section.
The implementation of this recommendation would result in increased
revenues to the County of approximately $182,295 annually. Most of the cost of this
enforcement activity could be recovered from violators of the County's zoning
ordinances.
L9 On~~m;7$ltiona1 DeveloDment
The processes utilized to determine resources allocated to the County
Counsel's Office and the distribution of staff to areas of responsibility within the
County Counsel's Office is insufficient. Further, the current organization and
centralization of the County Counsel staff impedes the Department's efficiency
and effectiveness and the responsiveness to client needs. By modifying the
current organizational structure, delineating Attorney and support staff duties,
responsibilities and reporting relationships and relocating some staff, these
problems can be alleviated and the services of the County Counsel's Office
improved.
Based on these findings, it is recommended that the Board of Supervisors:
- Assign the Zoning Investigation Unit function, staffing and necessary
funding to the Department of Planning and Development.
- Authorize funding for salary differentials to be paid to lead attorneys
established for services to the Transit District and the Children's
Services Division of the Department of Social Services.
-vii-
o
:)
L8 Zoninl!' Investi2ation Cost Recoverv
The operating costs of the Zoning Investigation function, located within the
County Counsel's Office, is inappropriately included as a component of the
County Counsel's hourly billing rate for legal services. By recovering these costs
through Planning Department permit application fees, penalties on permit
applications and fines and forfeitures, the costs of this necessary enforcement
activity can be directly recovered from the violators of the County Zoning
Ordinances and the County could generate increased revenues estimated to
amount to '$182,295 annually.
Based on these findings, it is recommended that the Board of Supervisors:
Direct Zoning Investigation and the Planning Department to develop a
method to recover at least 70 percent of the operating costs of the Zoning
Investigation function by using the cost recovery alternatives discussed
in this section.
The implementation of this recommendation would result in increased
revenues to the County of approximately $182,295 annually. Most of the cost ofthis
enforcement activity could be recovered from violators of the County's zoning
ordinances.
L9 Onr~ni7~tional Develoument
The processes utilized to determine resources allocated to the County
Counsel's Office and the distribution of staff to areas of responsibility within the
County Counsel's Office is insufficient. Further, the current organization and
centralization of the County Counsel staff impedes the Department's efficiency
and effectiveness and the responsiveness to client needs. By modifying the
current organizational structure, delineating Attorney and support staff duties,
responsibilities and reporting relationships and relocating some staff, these
problems can be alleviated and the services of the County Counsel's Office
improved.
Based on these findings, it is recommended that the Board of Supervisors:
Assign the Zoning Investigation Unit function, staffing and necessary
funding to the Department of Planning and Development.
Authorize funding for salary differentials to be paid to lead attorneys established for services to the Transit District and the Children's
Services Division of the Department of Social Services.
-Vll-
.
-
.
o
o
It is recommended that the County Executive:
Develop and implement procedures for County Counsel client
departments to become more directly involved in the process for
estimating the scope and cost of County Counsel services, as described
in this report.
Through the Personnel Department and Employee Relations Division,
initiate appropriate steps to establish specifications and salary
'differentials for lead attorneys responsible for coordinating services to
the Transit District and supervising County Counsel staff assigned to
child dependency caseload.
It is recommended that the County Counsel:
Implement procedures for responding to requests for service from client
departments according to procedures developed by the County Executive.
- Work with the Transit District and the Superior Court to establish
appropriate office space for County Counsel staff recommended for
assignment to these locations.
Request that the County Executive assign space design staff to
reconfigure the ninth floor office space layout to provide its most efficient
use.
Delineate the duties and responsibilities of all managerial, attorney and
support staff positions in a manner consistent with the proposed revised
organization as shown in Exhibit 3.
The implementation of these recommendations would result in improved
efficiency anq effectiveness in the County Counsel's Office and in increased
responsiveness to client needs.
IT.! f"Aln...c;ervatorsbin accounti.n2'S
Due to periodic staff vacancies, an estimated backlog of over 390 Public
Administrator - Guardian (PAG) conservatorship accountings has developed in
the County Counsel's office. This backlog has a value of approximately $300,000 in
collectable P AG, County Counsel and Public Defender fees. . By temporarily
utilizing paralegal staff from other areas of the office, the COunty Counsel could
eliminate this backlog. Further, the Board of Supervisors should approve
approximately $46,500 in funding for temporary staffing in the Superior Court so
that legally mandated investigations and hearings necessary to collect these fees
can occur. By processing these accountings, the County would realize net one-
time revenue of approximately $250,000.
-viii-
-
,
o
o
Based on these findings, it is recommended that the Board of Supervisors:
Authorize the funding for pro-tem judicial positions and temporary
staffing, as discussed in this report. The total one-time cost of these
staffing increases would be $46,500.
Direct the Public Administrator - Guardian, County Counsel and Public
Defender to administratively attempt to resolve any disagreement
regarding appropriate LPS fee amounts.
- ~~
It is recommended that the County Counsel:
On an interim basis, utilize paralegal staff proposed for tort defense in
Section III.l of this report to process backlogged conservatorship
accountings.
Work with the Public Anministrator - Guardian to rectify differences in
records regarding the number and status of conservatorship
" accountings.
Develop a comprehensive system for logging accounting petitions and
tracking them through the hearing process.
The implementation of these recommendations would result in a one-time
net revenue of $250,000. The number of contested hearings regarding LPS fees
would be reduced. The County Counsel would maintain more comprehensive
records on the number of accounting petitions referred to the Department and
petition status in the hearing process.
ll.2 Decedent E.<rtates
Fees collected for County Counsel ser-vices provided to the Public
Administrator (PA) on Decedent Estates have resulted in net revenue to the
County of approximately $25,000 per year. However, due to workload constraints
in FY 1988-89, the County Counsel has determined that new Decedent Estate case
assignments will not be accepted from the P A; Instead, these legal services will be
provided by four contract law firms at a cost to estate heirs which could potentially
exceed the amounts charged by County Counsel. By continuing to provide legal
services on all decedent estates, the County Counsel could realize additional net
revenue of approximately $25,000 annually and control legal costs for estate heirs.
Based on these findings, it is recommended that the County Counsel:
Continue accepting Full Probate decedent estate caseload from the
Public Administrator;
-IX-
o
o
Utilize existing staff made available from implementing
recommendations included in Section 1.4 of this report. Until such
recommendations are implemented, utilize staffing recommended in
Section 111.1 related to tort defense. It should be noted that the
availability of staffing from Section 111.1 of this report would require
approval by the Board of Supervisors and recruitment of three attorneys.
In the event that defense staffing is not approved by the Board of
Supervisors, prepare a supplemental appropriation request for adequate
staffing to process decedent estates.
The implementation of these recommendations would result in net revenue
of approximately $25,000 annually. This revenue could potentially increase as
estate values escalate due to rising real estate values. Cost of legal services for
estate heirs could be better contained.
ll.S ns..c;;..SSI Advocacv Prol>'nlm
The County Counsel's Office has provided legal services for the Department
of Social Services' S.S.I. Advocacy Program since January 1986. This program
utilizes Legal and Social Services to obtain disability and Medi-Cal benefits for
disabled General Assistance Recipients. When a disability claim is approved by
Social Security, the County is reimbursed for its prior General Assistance
payments since the date of application for disability and the County is authorized
to retroactively bill Medi-Cal for Mental Health and Medical Services provided the
applicant during the same period. Due to inadequate coordination between the
Department of Social Services, Mental Health and Valley Medical Center (VMC),
over 90 percent of the reimbursable Medical Mental Health costs have not been
claimed. By implementing procedures to notify VMC and Mental Health of all
SSI approvals and by providing legal representation for more disabled General
Assistance Recipients, the County could realize increased revenues net of costs
estimated to amount to approximately $735,000-$944,000 annually and net one-
time revenues of approximately $1,053,000-$1,591,000.
Based on these findings, it is recommended that the SSI - Advocacy
Program of the Department of Social Services:
Prepare a comprehensive list monthly of all DSS clients approved for 881
including their names, date of birth and social security numbers. This
list should include all approvals identified on the monthly DSS-Fiscal
report and the monthly DSS-Legal and Recovery report. For each client
name, the award notice from the Social Security Administration
identifying the date of retroactive Medi-Cal eligibility should be obtained
from DSS-Fiscal and attached to the monthly list of SSI approvals. If no
award notice is received from the Social Security Administration, a copy
of the DSS-Fiscal notice (Form SC 1310) to the Social Security
Administration specifying the retroactive date of Medi-Cal eligibility
should be attached to the monthly list of SSI approvals. The complete list
with attachments should be transmitted on a timely basis to the Patient
-x-
o
o
Business Services Section of Valley Medical Center and to the
Accounting Section of the Mental Health Bureau;
Compile a retroactive list of SSI approvals between 1986 and 1988
containing the same information and documentation as described in the
previous recommendation. Because social security award notices are
not available for SSI approvals prior to January 1988, copies of DSS
forms SSP-14 which specify the date of retroactive Medi-Cal eligibility
should be substituted to document the retroactive date. The retroactive
list with attached documentation should be transmitted to VMC and
Mental Health as portions are completed;
Prepare a supplemental appropriation request to fund an expansion of
the SSI-advocacy program as described in this section and to compile the
retroactive list of SSI approvals and the supporting documentation;
- Submit annual reports to the Board of Supervisors including revenues,
expenditures, and other data to allow for the ongoing monitoring of the
SSI-advocacy program.
It is recommended that the Department of Social Services - VMC Unit:
Prepare a supplemental appropriation request to fund additional
eligibility worker staffing to process retroactive Medi-Cal claims as
specified in this section;
It is recommended that the Valley Medical Center and the Mental Health
Bureau:
Review and prepare retroactive Medi-Cal bills for cases referred from
the Department of Social Services - SSI Advocacy Program as
appropriate.
Prepare a supplemental appropriation request to fund the costs of
processing retroactive Medi-Cal bills; described in this section.
It is recommended that the County Counsel:
Prepare a supplemental appropriation request to fund a full time
paralegal position and an additional 462 attorney hours for expansion of
the SSI advocacy program as described in this section.
-XI-
o
o
The implementation of these recommendations would result in increased
revenues and reduced expenditures estimated to amount to approximately
$736,000 - $945,000 annually and net one-time revenues of approximately
$1,068,000 - $1,606,000. In addition, a 100 percent increase in the amount oflegal
and other assistance provided to disabled General Assistance recipients would be
realized, resulting in a projected 60 percent increase in the number of disability
applications approved by the Social Security Administration.
ll.4 DSS Child n.""",ndp.ncv Services
The County Counsel represents the Department of Social Services in
approximately 3400 currently open child dependency cases heard in Juvenile
Court, Superior Court and State Appellate Court. Due to inadequate staffing,
inappropriate office location and under utilization and development of
computerized office management systems, the County Counsel has been
hampered in the delivery of these services. As a result, inadequate case
preparation occurs, legal advisory services are untimely, over 500 attorney hours
are wasted annually in transit to and from court and the internal office
management of this caseload is inefficient. By authorizing an additional attorney
position, providing sufficient office space for the County Counsel in the new
family courts facility and enhancing the dependency case tracking system. These
problems could be alleviated at a General Fund cost of about $40,156.
Based on these findings, it is recommended that the County Counsel:
Request an additional attorney position to staff the DSS - Child
Dependency Unit. If approved, consideration should be given to staffing
a legal office at the Department of Social Services one day per week.
Enhance the computerized DSS - case tracking system to generate
management reports, to monitor cases and workload and to prepare
court and trial calendars.
It is recommended that the Superior Court:
Allocate sufficient space for the County Counsel's DSS-Child
Dependency Unit attorneys, sport staff, records and equipment in the
new family courts facility.
The implementation of these recommendations would result in improved
legal services to the Department of Social Services, the more efficient use of
County Counsel attorney time, and greater managerial control over these cases
and related staffing issues. The cost of an attorney position is estimated to
amount to $80,311 annually of which approximately 50 percent or $40,156 would be
reimbursed by State and federal funds.
-Xll-
-
-
o
o
Ill.l Tort Defense Litil!'ation
In FY 1987-88, Santa Clara County and the Transit District purchased
approximately $700,000 worth of contract attorney services to supplement legal
services provided by County Counsel for tort defense. With the exception of
approximately $165,000 expended for contract counsel to represent the County in
medical malpractice claims, these cases did not require special legal expertise to
be successfully litigated, nor did conflict of interest circumstances exist which
would have. prohibited County Counsel from providing legal representation. By
adding sufficient County Counsel attorneys, paralegals and clerical support staff
to absorb a major portion of the contractor workload and establishing procedures
for monitoring case activity, the County and Transit District could achieve net
savings of at least $180,000 per year in legal costs.
Based on these findings, it is recommended that the Board of Supervisors:
Authorize the following positions and funding for the Office of the
County Counsel:
Position." 1iik ~
3.0 Attorney IV $240,934
1.0 Paralegal Technician 34,509
2.0 Secretary 1 64,741
0.5 Clerk Typist 13.631
Total All Positions $353,815
It is recommended that the Office of the County Counsel and GSA
Insurance Risk Management Division:
Immediately develop formal policies and procedures for a
comprehensive monitoring program which incorporates minimum
reporting standards discussed in this report.
The implementation of these recommendations would save the County an
estimated $140,000 annually and the Transit District would save an estimated
$40,000 annually in the cost of contract legal counsel, net of expenses for County
Counsel attorneys. Claims monitoring and administration would be improved.
IV.l Bail Bond Forfeitures
The County Counsel is responsible for collecting summary judgments on
bail bond forfeitures for the Superior and Municipal Courts. Due to inadequate
monitoring and record keeping and poor coordination between the courts and the
County Counsel's Office, on September 30, 1988 97 summary judgments
amounting to $434,463 including unpaid interest were uncollected. Twenty-one of
these sUDImary judgments valued at $73,405 had been allowed to go uncollected
for more than two years thereby expiring and making the collectability of these
-xiii-
o
o
judgments uncertain. Of more than 200 summary judgments ordered since 1986,
thirteen summary judgments valued at $26,397 had never been transmitted by the
Municipal Court to the County Counsel's Office for collection. Neither the
Superior nor the Municipal Court collects the interest permitted by State Law on
summary judgments when they are paid and both the Courts and the Sheriff
continue to accept bail bonds from bonding companies with outstanding summary
judgments in violation of the Penal Code. By developing and implementing
appropriate procedures and transferring certain collection responsibilities to the
DepartmeI).t of Revenue, the County Counsel and the Courts can fully collect
future judgments resulting in increased revenues estimated to amount to
approximately.$48,OOO annually and one-time revenues estimated at $560,000 to be
distributed between the County and the local arresting agencies.
Based on these findings, it is recommended that the Superior and
Municipal Courts:
Develop and implement procedures to periodically audit their bond
forfeiture registers to ensure that County Counsel is notified on a timely
basis when 20 days have elapsed from the date summary judgments are
entered; In court facilities where procedures exist, such procedures
should be followed more carefully and monitored by supervisory staff;
Develop and implement procedures to ensure that the County Counsel is
notified inImediately upon receipt of payment on outstanding sunImary
judgments; In court facilities where procedures exist, such procedures
should be followed more carefully and monitored by supervisory staff;
Comply with the Code of Civil Procedure sections 685.010 and 685.020
and charge interest at the rate of ten percent from the date of entry of
judgment on all sunImary judgments on bond forfeitures;
Comply with Penal Code Section 1308 by discontinuing the acceptance of
bail bonds from companies with sunImary judgments outstanding more
than 20 days;
It is recommended that the County Counsel:
Contract with the Department of Revenue to assume the collection and
monitoring functions on summary judgments under the direction of the
County Counsel's Office and in accordance with policies and procedures
to be specified by the County Counsel. Such policies and procedures
should include the notification of the courts and the Sheriff by DOR or
the County Counsel when bail bonds of surety companies should no
longer be honored pursuant to Penal Code Section 1308.
-xiv-
o
o
The implementation of these recommendations would result in increased
and more timely collection of summary judgments, the collection of interest
charges on summary judgments, improved record keeping and control over the
summary judgment collection function and compliance with State law.
Increased collections are estimated to amount to approximately $48,000 annually
and about $560,000 on a one-time basis ($200,000 of these one-time revenues have
already been collected). These revenues would be distributed between the County
and the corresponding local agencies which made the original arrests. In
addition, .the Department of Revenue would experience increased costs to process
the collection of these snmmary judgments while the County Counsel would
realize the benefit of additional legal secretary and attorney time previously
devoted to this activity.
-xv-
o
.)
INfRODUCTlON
This management audit of the Office of the County Counsel was authorized
by the Board of Supervisors for the purpose of evaluating the efficiency,
effectiveness and economy of the Department's operations. The scope of the audit
was comprehensive and included a review of a wide range of organizational,
management and financial issues including: policies and procedures; the
organization, utilization and management of support staff; professional services
billing rate development; revenue collection procedures; relations with other
County departments and special districts; the use of sick leave and compensatory
time-off; and, word processing equipment needs.
During the course of the audit, interviews were conducted with the County
Counsel, the Assistant County Counsel, the Chief Deputy County Counsels and
each of the attorneys assigned to the Department. In addition, each of the
paralegal technicians were interviewed, as well as a substantial number of legal
secretaries and other clerical support staff.
Further, we interviewed the Assistant County Executive and other County
I11l:ln9gement personnel regarding County Counsel services and selected topics
regarding Department operations. Interviews were also conducted with
representatives from both large and small County Counsel clients, including the
Department of Social Services, the Santa Clara County Transit District, the
General Services Agency Insurance and Risk Management Division, the Public
Administrator - Guardian, Employee Relations and School Districts.
As part of this study, the county counsel offices from eleven of the most
populous California jurisdictions were surveyed regarding selected aspects of
their operations (see Appendix 1). In addition, limited discussions were held with
representatives from private law firms to deternIine their staffing practices and
any procedures which may apply to a public sector law office. Further, detailed
records maintained by the County Counsel's Office and client departments were
reviewed and analyzed to develop many of the findings included herein.
Based on these interviews and surveys, and the analyses of data compiled
during the study, we have developed a series of findings and recommendations
which address many of the areas which were audited. The implementation of
these recommendations would result in significantly strengthening the
organization and the business management capabilities of the Department,
improving the quality and timeliness of services provided to clients and result in
reduced expenditures and additional revenues net of costs of approximately
$1,129,000 to $1,337,000 for the County annually. Implementation of these
recommendations would also result in one-time net revenue of approximately
$1,861,000 to $2,399,000.
- 1 -
o
('A)untv ('A)unc;el Onerations
o
The County Counsel's Office consists of 72 employees, including 33
attorneys, nine paralegal technicians, 19 legal secretaries and a confidential
secretary, an Administrative Support Officer, an Account Clerk, two advanced
Clerk Typist, a Receptionist, a Civil Investigator, a Senior Zoning Investigator
and two Zoning Investigators. In recent months, the administrative effectiveness
of the Dep1ilrtment has declined substantially as a result of the FY 1988-89 deletion
of the Law Office Manager position responsible for administration of the
Department, the sudden vacancy of an Account Clerk position responsible for
various financial management functions within the Department and the pending
retirement of the Administrative Support Officer. As a result, this evaluation
comes at a time when substantial opportunity exists for the Department to modify
its administrative organization and approach to doing business.
The ability of the Department to provide effective legal services can have
significant impact on County and special district operations. The County Counsel
represents over 70 departments and agencies, many with multiple issue areas
requiring involvement of County Counsel Staff. Exhibit 1 on the following .page
illustrates the wide range of clients assigned to County Counsel and the variety of
services which legal staff are expected to provide.
To provide these services, the County Counsel's Office has been authorized
approximately $4.3 million in expenditures for FY 1988-89. Approximately 55.1
percent of this amount, or $2.37 million, is projected to be recovered by the
Department through direct billings to non-General Fund clients and non-County
agencies, as follows:
Table 1
FY 1988-89 Budgeted County Counsel
Revenues and ExIJenditures
RevP..nues
Social Services
Transportation
Workers Compensation
Non-County Revenue
Liability Insurance
Capital Improvements
County Parks
Valley Medical Center
LAFCO
Total Revenues and
Reimbursements
Amount
$836,572
506,506
270,184
263,220
241,088
91,000
75,000
66,586
19.500
~2,369,656
-2-
F.rnPn<1itures
Amount
Sal. & Benefits
SVC5. & Supplies
Interest and
Debt Service
Equipment
Total Expenses
$3,919,597
338,235
24,498
18.329
~,300.659
Percent
Recovered
55.1%
Exhibit 1
Organizational Chart of County Counsel Responsibilities
o
.:)
ivh:inn I
PlIbIioAd~ian
Adult OdnshpllCllSvtshps
Do-'e-'_
LPS Conscrvatonhips
Ptabole Odnshps.Olsvl5hps
LPS WrillI
coItb D..,w1mcat
A1cobcIism B_
Drug Abase
Montll Health
Public HcoIth (ex<ept Eavironmcotll)
xW Senicco
Adcptions B_
CETA/JIPA
Minor GaanIianships
SSI Project
232Pctilioos
300 I'n>ceediJJgs
4 ..m Appeals IIoud
0IIIICil 011 Aging
_MedioaICom
(Pammc:d-AmbuIanceIl'DDmll>
Hcallb SystemS Ageocy
Iedioal~
lisccIIancoas litigalion
~BoanI
-
:nio< Com CommissioD
-Iftfa a- County-EI Camino Hospital District
HospitI! Faci1itieo Authority
SlaIUS of Women Ccmmission
".ncy McdicaI Centcc
Administration
County Counsel
Chief Assistant County Counsel
BoanI of SuJlCl"ison Courts
acrlt of 1he Boud or Supervisors Registrar or VOfa'S
Conflict of In.....' GandJury
County Qed.: Jail Litigation
Dividon "
County &ccutive
County ReIaIioos
CrimirtI! Juslicc Gnnts
&'-~"l Services
00ic0 alBudp llIld Analysis
District II11Dmq
GSA
DaIa Ploccssing
Ins_Cairns
MedioaI MalJDClioe
PIIPO
00ic0 alLabor ReIalions
o..-J
TransiI
PcnomeI Dopoibllent
Affirmative Adioo
ProbaIioa. fA.a-b...-ut
PubIio 1leCc:Ddc<
Revenue O""'....0w4
Welfan:o.apaymen~
School Distrkts
SchoolLlbor
ShcriIl'. Oepadment
Tort Litigation
Civil Rights. Labor, FcderaI, Parks
Roads, T....it, Light Rail
Shcrilf JUS1ico
1ltitd Porty Sub
W_.Compen~"""
nivi~inn "'
Transit Disbicl
fleet OpcDlions
Guadalupe Cooidor
Pens... BoanI
TonsitMall
Tonsit Operations
TnnsportaDon Agency
Avialioa
I'rop<rty
Facilities Opcralion
Finance
Roods Opcralions
Trans. Devclopment
TRlrIC Authority
Ocpanm:nt ofFinana:,Conlnllk:df""'"""'"
Bail Forfcilurc:lColledion/Misc. CoIICClion/
Wdf=o.apayment
TlIX CoIIeclor
PIamUng and Land DevcIopmcnt
Building InspediOll
Central P~ Suneyor/Planning
Special ProjCClS
Zoning/llldg.llIld Odd. Enroroement
Public Senicco AgeDey
AgT. Comm./AnimaI ConIrollConsumer Affair
Fish llIld Game
Parks
-
LiInIy
SpociaI Assignments
Gcncral Utigation
AiIport Conunission
AiIport Lond Use Commission
Assessment Districts
Asscss<r
Building Authority
Cable Television
County Executive
Centcc foc Urban AnalysisAimcrg. Svcs,
Housing llIld Community Development
~Bonds
IntemaI Audit
Justice Divisioa
E1cclrical/Plumbcr Beem ofExaminen
Eaviroamcolal Health Services
GSA
Conununicarions
Building Facilitics/Conltnlction
Property Managcmcot
Purchasing
Historical Heritage Commission
Housing Authority
lAFCO
NaIioaaI Guard Conunission
PIaIlning Conunission
Public Facilities Corp.
RccI=Iopmcnt
Special Districts
~
-
o
o
Santa Clara County compares favorably with other surveyed jurisdictions
regarding the percent of costs recovered from fees for service. The following table
illustrates this comparison:
Table 2
FY 1988-89 Comparison of
CostReoovery for County Counsel Offioes
In'I'wPlve of the Most Ponnlonq C~lif'orni~ C-ounties
Percent
Jmisdiclion RxnP.ntlitures Revenues Recovered
Sacramento $ 3,260,374 $ 2,888,310 88.6
Los Angeles 23,914,596 16,635,278 69.6
San Bernardino 2,578,844 1,138,600 44.2
Santa Clara 4,300,659 2,369,656 55.1
San Francisco 11,929,779 6,205,004 52.0
Riverside 2,334,931 962,000 41.2
Contra Costa 1,795,309 622,000 34.6
San Mateo 2,263,404 492,378 21.8
Orange 4,606,332 992,679 21.6
Fresno 1,452,758 273,533 18.8
Alameda 2,284,464 232,648 10.2
Ventura 2.009.500 80.000 -A.Q
Total ~730,950 ~086 W
Total Excluding LA. $38,816,354 $16,256,808 41.9
As can be seen from the above table, Santa Clara County ranks third
highest in percent of costs recovered through fees for -professional services based
on the information received from the surveyed jurisdictions. If Los Angeles is
excluded from this comparison, then Santa Clara ranks second from the highest,
recovering 31.5 percent more revenue than the average of surveyed jurisdictions.
Observation"! and Comments
Santa Clara County and the special districts served by County Counsel
spend a considerable amount of their resources on legal services. Between the
cost of the County Counsel's Office and special counsel hired by contract in FY
1987-88, over $5.4 million was spent on legal services. Because of this, it is
essential that attorney resources be maximized through the use of lower cost staff
whenever possible.
In virtually every area reviewed, County Counsel attorneys and support
staff were assigned significant workload. As an example, in the DSS dependency
section attorneys were required to spend nearly 84 percent of their time in Court,
leaving only 16 percent to represent the County in appeal matters, conduct legal
research and prepare themselves for Court and provide advice to their clients. In
-4-
o
()
other areas of the operation, attorneys were unable to remain current on
workload, many times generating significant backlogs and delays in processing
cases. Although staffing economies have been achieved, it is clear that
inadequate analysis of the costs and benefits related to such 'savings' has resulted
in net additional costs to the County as documented throughout this report.
Besides the issues of staffing, a top priority of the Office should be to develop
a strong Business Administration Division which would centralize billing,
timekeepi!lg, payroll, purchasing, personnel, systems analysis and development,
budget monitoring and development and maintenance of procedures. The
success of this function is unequivocally the key to maximizing the productivity of
the attorneys by providing the organizational support necessary to enable the legal
staff to spend as much time as possible lawyering. The single most important
responsibility of the Business Administration Division in order to achieve the level
of efficiency and effectiveness suggested, is to implement a comprehensive
policies and procedures manual as quickly as possible. This document will
address a myriad of daily administrative issues; it will set policy in many areas
dealing with legal, client and operational issues; and it will clearly establish lines
of authority, duties and responsibilities and procedures governing interaction
between professional and support staff and interaction between the Business and
Administrative Services Manager and the attorneys, the County Counsel and
Assistant County Counsel.
An important part of the policies and procedures established for the Office
will govern performance evaluation and training for both legal and support staff.
In order for this office to strengthen the quality staff which it has, it must be
proactive in reviewing performance, identifying weaknesses and areas for
improvement and making the efforts necessary to improve through training at all
levels for all staff.
The unanimous concensus of the audit staff after interviewing every
attorney and many other staff members is that the County Counsel's Office has a
quality staff. This is not to say that there are not some staff who are relatively
weak and need closer supervision, but as a group, it is our opinion that this office,
if removed from government and placed in the private sector, would be successful.
However, some of the attributes of private sector performance, which are critical
in that environment, are not as strongly apparent in the County Counsel's Office.
Specifically, some clients expressed concern with the lack of timely
responsiveness to their needs and the lack of aggressiveness in representing their
interests. The emulation of private sector principles including recognizing the
value and importance of each client, large or small, and aggressively
representing each client should be stressed.
In conclusion, the report identifies many areas for improvement which
should be viewed as opportunities to enhance the quality of services and cost
effectiveness of the County Counsel's Office. Lastly, it is important to recognize
the cooperation of the entire staff of the County Counsel's Office and the open and
positive attitude of the County Counsel, the Assistant County Counsel and the
Chief Deputies. Their assistance and cooperation is very much appreciated.
-5-
c
o
1.1 ADMINISTRATIVE POLICIRS AND PROCEDTIRRS
THE COUNTY COUNSEL'S OFFICE BAS VARIOUS
DOCUMENTS WHICH ESTABLISH ADMINISTRATIVE
POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR SELECTED AREAS
OF OPERATIONS. HOWEVER, MANY OF THESE
DOCUMENTS ARE OUTDATED, DO NOT ADDRESS
CRITICAL AREAS OF OPERATIONS AND ARE NOT
ORGANIZED IN A SUITABLE MANNER. IN
ADDITION, SOME DEPARTMENT STAFF HAVE
INDEPENDENTLY DEVELOPED PROCEDURES WHICH
HAVE NOT BEEN REVIEWED OR APPROVED BY
MANAGEMENT. WITHOQT ESTABLISHING
COMPREHENSIVE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
WHICH HAVE BEEN FORMALLY ADOPl'ED BY THE
DEPARTMENT, MANAGEMENT INEFFICIENCIES
AND INCONSISTENCIES IN OPERATIONS WILL
CONTINUE.
The Office of the County Counsel is a complex organization which is
involved in numerous activities of critical importance to the County of Santa
Clara. Because of this, it is important that the Department establish formal
policies and procedures to insure that employees function in a manner consistent
with the goals of the County and directives of management.
Ceuf:nlli7oo Policies and Procedures
Currently, the Department operates with a policies and procedures manual
which last received a thorough update between 1965 and 1972. Although efforts
have been made to incorporate more recent policy and procedure directives into
this manual and to develop other subsidiary manuals which address specific
operational considerations, such efforts have occurred sporadically and have not
been comprehensive in m8.I!Jler. Although we found some directives in the
primary policies and procedures manual which were established as recently as
1985, many of the directives are no longer relevant to the Department and others
are in direct violation of current County policy.
In the past several years, efforts were made by the Law Office Manager,
Administrative Support Officer, accounting staff and secretarial staff to develop
subsidiary policies and procedures manuals for the Department. Among these
were:
· A booklet with all current job descriptions and position statements;
· A booklet containing various accounting procedures, including certain
billing processes, timekeeping reporting system maintenance
procedures and various computer program instructions;
· A folder containing sample documents contained in the Wang Word
Processing system glossary;
-6-
.
o
()
. A booklet containing limited examples of documents typically prepared
by County Counsel attorneys;
. A Workers' Compensation Procedures Manual, which includes
attorney, paralegal and clerical processing instructions and sample
forms;
. A manual containing various administrative directives including
,instructions for mail processing and telephone reception. This manual
also contains instructions to secretarial staff on the preparation of
various standard documents, including correspondence, memoranda,
transmittals to the Board of Supervisors, ordinances, resolutions and
specialty documents;
. A Paralegal Procedures Manual which contains instructions and
samples of documents commonly utilized by paralegal staff in the
performance of their duties.
None of these manuals are complete. Each is in a different state of development,
containing memoranda from individual staff members which have not been
reviewed by management, hand-written procedures in various stages of
development and other documents which are clearly drafts. In addition, none of
these documents are organized in a suitable fashion, lacking tables of contents or
other information which would make selected policies or procedures easy to
locate. Further, these documents are not prepared in a standard format. With the
elimination of the Law Office Manager position in the FY 1988-89 budget, a recent
vacancy in the Account Clerk position responsible for many administrative
activities and the pending retirement of the Administrative Support Officer,
efforts to complete these manuals have been suspended.
Section Procedures
During the course of this .reView, it became clear that certain employees
were in the process of developing procedures and standardizing documents for
their areas of direct responsibility. While these efforts are commendable, none of
the staff who were identified as undertaking these projects indicated that the
procedures which they had developed had been reviewed or approved by senior
management in the Department.
As an example, the clerical staff person responsible for preparing
Lanterman -Petris - Short Act (LPS) accountings stated that when she assumed
this responsibility less than a year ago no procedures existed for processing these
documents. Instead, she indicated that the attorney responsible for LPS cases
gave her a brief introduction to her duties and has continued to instruct her as
needed ever since. In order to provide herself with a reference and to document
her responsibilities for others who may assume this activity in the future, this
individual has prepared desk procedures. However, these procedures have not
been reviewed by attorneys or senior administrative personnel. Although the
procedures being developed would be of assistance to others, it is uncertain
-7-
('l
o
whether they are complete, or whether all aspects of accounting processing are
addressed according to management directives.
In another example, a paralegal in the General Litigation Section has been
developing a forms file which contains legal documents of common use by the
attorneys in her Section. This file has become widely used by attorneys and has
helped to establish document consistency within the Section. In addition, copies
of the documents included in this file have been provided to new attorneys for
training. . .Although these efforts are also commendable, there is no evidence that
this file lias been reviewed for appropriateness by senior management. In
addition, this file has been developed independently of other forms documentation
being compiled elsewhere in the Department.
An additional example exists regarding the accumulation of compensatory
time-off for attorneys in the Department. According to County Ordinance Code
~A25-663(B) professional staff are not permitted to earn and accumulate
compensatory time-off. However, a review of the timekeeping system documents
maintained by the Department indicate that substantial records are maintained
on attorney overtime and accumulated compensatory time-off, which include
prior year and current year balances. On a quarterly basis, clerical staff have
been applying attorney administrative leave time against the accumulated
compensatory time-off balance against County policy, the labor agreement
between the attorneys and the County and provisions of the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA). Department management indicates they have been unaware of this
process and that any procedures to track attorney overtime in this manner were
independently developed by line staff.
Support staff within the County Counsel's Office are eligible for the
accumulation of compensatory time, however, these records are not being
updated within the established framework of the County's payroll system. These
records are being kept by line staff within the Department's timekeeping
computer system rather than input into the County-widE! system to account for
these hours. As a result, the Department managers have not been able to
effectively control the amount of compensatory time support staff has accrued. As
with the record keeping system used for professional staff, Department
management indicates that they have been unaware of this process and that any
procedures to track employee overtime in this manner were independently
developed by line staff.
UtiJi7~tion ofSbm(l~rd Procedures
Once comprehensive policies and procedures manuals are adopted by the
Department, it is necessary that they be disseminated to staff. Based on our
interviews, staff are not always familiar with procedures which have been
developed within the County Counsel's Office. In fact, none of the attorneys, the
Chief Deputies or the County Counsel and Assistant County Counsel had a policy
and procedures manual in their possession or elsewhere in the office which they
referred to for guidance as necessary.
-8-
o
o
As an example, several newer attorneys indicate that they were not
instructed on the proper method of completing timesheets for billing and payroll
purposes, nor were they provided with documentation which clearly described the
process for doing so. Yet procedures exist for completing timesheets and an
elaborate process has been developed for compiling this information for payroll
and billing purposes. In addition, an extensive audit process was developed
within the Department to reconcile attorney time records with billing sUDImaries.
Despite these extensive efforts to insure that time accounting is summarized
accurately~ procedures to insure consistent time reporting by attorneys and other
staff have not been circulated within the Department.
DeveloumentofFormal Policies ~nd Prooodures
As part of this management audit, we surveyed county counsel offices in
the 11 largest counties in the State of California to determine various aspects of
their operations. As part of this survey, we requested the tables of contents from
policies and procedures manuals which are currently utilized by their
departments. Of the 11 counties surveyed, we were provided with 3 copies of
policies and procedure manual tables of contents.
These tables of contents could be utilized to begin developing a
comprehensive policies and procedu1:"es manual for the Santa Clara County
County Counsel's Office. Used in conjunction with the outdated version which
currently exists in the Department, as well as the subsidiary manual's discussed
above, these tables will provide the Department with a sound basis for defining the
policies and the scope of procedures which need to be developed. Appendix II
includes the tables of contents from the County of Riverside which we believe is
the most comprehensive provided in response to our survey.
In Section 1.3 we recommend the addition of administrative management
and analytical staffin the County Counsel's Office to assist in the development of
the annual budget and to conduct other analyses for senior management. A
primary responsibility for this staff would be to develop a comprehensive set of
policies and procedures for the Department. This assignment would provide
these staff with:
· The opportunity to review, in detail, the administrative procedures in the
Office, to analyze their effectiveness and to implement changes as
appropriate;
. A process to develop detailed procedures necessary to implement
recommendations in this report;
. A process to present senior management with options for Department
policy which have been unaddressed by current management.
In addition, the implementation of comprehensive policies and procedures will
improve the Department's ability to provide efficient and effective service and
support for attorneys, and eliminate inconsistencies in current operations.
-9-
()
o
.CONCLUSION
The County Counsel's Office has various documents which establish
administrative policies and procedures for selected areas of operations.
However, many of these documents are outdated, do not address critical
areas of operations and are not organized in a suitable manner. In
addition, some department staff have independently developed procedures
which have not been reviewed or approved by management. Without
establishing comprehensive policies and procedures which have been
formally adopted by the Department, management inefficiencies and
inconsistencies in operations will continue.
RECOMMF.NIlATIONS
We recommend that the County Counsel's Office:
-.-- Utilize policies and procedures from other county counsel offices
as a basis for developing comprehensive policies and procedures
for Santa Clara County;
....--- Assign responsibility for developing comprehensive policies and
procedures to administrative management .and analytical staff
recommended in Section 1.3. .
SAVINGS/BENE~
Options for Department policy which have been unaddressed will be
identified for consideration by m>ln~gement. Administrative management
will be provided with an opportunity to review, in detail, the anministrative
procedures in the Office, their effectiveness and the ability to systematically
implement changes as appropriate. In addition, detailed procedures
necessary to implement recommendations included in this report can be
developed and the Department's ability to provide efficient and effective
service and support for attorneys, and eliminate inconsistencies in current
operations can occur.
-10-
o
1.2 MANAGEMENT INFORMATION l':v~M
THE COUNTY COUNSEL'S OFFICE LACKS AN
ADEQUATE MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM.
DUE TO INSUFFICIENT COLLECTION AND
REpORTING OF FINANCIAL AND PROGRAMMATIC
INFORMATION, THE COUNTY COUNSEL HAS BEEN
UNABLE TO EXERCISE THE OVERSIGHT NECESSARY
TO MAINTAIN FULL MANAGERIAL CONTROL OF THE
PROGRAMS 'FOR WHICH BE IS RESpONSmLE.
SUMMARY JUDGMENT COLLECTIONS HAVE
BACKLOGGED AND MANY JUDGMENTS HAVE
EXPIRED, CONSERVATORSHIP ACCOUNTINGS HAVE
BACKLOGGED, CIVJL CODE SECTION 232 P~U:J:u)NS
ARE BACKLOGGED AND NOT FILED WlTB THE
COURT ON A TIMELY BASIS AND OTHER
OPERATIONAL PROBLEMS HAVE ElWi"nw WlTBOur
COMING TO THE COUNTY COUNSEL'S A'ITENTION
IN A TIMELY MANNER. BY IDENTIFYING,
DEVELOPING AND PREPARING VARIOUS
MANAGEMENTREPOltI'S, THE COUNTY COUNSEL'S
OFFICE CAN CREATE AN EFFICIENT MANAGEMENT
INFORMATION SYSTEM THAT WILL ENHANCE HIS
ABIL1TYTO IDENTIFY ANDADDBESS FUroRE ISSUES
AS THEY ARISE.
o
The County Counsel's office is managed by the County Counsel, the
Assistant County Counsel and three Chief Deputy County Counsels. The current
management information. system utilized by this staff to administer the $4.3
million budget and 71 authorized positions includes an internally generated
quarterly report of attorney and paralegal hours by client and activity, an
internally generated quarterly report on billable attorney hours and revenues and
an annual report on collection of various County Departmental bad debts turned
over to the Department of Revenue. No other written reports are prepared. but
regular meetings are held amongst the managerial staff and with the
professional staff to verbally exchange information on a myriad of. issues
primarily involving day-to-day office and client matters. Therefore, the County
Counsel and Chief Assistant County Counsel receive no written reports from the
three Chief Deputies or any of the staff relative to any client services or other
operational issues except for the three financial reports described above.
Furthermore, none of the Chief Deputies receive any written reports regarding
quantitative or qualitative issues relative to the many clients and client programs
for which they are responsible, from the staff they supervise. This lack of a
comprehensive management information system exposes management to the
possibility of problems of all magnitudes developing and growing without their
knowledge. Eventually problematic issues surface as a more substantive problem
with less time to deal with it than would otherwise have been the case. This result
has been demonstrated by numerous issues presented throughout this report.
Examples include:
-11-
f""\.
\.. ~
o
. On August 26, 1988 the Superior Court advised the County Counsel, the
Board of Supervisors and the County Executive that it planned to
immediately appoint private counsel to assume responsibility for
preparing and filing petitions to terminate parental rights ('232'
petitions) due to the excessive one to three years time period currently
required by the Department of Social Services and the County Counsel.
Although the Court was generally correct in its assessment of the delay
(th~. average delay amounts to 1.4 years and some cases were identified
where petitions had still not been filed approximately four years after the
court order), the court was incorrect in pinpointing the problem in the
County Counsels office.. 1n June of 1988 there were 163 outstanding
cases awaiting the filing of a '232' petition, only 32 of which were in the
County Counsel's Office. On average the County Counsel's processing
time amounted to 127 days of the 1.4 year total processing period. The
bulk of the delay was in the Department of Social Services, but the
Court's proposed solution was addressed at the County Counsel's Office.
Without any management information to monitor these cases, the
County Counsel does not know how many cases are in the office
awaiting processing or how long they have been there.
. The County Counsel's collection efforts on summary judgments
resulting from bail bond forfeitures on behalf of the Superior and
Municipal courts had seriously deteriorated between 1986 and 1988, but
management was not aware that this had occurred. Uncollected
judgments had gone from 48 outstanding amounting to $128,018,
according to County Counsel records, to 162 outstanding amounting to
$658,429, of which 28 judgments valued at $115,072 had expired.
Although County Counsel records indicated this large amount of
outstanding summary judgments, through a review of court records it
was determined that 65 of these judgments amounting to $223,966 had
been paid.to the Court. Due to a lack of coordination with the Courts, the
County Counsel's records were inaccurate.
. The County Counsel's Office is responsible for assessing fees for services
provided to Public Guardian clients and filing petitions with the
Superior Court regarding client's accounts. These accountings are
transmitted from the Public Guardian's Office to the County Counsel on
a regular basis as they become due according to statutory requirements.
Although a backlog has existed with processing these accountings for
the last several years, no management reports have been developed to
track staff progress with processing these documents.
. Based on initial interviews with management, the numbers and cost of
personal injury and property damage litigation cases handled by outside
counsel was unknown, but was estimated to be approximately 40 percent
of such cases with the remainder being handled by County Counsel
staff. An analysis of these cases showed that the County Counsel's
Office was actually working approximately 46 percent of the cases while
-12.
o
C)
the remaining 54 percent were being assigned to private law firms at an
annual cost of $700,000. This is about $180,000 more costly than if the
County Counsel's Office were to work these cases.
Other examples of operational problems exist, but these were cited to
illustrate the kinds of issues which can be prevented in their entirety or dealt with
early on if a proactive management information system is developed and
implemented.
The de~elopment of a comprehensive management information system will
require each of the management staff to analyze the many areas of County
services for which the Office has legal responsibilities and to identify what, if any
data or other information would be of value in maintaining an understanding of
the current status of each area. Once identified, the 'type of information, the
frequency with which it should be reported and the staff responsible for its
compilation should be determined. In developing this system, management
should remain cognizant of the objective that each report should be concise and
permit them to obtain the understanding necessary for oversight purposes in a
minimum amount of time.. Additionally, the compilation of reports by staff
should likewise be efficiently organized so as to mimmize the impact on their time
which would be taken from their demanding daily workloads. Examples of
reports which could be added to the three currently generated include:
STARS accounting report number 8330 of revenues and expenditures
by accounting period.
Personnel status report including vacancies, promotions, progression to
higher attorney level by junior attorneys, etc.
Summary judgment status report (see Appendix 7)
Public Administrator - Guardian accountings status report.
Department of Social Services - dependency case status report.
Personal Injury - Property Damage case workload statistics and costs.
Lastly, in addition to the programmatic reports generated by staff and
submitted to the Chief Deputies and the County Counsel and Assistant County
Counsel, each of the three Chief Deputies should prepare a brief memorandum to
the County Counsel and Assistant County Counsel on a quarterly or semi-annual
basis summarizing the important issues within their respective divisions. Such
reports should address workload issues and backlogs by client, major case
exposure areas, other client issues including client relations, specific staff
problems and accomplishments and any other issues as appropriate including
support staff, equipment, training, etc..
-13-
f".
\", ,-
o
-
CQNCLUSION:
The County Counsel's Office has experienced various adverse
consequences affecting its daily operations and responsibilities as a result
of inadequate management information. By developing a comprehensive
management information system these problems can be minimized or
avoided in the future.
RF.r.O!\fMF.NllATIONS:
It is recommended that the County Counsel's Office:
Analyze its programmatic responsibilities and identify and
develop a series of management reports by which the Office's
performance in these areas can be monitored;
Implement quarterly or semi-annual reporting by each of the
Chief Deputies regarding the general status of services and any
specific issues currently noteworthy within each division of the
County Counsel's Office.
SAVINGSlBENEFIT:
The implementation of these recommendations would result in
improved managerial control over both financial and pro~mm"tic issues
affecting the County and the more timely responsiveness to service needs of
the County Counsel's various clients.
,
-14-
...
-
-
o
o
1.8 SUPPORT ~AFF ORGANI7..ATION
THE COUNTY COUNSEL'S OFFICE HAS NOT
CLEARLY DEFINED THE ORGANIZATION AND
MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE OF THE DEPARTMENT.
IN ADDITION, THE OFFICE LACKS SUFFICmNT
ADMINISTRATIVE AND FISCAL MANAGEMENT
POSITIONS NEEDED FOR THE MOST EFFECTIVE
OPERATIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT. BY ADDING
ONE BUSIN'ESS AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
MANAGER AND ONE MANAGEMENT ANALYST,
CONVERTING THE EXISTING ADMINISTRATIVE
SUPPORT OFFICER TO AN ACCOUNTANT II, AND
REORGANIZING THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE
OFFICE ALONG FUNCTIONAL LINES, THE COUNTY
COUNSEL'S OFFICE WOULD OPERATE MORE
EFFECTIVELY.
To be effective, a department must clearly define its organization and the
management structure established to accomplish its objectives. By doing so, a
department's employees are better able to fulfill their roles in the organization
and to identify opportunities for improving services to their clients. In a
department such as the County Counsel's Offi<;e, which has a significant number
of highly paid professional staff with expertise outside of the area of management,
it is equally important that a strong administrative management structure be
established so that legal staff are able to efficiently provide the services for which
they were hired.
~nj"7.Afion of CAluntv ("A>>....nQAl Adl111nld:rative ~n.ff'
Within the County Counsel's Office, the organization and management of
administrative support staff has not been clearly defined. Prior to the creation of
the Law Office Manager position in FY 19&3-84, administrative support staff
consisted primarily of an Administrative Support Officer (ASO), Legal
Secretaries assigned to specified groups of attorneys and a telephone receptionist.
Under this organizational structure, the ASO reported directly to the County
Counsel, the receptionist reported to the ASO and Legal Secretaries reported to
those attorneys to which they were assigned. This organizational structure
resulted in heavy involvement by County Counsel attorneys in administrative
activities of the Office, primarily as these activities were related to secretarial
personnel management.
After the creation of the Law Office Manager position, efforts were made to
assign certain administrative functions, such as personnel management and
computer systems development, to the Law Office Manager. Based on discussions
with Department management, the creation of the Law Office Manager position
was intended to provide centralized management of administrative activities
within the office and to provide support for the attorneys related to supervising the
Legal Secretaries. The ASO position was to report to the Law Office Manager and
-15-
-
-
- ...... -
o
o
-
provide high level administrative support. Further, an Account Clerk position
was added to assist in the financial management of the Department.
This revised organization produced many benefits. Attorneys who have
been employed in the County Counsel's Office throughout this period of time
report that their administrative responsibilities had diminished with the addition
of the Law Office Manager. Efforts were made to centralize certain functions and
provide more comprehensive support services in the area of professional
timekeeping and billing. In fact, during this time period, the Department
increased revenue collections from 25 percent to 48 percent of the cost of
operations (see Section 1.7). Further, the Department made significant gains in
automation, increasing the number of word processing stations and
implementing micro computer capabilities.
However, opportunities to improve the organization continue to exist.
Under the Law Office Manager, clear lines of authority were never developed and
organizational responsibilities were not clearly defined. Critical accounting
activities, such as client billing, continued to be performed in a decentralized
fashion. Budgeting and analysis continued to require heavy involvement by
attorney staff. Administrative policies and procedures were never fully developed.
With the elimination of the Law Office Manager position during the FY 1988-89
budget hearings, the ability of the Department to implement needed
improvements to the organizational structure has diminished.
A strong business services division within the County Counsel's Office is
important for the efficient operations of the Department. Essential elements of
such an organizational structure should include:
· A Business and Administrative Services Manager position with
administrative management duties and authority clearly defined by the
County Counsel. The cost of adding this position would be $55,153 per
year;
.
· The implementation of a strong analytical component within the
Department. Currently, some analyses of administrative functions is
conducted by attorneys who have only minimal involvement with
administrative processes and are not trained in management.
Although the Administrative Support officer also conducts some
analyses, these are insufficient for Department needs. The Department
should be provided with a Management Analyst position to assist the
Business and Administrative Services Manager, at an additional
annual cost of $49,128.
· The centralization of all accounting and business activities, including
budgeting, expenditure and revenue monitoring, client billing, accounts
receivable and accounts payable. To accomplish this, we believe the ASO
position should be deleted and an Accountant II position added at a net
cost of $878 per year;
-16-
...
-
o
()
The addition of these three positions will provide an opportunity for the
Department to establish a more effective organizational structure than currently
exists. Appendix III shows a proposed administrative organization chart which
incorporates the three primary functions of Administration and Personnel
Management, Management Analysis and Fiscal Services.
J\dmini"trafion and Personnel Management
Within the current management structure, the 19 Legal Secretaries report
to the attotney staff to which they are assigned. Depending upon the area of
Department operations, the ratio of Legal Secretaries to professional staff can vary
dramatically. For example, one legal secretary is assigned exclusively to the
attorney responsible for Full Probate and Probate-Conservatorship matters, while
in areas such all the Litigation Section, multiple attorneys share one legal
secretary. On average throughout the Department, one Legal Secretary is
assigned to three attorneys.
Discussions with attorneys and legal secretaries indicate that this
management structure has resulted in two primary problems regarding the
supervision of Legal Secretaries: 1) Legal Secretaries are often supervised by more
than one attorney, leading to unclear lines of authority; and, 2) Attorneys often
discover that they are competing for scarce secretarial resources with no method
of resolving disagreements other than through negotiation.
Prior to the elimination of the Law Office Manager position in FY 1988-89,
the Law Office Manager was assigned the responsibility for providing
administrative management functions related to Legal Secretary and other
professional support staff. Although attorneys retained management
responsibility for Legal Secretary job assignments, the Law Office Manager
assumed responsibility for other personnel matters related to these employees.
Although the Law Office Manager position was established to assume these
and other administrative functions previously provided by legal staff, it is not
clear that the position was fully utilized as intended. In addition, it does not
appear that the authority for this position to assume responsibility for these
functions was ever clearly provided by the County Counsel.
For example, ten of the attorneys who responded to our questionnaire
indicated that they had experienced difficulties with poor performance or
discipline with Legal Secretary staff. Yet of these ten attorneys, only four reported
resolving these difficulties through the Law Office Manager. In addition, thirteen
attorneys reported that their secretary was unavailable on four or more occasions
within the past four months to perform tasks which they felt were of high priority,
due to workload placed on the secretaries by other attorneys. Yet of these thirteen
attorneys, only six reported using the services of the Law Office Manager to
resolve their workload needs.
-17-
...
"....,
"--
o
-
. With the elimination of the Law Office Manager position, attorneys are once
again responsible for all supervisory functions related to legal secretary staff. In
addition, the County Counsel and Assistant County Counsel must resume more
direct involvement in the administration of the Department. This heavy
administrative involvement by attorneys is inappropriate and should be
discontinued. To accomplish this the Board of Supervisors should establish the
position of Business and Administrative Services Manager within the County
Counsel's.-9ffice to provide administrative and personnel management functions.
M~n"gementAnaIysis
The Department does not currently possess the resources or expertise
necessary to perform comprehensive management analyses of Departmental
operations. The lack of a strong management analysis capability has hampered
the County counsel's ability to make recommendations regarding policy decisions
which have adversely impacted the County. For instance:
· The level of contract counsel utilized by the County Counsel's Office for
litigation matters is unnecessary and excessive. Although the
Department has made an effort in recent years to increase County
Counsel involvement with these cases, it has not quantified the
significant financial impact of approximately $180,000' annually from
continuing to contract a high number of these cases. (See Section III. 1).
· The County Counsel's Office has not established appropriate procedures
for receiving notices of bail bond forfeitures from the Courts and
processing them according to provisions of the Penal Code. By not
thoroughly analyzing this process and establishing appropriate
administrative procedures, the County has not collected in a timely
m~nner over $434,000 worth of bail bond forfeitures which are due. (See
Section 1V.l).
· Adequate analysis of staff resource allocation has not occurred. As a
result,a significant amount of attorney resources have been used to
perform tasks which more appropriately should be performed by
paralegal and clerical staff. (See Section 1.4).
· The hourly billing rates developed by County Counsel do not accurately
reflect the actual cost of services provided to client departments. This
has resulted in disproportionate billings to clients for services and the
under-realization of revenue from fees charged by certain County
departments who depend on County Counsel services. (See Section 1.7).
· Management reports on numerous areas of County Counsel operations
are not produced. Without regular reporting on Department operations,
senior management is unable to properly monitor performance or
evaluate the need for program modifications or enhancements. (See
Section 1.4).
-18-
-
o
o
These examples emphasize the need for a strong analytical component
which is currently lacking in the Department. In addition to conducting the
analyses necessary to identify these types of issues, there are a number of other
analytical duties which should be regularly assumed by management analyst
staff:
· Development of the annual budget;
. Monitoring actual revenues and expenditures according to the approved
budget;
· Analysis of the effect of State and federal legislation and court decisions
impacting the operations of the County Counsel;
· Analysis of operations and development of comprehensive policies and
procedures;
· Analysis of computer systems and their development;
· Reviewing contracts administered by the County Counsel and
monitoring contractor performance.
Because of the critical importance of these tasks and the significant cost savings
and revenue increases which could be identified through an enhanced analytical
process in the Department, the Board of Supervisors should authorize a
m"n~gement analyst position at a cost of $49,128 annually.
Cenu...1i7.edAcoonnting Services
The Office of the County Counsel currently operates with many accounting
functions being decentralized. Section 1.4 discusses the need for incorporating
the billing function with the professional staff timekeeping activities' In order to
provide consistency in the billing processes and achieve economies in processing
documents.
A significant number of County Counsel staff are involved in accounting
activities:
· The County Counsel collects all billings from contract counsel and
maintains a file of approved and paid invoices;
. The Administrative Support Officer bills certain non-General Fund
clients for professional services, processes invoices from vendors for
various services and supplies, processes employee reimbursements and
maintains various accounting records;
· Legal Secretaries prepare billings for professional services provided to
GSA Insurance and other non-General Fund clients not processed by
the Administrative Support Officer;
-19-
-
-
r"'1
"-.....
o
.
. An Account Clerk 1 compiles professional and support staff timekeeping
records, prepares supporting documentation for those billings not
processed by Legal Secretaries and processes payroll;
. Legal Secretaries and Account Clerks assess fees for service for all
Public Guardian accountings processed by the Department;
. A Paralegal tracks collections from accounts referred from the
pepartment of Revenue and deposits payments made on these accounts.
These employees report to various supervisors and are involved in a broad
range of activities unrelated to accounting. In addition, because comprehensive
policies and procedures have not been developed, there is no consistency in the
quality of accounting documentation and no assurance that staff are following
appropriate accounting principals. In addition, many of the procedures being
followed by staff are duplicative and result in unnecessary costs to the
Department.
In order to insure that the accounting processes comply with basic
accounting principals and that they are consistently applied throughout the
Department:
· The Administrative Support Officer position should be deleted and an
Accountant II added to the County Counsel's Office;
· Accounting functions should be centralized under the administration of
the Business and Administrative Services Manager, recommended
above;
. Comprehensive accounting policies and procedures should be developed
as described in Section 1.4.
CONCLUSION:
The County Counsel's Office has not clearly defined the organization
and management structure of the Department. In addition, sufficient
administrative and fiscal management positions do not exist for the most
effective operations of the Department. By adding one Business and
Administrative Services Manager and one Management Analyst,
converting the existing Administrative Support Officer to an Accountant II,
and reorganizing the administration of the Office along functional lines,
the County Counsel's Office would operate more effectively.
-
RECOMMENDATIONS:
We recommend that the Board of Supervisors:
· Authorize positions and funding for (1) Business and
Administrative Services Manager, (1) Management Analyst and
(1) Accountant II;
-20-
-
-
o
o
. Delete (1) Administrative Support Officer position and funding
through attrition.
We recommend that the County Counsel:
. Establish a Business Services Division, as described in this report;
. Centralize all accounting functions within the Business Services
Division;
. Designate the Business and Administrative Services Manager as
the administrative manager for the Department with primary
responsibility for personnel management, budget and analysis
and accounting functions;
. Establish comprehensive accounting procedures as recommended
in this report.
SAVINGSlBENEFIT:
The County Counsel's Office would operate more effectively.
Attorney involvement in administrative activities would be reduced. The
Department would be provided with a,strong analytical capability resulting
in future management improvements such as those. discussed in this
management audit report and the ability to perform internal ongoing
analysis. Basic accounting principals would be complied with and
implemented consistently throughout the Department. The cost to the
County from implementing these recommendations would amount to
$105,160 annually.
-21 -
- -
.
o
o
JI
1.4 SUPPORT STAFF UTILJ7'ATION
THE NUMBER OF SUPPORT STAFF IN THE COUNTY
COUNSEL'S OFFICE IS INSUFFICIENT, RESULTING IN
EXCESSIVE PERFORMANCE OF CLERICAL DUITES BY
ATTORNEYS AND PARALEGALS. IN ADDITION,
OPPORTUNITIES EXIST FOR INCREASING CLERICAL
STAFF EFFlCmNCY BY FULLY lITILIZING EXISTING
WORD PROCESSING CAPABILITIES AND
IMPLEME~G MINOR SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS.
BY INCREASING CLERICAL AND PARALEGAL STAFF
POSITIONS TO A LEVEL WHICH INSURES
COMPREHENSIVE AND TIMELY ASSISTANCE TO
ATTORNEYS, THE COUNTY COUNSEL COULD
REALIZE A NET INCREASE IN PROFESSIONAL STAFF
PRODUCTIVITY OF APPROXIMATELY $181,857
ANNUALLY.
Over 90 percent of the cost of the Office of the County Counsel consists of
expenditures for salaries and benefits, primarily for professional staff. Because of
the high cost of attorney services, it is imperative that the Department obtain
maximum utility from its professional staff resources. To accomplish this,
professional staff should reCeive adequate assistance from support staff in order to
minimize their administrative duties and provide the most effective legal services
possible for the County.
De~rtment Fl1nctinn~l nr-ni=tion
The Office of the County Counsel can be broadly segmented into two
organizational components: professional services and administrative support
services. The professional services staff consists of attorneys and paralegals
which are directly responsible for providing legal advice to County departments
and special districts, defending the County and special district in tort clailDS and
other civil actions and representing the County and special districts in civil .
actions where the County or the district is the plaintiff. The professional services
staff currently consists of 33 attorneys and eight paralegal technicians.
The administrative support staff is responsible for assisting the
professional staff with these activities, as follows:
· Providing clerical services, including typing various legal. and
administrative documents, photocopying, mailing correspondence,
creating and filing cases and other duties. These tasks are
accomplished by the Department's staff of 19 legal secretaries and one
confidential secretary.
· Providing Department-wide accounting services, including professional
staff timekeeping and billing services, processing payments for
purchased goods and services and preparing payroll. These duties are
-22-
-
-
-
~
o
o
currently shared by the Department's Administrative Support Officer,
legal secretaries, an Account Clerk 1 and a Clerk Typist.
. Providing support staff personnel management services, including
establishing and insuring compliance with administrative and
operating policies and procedures, providing training, conducting
performance evaluations, monitoring workload and performance and
insuring that support staff resources are deployed where needed. From
FY l.983-84 until the beginning of the current fiscal year, these activities
were' performed by the Law Office Manager with assistance from the
Administrative Support Officer. Since the deletion of the Law Office
Manager position in the FY 1988-89 budget, these services have become
the primary responsibility of the Administrative Support Officer.
· Providing fiscal management services, including budgeting, periodic
monitoring of the Department's revenues and expenditures, insuring
that payments for goods and services are properly disbursed and
processing other accounting documents in a timely manner. From FY
1983-84 until the beginning of the current fiscal year, these activities
were performed by the Law Office Manager with assistance from the
Administrative Support Officer. Since the deletion of the Law Office
Manager position in the FY 1988-89 budget, these services have become
the primary responsibility of the Administrative Support Officer.
· Providing information systems management services including,
developing a system to account for professional hours, configuring
computer and word processing equipment and developing computer
programs for the management of the Department. From FY 1983-84
until the beginning of the current fiscal year, these activities were
performed by the Law Office Manager with assistance from the
Administrative Support Officer. Since the deletion of the Law Office
Manager position in the FY 1988-89 budget, th~se services have become
the primary responsibility of the Administrative Support Officer.
· Miscellaneous administrative functions such as maintenance of the
Department's law library, telephone reception and delivery of
documents to locations external to the County Government Center.
Currently these duties are shared by the department's receptionist,
clerk typist, and staff of legal secretaries.
There are several factors which influence this workload, and thus the ability of
the support staff to provide services in a comprehensive and timely fashion,
including:
· The size of the support staff in relation to the professional staff;
. The adequacy of the tools provided to the support staff and their ability to
utilize these tools; and,
. The effectiveness with which support staff resources are utilized.
-23-
- - - - -
-
r" 0
,~/
An",Jvses ofSuuuort St.>.ffto Prof~onal SmffRatios
The appropriate ratio of support staff to professional staff is dependent upon
a number of factors related to the type of legal activities with which the
Department is involved, the organization of support staff work assignments and
the mixture and skill level of the support staff personnel. However, one indicator
of the appropriateness of County Counsel's ratio of support staff to professionals is
how it compares to other large jurisdictions in California.
In order' to make this comparison, we reviewed the organizational charts
and authorized positions of nine of the largest jurisdictions within the State of
. California. For the purpose of this analysis, attorneys, paralegals and permanent
full time law clerks have been classified as professional staff. Other staff,
including legal secretaries, clerk typists, account clerks, administrative support
officers and office managers have been classified as support staff.
Table 3
Comparison of Support SmffingRatios
Santa Clara County Counsel to
Nme Other Jurisdictions Surveved
Professional Support Ratio of Support to
Countv Smff Smff Professional Srnff
Ventura 17 15 0.88
Los Angelesa 127 111 0.87
San Bernardino 22 18 0.82
Orange 39 3l 0.77
Riverside ~ 18 0.69
San Mateo ID 12 0.60
Santa Clarab 43 2) 0.58
Alameda 22 10 0.45
Contra Costa 18 8 0.44
Sacramento ro 13 0.43
Average (excluding
Santa Clara) 0.66
a All attorneys, paralegals and law clerks were counted as professional staff;
zoning investigation staff nave been excluded.
b FY 1988-89 salary ordinance, includes deleted Law Office Manager position.
-24-
-
-
o
o
As Table 3 indicates, the current number of support staff position level of
the Santa. Clara County County Counsel is approximately 0.08 fewer per
professional staff position than the average of the other jurisdictions surveyed.
This equates to 12.1 percent less support staff than the average. Given the
current authorized staffing for the County Counsel's Office in Santa Clara
County, this equates to a total of3.4 support staff positions less than the average of
other jurisdictions.
Word ~n~System Tl11nrovemenls
In an operation which produces a large number of written documents,
support staff efficiency can be significantly improved with the effective utilization
of word processing equipment. The County Counsel's Office has recognized this
and has made efforts in recent years to expand their word processing capability
with the acquisition of additional work stations and more modern printing
equipment.
We questioned legal secretaries regarding their use of the word processing
equipment in the County Counsel's Office to determine whether opportunities
exist to increase secretarial productivity through equipment enhancements.
Based on staff responses and physical observation of secretaries performing word
processing functions, two areas of potential improvements were identified which
would yield increased secretarial productivity:
. The secretarial staff has not taken full advantage of existing word
processing equipment capabilities. Document indexing functions,
which permit County Counsel legal secretaries to establish consistent
document formats, are presently underutilized.
. The configuration of word processing printing equipment is inefficient,
resulting in unnecessary involvement by secretarial staff when printing
documents.
Although the resulting secretarial staff efficiency from increasing the use
of the indexing function could not be quantified, by expanding the current number
of document formats in the system staff productivity would increase. A project to
increase the number of standardized document formats by using the indexing
function could be incorporated, into the development of policies and procedures
manuals described in Section 1.1.
Word processing equipment improvements would yield more quantifiable
increases in secretarial staff productivity. Currently, the Department utilizes
three dot matrix and one daisy wheel printer to produce documents prepared by
secretarial staff. This equipment is relatively slow when compared to more
modern laser printing devices. In addition, some printers in the office are not
equipped with multiple page feeding devices, requiring secretaries to manually
feed paper into the printer for multiple page documents. Further, based on
discussions with legal secretaries and physical observation of the printing
process, the current system permits secretaries to cancel the print job of others,
requiring secretaries to "stand guard" over documents which they are printing.
-25-
-
-
-
o
o
.
By purchasing approximately $5,500 worth of equipment enhancements,
establishing specific procedures and strictly enforcing printing equipment use
policies, approximately two hours could be saved by each legal secretary weekly.
Specifically, the following equipment enhancements should be implemented:
· One laser printer should be purchased with an appropriate interface
program so that it can be utilized for printing final documents from all
Department work stations. Based on recent purchases by the Clerk of
the. Board of Supervisors and the current Wang word processing
equIpment catalog, this printer would have a one-time cost of
approximately $5,000.
· A multiple page document feeder for one of the Department's existing
dot matrix printers. According to the Wang equipment catalog, this
feeder would have a one-time cost of approximately $500.
Once this equipment has been purchased and installed, the Department should
develop and formalize printing equipment use policies and procedures, as follows:
· Five printers should be made available on an unrestricted basis to all
staff in the Department;
. Two dot matrix printers should be supplied with continuous feed, letter
size blank paper for printing rough drafts of County Counsel
documents;
· One daisy wheel printer and one dot matrix printer, both equipped with
multiple page document feeders, should be utilized for printing final
documents;
· The newly purchased laser printer should be used for printing final
documents; .
· Policies regarding printer use and user priorities should be developed by
the Department and strictly enforced.
By purchasing this equipment and implementing and enforcing revised
equipment use policies, the Department could increase legal secretary
productivity by one Full Time Equivalent (FTE) position.
-26-
-
o
o
Suuuort ~mffUtilization
In Section 1.9 of this report the administrative organization of the County
Counsel's Office, and the need to develop clear lines of authority, centralized
business management and strong analytical capabilities within the Department
are discussed. As part of this study, we also surveyed professional and
administrative staff to determine the scope of their duties and to identify
opportunities. for increasing the productivity of professional staff through the
effective utiHzation of support staff. Although opportunities such as those
identified through these surveys would result from a more effective organization,
opportunities for increased support staff utilization can occur without a major
Departmental reorganization.
As part of the survey, Legal Secretaries were asked to list those activities
which they believe could more appropriately be performed by clerical staff with a
lower level of training. Included in their responses were three primary activities:
Accounting for professional hours;
The pick up and delivery of documents to locations external to the
County Gov~rnment Center;
Providing receptionist duties when the receptionist is on break, or on
vacation, sick or other leave.
On average, the Legal Secretaries reported spending 3.6 hours per week
performing the tasks cited above. Given the current staffing level in the County
Counsel's Office, this equates to approximately 2.0 FTE Legal Secretaries per
year. If two additional clerk typist positions were provided to the County
Counsel's Office, Legal Secretary availability for absorbing certain appropriate
paralegal and attorney activities would increase.
Paralegal staff were also surveyed to determine what tasks they
consistently performed which could more appropriately be performed by Legal
Secretaries or Clerk Typists. The Department's paralegals indicated that they
routinely perform clerical functions, including photocopying documents,
processing checks and filing routine legal documents. Other tasks we identified
through our interviews included the maintenance of case logs presently
maintained by paralegals, typing and mailing routine correspondence. Although
only one paralegal provided an estimate of the time spent performing such tasks,
it was considerable - equating to a minimum of 50 percent of her time. Therefore,
a minimum, workload equivalent to 0.5 FTE paralegal could be transferred to
Legal Secretary staff with the addition of Clerk Typist positions discussed above.
-27-
c
o
.
Attorneys were also surveyed to determine what tasks they perform which
could more appropriately be performed by paralegals or by legal secretaries and
other clerical staff within the Department. In response to the question regarding
paralegals, 13 of 25 attorneys indicated that there are substantial tasks which
could be performed. These include, preparing deposition summaries, preparing
legal documents including interrogatories and routine motions and conducting
legal research and investigations.
With th~ exception of certain activities related to Tax Collector bankruptcy
proceedings, paralegals reported already performing each of the activities
identified by attorneys to some degree. Based on attorney responses, an estimated
60 hours of attorney time per week, equivalent to 1.5 FTE's, could be saved by
delegating additional workload to paralegals. To accomplish this, an additional
1.0 FTE paralegal should be added to the County Counsel's staff.
In response to the second question related to clerical activities, attorneys
reported spending an average of 3.42 hours per week on tasks which they felt
could more appropriately performed by legal secretaries. Assuming that this
reported figure could be reduced by sixty percent through the increased
productivity of legal secretaries, savings equivalent to 60 hours of attorney time
per week, equivalent to 21.5 FTE attorneys would be realized.
By appropriately shifting workload to lower level positions within the
County Counsel's Office, the Department could increase attorney productivity by
approximately 3.0 FTE's or $241,368 per year. The net savings after the addition of
positions discussed above would equate to $181,857 annually. The following table
illustrates the net savings which could be achieved through these stafling
modifications:
Table 4
Increased Productivity of
CoUilty CoumelAttorneys By
ShiflinfO'Worldoad to Lower Level ROlfi'
Worldo~d Shift
IncreasedlIDecreased) FrE Need
Clerk Legal
Tvnist Secrehnv Paralel!'al Attornevs
Legal Secretary to Clerk Typist 2.0
Paralegal to Legal Secretary
Attorney to Paralegal
Attorney to Legal Secretary
(2.0)
0.5
(0.5)
1.5
Increasel<Dec::rease) 2.0
Savings Due to Word
lJi
0.0
1.0
(1.5)
Wll
(3.0)
Processing F.nh~ncements
Net IncreaselIDecrease) 2.0
(1.0)
(1.0)
1.0
(3.0)
-28-
-
o
o
Based on this analysis, approximately $181,857 in savings could be achieved
with the following staffing modifications:
Position n.--rinuon
Number Positions
Annual C..ost
Total
Offsetting Attorney Productivity
Net Savings
2.0
(1.0)
1.0
2.0
(3.0)
$54,524
(29,522)
34.509
$59,512
(241.368)
($181,857)
Clerk Typist
Legal Secretary II
Paralegal Technician
Although attorney productivity would increase by approximately 3.0
positions, we are not recommending any reductions at this time. We believe the
current workload of the Department justifies retaining these positions. In
addition, throughout this report we have identified areas where we believe the
County should increase County Counsel staff involvement in order to reduce
extreme workload or assume additional work responsibilities which would result
in increased revenues or offsetting savings in other areas. Most importantly, it is
essential to recognize the significant waste of costly resources which is occurring
due to the unavailability of support staff and the resulting assumption of support
staff functions by higher paid attorneys.
CONCLUSION:
The number of support staff in the County Counsel's Office is
insufficient, resulting in excessive performance of clerical duties by
attorneys and paralegals. In addition, opportunities exist for increasing
clerical staff efficiency by fully utilizing existing word _ processing
capabilities and implementing minor system improvements. By increasing
clerical and paralegal staff positions to a level which insures
comprehensive and timely assistance to attorneys, the County Counsel
could realize a net increase in professional staff productivity of
approximately $181,857 annually.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
We recommend that the Board of Supervisors:
. Authorize $89,033 in funding for two clerk typist positions and one
paralegal technician position;
. Delete one Legal Secretary 1 position through attrition;
. Approve $5,500 for equipment enhancements recommended in
this report.
-29-
'-
o
.
,.....,
We recommend that the County Counsel's Office:
. Develop and implement word processing equipment use policies
and procedures as described in this report.
SAVlNGSlBENRFIT:
The County would realize net savings of approximately $181,857
throug!I increased attomey productivity. Duties performed by County
Counsel staff would be more closely aligned with position skill levels.
"'!".-
-30-
-
.
o
o
1.5: TIM~;KI!;I!;j>ING FUNCfION
THE TIMEKEEPING SYSTEM USED BY THE COUNTY
COUNSEL'S OFFICE IS INEFFICmNT, INCLUDES
EXCESSIVE INPUT VERIFICATION AND AUDITING,
AND IS UNNECESSARILY CUMBERSOME FOR
PROFESSIONAL STAFF. IN FY 1987-88, THE
DEPARTMENT SPENT OVER $32,000 IN SUPPORT
STAFF SALARIES AND SUPPLmS IN ORDER TO
UTTT .T7.E TIiiS SYSTEM FOR MANAGEMENT AND
BILLING PURPOSES. BY DEVELOPING,
STANDARDIZING AND UTILIZING A NEW
TIMESHEET DESIGN, DEVELOPING FORMAL
TIMEKEEPING POLlClES AND PROCEDURES,
lITJT .TZlNG TIMEKEEPING COMPUTER PROGRAMS
PRESENTLY OWNED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND
ELIMINATING CERTAIN AUDIT STEPS,
APPROXIMATELY $23,650 COULD BE SAVED
ANNUALLY IN REDUCED SUPPORT STAFFTlME AND
SUPPLIES.
The Office of the County Counsel has an internal professional staff
timekeeping system and a separate billing system which are used for payroll
processing, revenue generation and as a basis for the County's Indirect Cost
Plan.
TlP..clcription oCTIle Svsf;em
The current timekeeping system is designed to satisfy the following information
requirements:
. Provide individual and sunImary statistics on the number of productive
and non-productive professional" hours. Productive hours are defined as
hours expended in the performance of the various attorney and
paralegal duties. These include litigation, document preparation,
general advice, meetings and administrative time. Non-productive
hours are defined as hours for which the professional is receiving
compensation but not performing tasks associated with the positions'
specifications. These include vacation, holiday, sick leave and
compensatory time;
. Provide individual and sunImary statistics on the number of productive
professional hours by type of service provided and -by client;
. Provide billing information and the associated supporting
documentation for professional services provided to all clients;
. Provide the Finance Department with information to process the bi-
weekly payroll and to account for County Counsel costs in the County's
Indirect Cost Plan.
-31-
,-..,
Timesheet Desil!'n
o
.
The Office of the County Counsel currently uses two separate timesheets for
timekeeping and billing purposes. The design of the existing internal timesheet
does. not include sufficient information needed for direct billings to clients such as
GSA Insurance and special district clients. As a result, a second timesheet,
which is purchased from the Safeguard Corporation at a cost of approximately
$900 annually, is used by those County Counsel professionals who serve these
clients. The Safeguard timesheet provides space for a detailed description of the
types of service provided, (i.e. attempted telephone calls, court appearance, etc.)
The existing internal timesheet utilizes eight codes to indicate the type of service
performed but, these codes do not provide the same level of detail provided by the
Safeguard timesheets. The eight codes which are currently used include:
· A-Administration
· G-General Advice
· M-Meetings
· R-Research
· D-Document Preparation
. L-Litigation
· P-Professional Advancement
· N-Non-billable Hours.
A survey of a Banlple quarter of GSA Insurance billings to determine the
most common type of services provided by County Counsel professionals indicated
the following 25 basic types of services:
· Answered
· Attempted Telephone Call To
· Closing
· Conference
· Consult
· Copy
· Court Appearance
. Discuss
· Draft
· File
· Hearing
. Investigation
. Meeting
. Petitioned
· Prepared
· Received
· Request
· Research
. Review
· Revised
. Settlement
· Status
. Telephone Call From
. Telephone Call To
· Travel
Based on discussions with the Chief Deputy for litigation and general
government, the twenty five codes listed above would provide an acceptable level of
information for billing purposes and can possibly be condensed further. By
designing a new timesheet which would include expanded types of service codes,
the County Counsel's Office would establish consistency and uniformity within
the office by having an internal timesheet which satisfies the- requirements of all
clients as well as the management tracking needs of the Department. This would
also eliminate the need for the Safeguard timesheet and related supplies at a
savings of approximately $900.00 annually. Appendix IV contains examples of
timesheets used in other jurisdictions by County Counsel Offices. These
-32-
-
o
o
timesheet examples can be used as guides in the design of a new timesheet for
Santa Clara's County Counsel.
Submi!;.c;1on ofTimesheefs
All professionals are required to keep bi-weekly timesheets and submit
them to the support staff on a timely basis for processing. However, staff
responsible for maintaining departmental time records reported that time sheets
are typicall}': submitted over a period of about two weeks and usually several
requests muSt be made of individual staff members in order to obtain compliance
with office policy. Table 5, indicates that the majority of the errors made in
completing timesheets (about 90 percent of all errors) are omissions or incomplete
information. Presently, the County Counsel's Office lacks formal written policies
and procedures regarding timesheets. There are no fOrnIalized instructions or
examples of completed timesheets to guide the professionals regarding the proper
way to fill out the timesheets. There are no office policies and procedures to stress
the importance of providing all of the information required on the timesheet on a
timely basis so that billings can be accurately generated at the close of each billing
period. By instituting policies and procedures regarding timesheets, their use
and importance, these problems can be alleviated. By requiring the submission of
timesheets on a weekly basis (i.e. every Friday afternoon or Monday morning)
timeliness, accuracY' and compliance could all be improved.
Tim-......tAudit ~
Currently, the County Counsel's Office conducts an extensive audit process
to ensure the accuracy of the information on the timesheets. County Counsel
timesheets are submitted to the Account Clerk in the County Counsel's Office who
performs the following auditing process:
· Timesheets are copied and the originals filed;
· Copies of the daily sign-out'sheets are then attached to the timesheet
copy;
· A copy of the County timecard that was previously submitted to the
Payroll Department is also attached;
· An attendance worksheet is copied for each professional and is compiled
on a daily basis as the pay period continues;
. A manual recap sheet for each individual professional is also attached
to the packet of compiled information and includes:
-33-
f"".,
o
.
. total days worked;
. total hours worked;
. hours over/under 80;
· total by type of service;
. total by budget unit or special district;
· total of non-productive hours; and,
· total of all hours.
· Th~'information is collated and placed in the appropriate professional
staff person's file.
· The County Counsel timesheet is then audited to ensure that the
following information is correct:
· budget unit or special district;
· type of service;
· total hours per day; and,
· total hours per pay period.
In addition to this extensive manual data collection and tracking effort, the
information is entered into the Department's management tracking and limited
billing computer system.. Once the information has been compiled for the quarter,
the information is re-entered into a second, Lotus computer system, which
generates a comprehensive report for the Office. After the information is entered
into these computer systems, it is audited again to ensure that there are no data
entry errors.
An analysis was conducted on a sample billing quarter to determine the
accuracy of the original timesheets submitted by the professionals in the
. Department in order to identify the amount of errors that were found through the
current timesheet audit process. The analysis yielded the following results:
- -
-34-
-
-
.
o
-
()
Table 5
Accuracv of Ori";n~l Timesheets
Total Number'of Accurate Entries
Total Number of Errors
Total Pieces of Information
Total En-ors in Billable Codes
Total Errors in Non-Billable Codes
Total Number of Omissions and
Incomplete Information
Total Number of Confirmed Errors
Accuracy of Original Timesheets
Percentage Percentage
of Total Pieces of Total
Number of Information Errors
41,673
917
42.590..
559
358
8Zl
00
97.85%
2.15%
100.00%
L31
.84
1.94
.22
97.85%
60.96
39.04
90.19
9.81
Of the 42,590 pieces of information on the original timesheets contained in
the sample, there were only 90 or 0.22 percent confirmed _errors in which the
professional entered the incorrect client or type of service. The majority of errors
827 or 90 percent of all the errors made were due to omissions or incomplete
information on the original timesheets. Based on discussions with the
Department's support staff and a review of the Department's records, it is
estimated that the amount of time expended on this audit process and
timekeeping system in FY 1987-88 was 3,837 hours. The cost to the Office of the
County Counsel in reduced support staff time was $31,277.
During FY 1987-88, the Office of the County Counsel purchased a software
packaged called DataEase™ for intended -use in the timekeeping-and billing
sections. This program has the ability to track and manipulate the information
needed for management and billing purposes within the Office of the County
Counsel. The software will easily allow programs to be written to organize
information in the system and will decrease the amount of time devoted to data
entry by the design of the programs created. It eliminates the need for the current
auditing process due to the fact that the software has the capability to audit data
entries for accurateness. Furthermore, DataEase™ will also eliminate the
duplicate entry of information into the second, Lotus computer system, having
the capacity to produce a similar report within the system. By implementing tlIe
DataEase™ software program, the County Counsel's Office could decrease the
timekeeping processing time by an estimated 3,086 hours and would save
estimated $22,752 in support staff time which is currently dedicated to the
timekeeping process. This estimate allows for straight data entry time from the
original timesheet submitted by the professional staff into the computer system
but excludes all the current auditing of the original timesheets. The Department
would incur a one time programming cost in order to have the system tailored to
-35-
- - - - - - -
-
(; 0 .
meet the Department's specific billing and timekeeping requirements. This cost
can not be determined until Data Processing completes a a review of the system
and the county counsel's needs.
CONCLUSION:
The timekeeping system currently used by the County Counsel's
Office is inefficient, includes excessive input verification and auditing, and
is unne.cessarily cumbersome for the Departments professional staff. In
FY 1987-88, the Department spent over $32,000 in support staff salaries and
supplies in order to utilize this system for management and billing
purposes. ..By developing, standardizing and utilizing a new timesheet
design, developing formal timekeeping policies and procedures, utilizing
and developing the DataEase™ timekeeping computer programs presently
owned by the Department and eliminating the majority of the current
time sheet audit steps, approximately $23,650 could be saved annually in
reduced clerical staff time and supplies.
RECOMMRNnATIONS:
.
It is recommended that the Office of the County Counsel:
Improve the design, and expand the number of service codes on the
internal timesheet;
Require timesheets be submitted on a weekly basis by all
professionals in the Office;
.
.
Institute policies and procedures regarding timesheets;
.
Eliminate the current timesheet audit process;
.
Institute the DataEase™ software program;
SA VlNGSlRF.NF.FIT:
The implementation of these recommendations would increase
efficiency and provide uniformity within the Office of the County
Counsel and would generate a savings in supplies costs and
increased support staff time of$23,650-annually.
-36-
-
o
C)
1.6 BIT.T .rnG FUNCTIONS
THE COUNTY COUNSEL'S OFFICE UTILIZES
VARIOUS BILLING METHODOLOGIES WHICH
OPERATE INDEPENDENTLY OF THE
DEPARTMENT'S TIMEKEEPING SYSTEM AND
INCLUDE EXCESSIVE AND DUPLICATIVE DATA
PROCESSING INPUT. IN FY 1987-88, THE
DEPARTMENT USED OVER $10,000 IN SUPPORT
STAFF TIME' IN ORDER TO PERFORM THESE
VARIOUS BILLING ACTIVITIES. BY INTEGRATING
THE TD!KKKKPING AND BILLING FUNCTIONS AND
urIT.~G TIMEKEEPING COMPUTER. PROGRAMS
PRESENTLY OWNED BY THE DEPARTMENT,
APPROXIMATELY $9,600 COULD BE SAVED
ANNUALLY IN SUPPORT STAFF TIME.
The Office of the County Counsel has an internal professional staff
timekeeping system which is used for payroll processing and as a basis for the
County's Indirect Cost Plan. Independently, other billing processes have been
developed in order to directly bill some County Counsel clients.
These billing processes provide billing information and associated
supporting documentation for professional services to County non-General Fund
clients, the GSA Insurance Risk Management Division and special districts.
These billing processes are decentralized and are not integrated with the
timekeeping system.
In addition to distributing costs to County Departments through the
Indirect Cost Plan, there are two separate billing processes currently utilized by
the County Counsel's Office. These include direct billings to the Parks and
Recreation Department, Transportation Agency, School Districts and GSA
Insurance; and retainer billings, whereby the County Counsel provides a billing
statement to County Departments such as Worker's Compensation, Valley
Medical Center, and the Department of Social Services which is applied against a
projected amount previously agreed to by the County Department and County
Counsel. Within these billing processes, there are several inefficiencies:
· There is no standard billing procedure;
· The billing processes operate independently of the timekeeping
system; and,
· Maintenance of the timekeeping system and the multiple billing
processes require duplicative data entry by support staff.
Specifically, in the area of direct billing there are five major deficiencies.
-37-
c
a
..
The General Services Al!encv. Insurance Risk Manal!ement
Division, requests detailed County Counsel billings for case tracking
purposes. To provide this information billings are created by a legal
secretary within the division of the County Counsel's Office from original
attorney time records. As the detailed information for these billings is
being compiled, a copy of the attorney timesheet is submitted to an Account
Clerk to be entered into the Department's micro-computer timekeeping
system. The Legal Secretary then generates invoices by case, entering all
the pertinent information into a separate computer which includes the
date, detailed description of client and type of service, attorney/ paralegal
hours, code designating the type of service and the budget unit or special
district code. The information entered into the timekeeping system is
identical to that entered into the billing system, except that for timekeeping
purposes detailed descriptions of attorney/paralegal activity is omitted.
For School Districts the attorney submits the Department's internal
timesheet to the Legal Secretary who makes a copy and sends the original to
the Account Clerk for timekeeping records. The Legal Secretary then
enters attorney hours by school district and case into the computer and
generates invoices for payment to the County. During the same period, the
Account Clerk enters this information into the Department's micro-
computer for timekeeping purposes.
Worker's Comnensation billings are presently being prepared by
legal secretaries, a paralegal and a work study student. The statements
are prepared each quarter by activities logged on a time record maintained
within each case file. Although the Worker's Compensation Division
agrees to a predetermined expenditure amount each year for County
Counsel services, they are provided with these summary case expense
statements rather than detailed billings in order to meet requirements for
case management and auditing. Once again, this information is collected
and.compiled independently of the timekeeping system.
The Office of the County Counsel provides services to Vallev Medical
Center on a retainer basis. County Counsel and Valley Medical Center
agree to fixed amount to be paid by Valley Medical Center for services for
the upcoming year. There are no billings produced by the Department for
Valley Medical Center although expenditures typically exceed revenues for
the services provided.
The Denartment of Social Services (DSS) is billed quarterly against a
retainer which is adjusted with each billing according to actual County
Counsel expenditures. Since DSS must comply with specific State and
Federal funding regulations County Counsel must prepare billings which
are segregated by program and prepared for each funding cycle. These
billings are prepared based on information compiled from the existing
timekeeping system.
-38-
o
o
Currently, the Parks and Recreation Deoartment and the
Transoortation Al!encv are the only Departments who receive billings on a
quarterly basis which are produced by the existing timekeeping system.
Using the current billing processes County Counsel devotes approximately
650 hours, or $10,000 in support staff cost, to generate direct billings for County
non-General Fund, GSA Insurance Risk Management Division and special
districts; and an additional $32,000 in support staff cost to maintain the
timekeeping ,system. This level of expenditure is duplicative and unnecessary,
and could be reduced utilizing resources presently available in the Office.
During FY 1987-88, the Office of the County Counsel purchased a computer
program entitled DataEase™. This software package was purchased for
maintaining timekeeping records but has the ability to track and manipulate
information needed for management and billing purposes. By integrating the
billing process with the timekeeping function using the DataEase TM computer
software previously purchased by the Department, the Department would save an
estimated 650 hours or $9,600 in support staff costs, including 566 hours or $ 9,355
in legal secretary and paralegal staff costs, dedicated to the billing process.
Specifically, this computer program will allow information in the system to
be sorted by case, professional staff, date, number of professional hours and type
of service provided to the client. The Department Will have- the ability to produce
billings by a number of criteria. Billings for County non-General Fund, special
districts, GSA Insurance Risk Management Division as well as the supporting
documentation for all other billing functions within the Department could be
produced directly from the timekeeping information entered into the system. The
amount of time currently spent by the Department in preparation these
duplicative billings would be eliminated therefore, improving the timeliness of the
Department's overall billing process. GSA Insurance, billings could be produced
by individual case, according to GSA criteria. Discussions with the GSA
Insurance manager indicated that such billings would be sufficient with the
implementation of a caseload monitoring system as suggested in this report (see
Section m.l). School Districts billings could be produced by school district, case,
type of activity performed, the date and the number of hours used by an attorney.
The system will also have the ability to compute the current balance due on school
district billings as well.
Staff members planned to implement the DataEase TM program in FY 1988-
89. However, due to time constraints on staff and change of personnel, the
program has not been formatted for County Counsel's use.
-39-
o
o
.
CONCLUSION:
The County Counsel's Office utilizes various billing methodologies
which operate independently of the Department's timekeeping
system and include excessive and duplicative data processing input.
In FY 1987-88, the Department spent over $10,000 in support staff
salaries in order to support these various billing activities. By
integrating the timekeeping and billing functions and utilizing the
J)ataEase™ timekeeping computer program presently owned by the
Department, approximately $9,600 could be saved annually in
support staff time.
RECOMMRNnATIONS;
.
It is recommended that the Office of the County Counsel:
Implement the DataEase TM computer program;
Modify GSA and School District billings as described in this report;
Integrate the timekeeping and billing functions within the
Department.
.
.
SAVINGSlBENEFIT:
The implementation of these recommendations would increase
efficiency and eliminate duplicative effort within the Office of the
County Counsel and would generating a savings of approximately
$9,600 annually in increased support staff availability.
-40-
o
.-""'\
'-I
1.7 CHARGES FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
IN RECENT YEARS THE COUNTY COUNSEL'S
OFFICE HAS SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASED ITS
PERCENTAGE OF COSTS RECOVERED FROM
CHARGES TO NON-GENERAL FuND DEPARTMENTS.
HOWEVER SOME BILLABLE ACTIVITIES HAVE NOT
BEEN IDENTIFIED AND THE CURRENT BILLING
RATE DOES NOT ACCURATELY REFLECT THE
ACTUAL COST OF SERVICES PROVIDED . By
PURSUING ADDITIONAL REVENUE SOURCES AND
ADOPTING A MORE PRECISE BILLING
METHODOLOGY THE COUNTY COUNSEL'S OFFICE
COULD INCREASE REVENUES TO THE GENERAL
FuND BY APPROXIMATELY $99,GOO ANNUALLY.
During the past several years, the Office of the County Counsel has
increased substantially the portion of its total costs which are recovered through
expenditure reimbursements from non-General Fund departments and special
districts. Table 6 below analyzes this cost recovery pattern from FY 1983-84 to FY
1987-88
Table 6
Santa Clara Office of the Coun~ Counsel
Analysis of Departmental Cost Recovayl
FY 1988-84 throul!h FY 1987-88
1988-84 1984-8.1} 198."i..86 1986-87 1987-88
Expenditures $2,189,229 $2,492,813 $2.936,829 $3,550,508 $3,999,149
Revenues:
Expenditure Transfers 0 646,166 1,135,157 1,176,591 1,684,833
Charges for Current
Services 493,335 167,839 127,349 408,297 179,520
Other Revenue 61.137 35 5.866 35.557 50.000
Total Revenues ~.472 . ~14,040 ~1,268,372 ~1,620,445 ~1.914,353
Revenues as a
PeroentofExpenditures 25% 33% 43% 46% 48%
As Table 6 above indicates, the portion of Departmental expenditures recovered
through billings for professional services has increased from 25 percent in FY
1983-84 to 48 percent in FY 1987-88.
-41-
r-,
o
~
Although the Office of the County Counsel has been very successful in
increasing its percentage of cost recovery, additional sources of revenue have been
identified which the County Counsel should pursue. In addition, discrepancies
exist in the Department's development of the billing rate for professional services.
Addifion~1 RevenueSouroes
In FY 1987-88 the Office of the County Counsel provided a total of 1,848
attorney hours to the Department of Planning and Development at a cost of
$142,281. Table 7 below, presents an analysis of the services provided to the
Planning and Development Department during FY 1987-88.
Table 7
Analysis of County Counsel Services
Provided to theDepartmentof
PJ~nnin... ~nd Develoument in FY 1987-88
Ilnit
Hours
Provi~
419
188
613
153
158
119
.ll!l!
1,848
Current Planning Office
Surveyor/Land Dev. Eng.
Advanced Planning
Zoning
Solid Waste Management
Code Enforcement
Miscellaneous
Total
~
$32,286
14,438
47,170
11,796
12,166
9,148
15.278
~142,281
Since FY 1983-84, the Department of Planning and Development has established
permit application fees to recover the costs of its operations. During the past four
years, the Department of PI~nning and Development has recovered on average 70
percent of total Departmental expenditures through the collection of permit
application fees.
The current permit application fees do not incorporate the cost of the
services outlined above. These services are related primarily to legal consultation
and research associated with permit applications, general plan amendments,
Environmental Impact Reports, subdivision and lot line adjustments and other
requests for approval of specific projects. They are usually of a commercial,
private or institutional nature involving a project of a significant monetary value
with the beneficiary being a private citizen, corporation or institution. Examples
include the Environmental Impact Report for the major construction projects at
Stanford University, zoning use permits for the Stevens Creek quarry and the
Sunnyvale Rod and Gun Club and general plan amendments to accommodate
major housing or commercial developments. If the Department of Planning and
Development were to incorporate the cost of providing these services in their
-42-
-
-
o
:)
application process, and adjust their permit application fee schedule to maintain
their average of 70 percent cost recovery the General Fund would realize an
additional $99,596 annually.
In addition to the non-general fund departments and special districts, the
Office of the County Counsel can increase its cost recovery ratio through the
identification and direct billing of general fund departments which receive
funding from agencies external to county administration. As an example, the
Office of the_County Executive receives funding from the Federal Government for
projects related to the disposal of tones and hazardous waste. Although the Office
of the County Counsel provided 114 attorney hours at a cost of $8,778 these costs
were not charged to the County Executive's Office and no application was made
for Federal reimbursement.
CuITent BiUin... MethodolOi!'V
In order for the Office of the County Counsel to recover the cost of providing
professional services provided to non-General Fund departments and special
districts, the Department has developed an hourly billing rate.
This hourly rate is determined by dividing the total budgeted expenditures
of the County Counsel's Office by the estimated total number of attorney hours
which will be worked during the year. '"
Although the approach is generally correct, some discrepancies have been
identified. Among the discrepancies identified were the inclusion of the operating
costs of the Zoning Investigation Staff, the inclusion of charges for services
provided by paralegals who only work for a funited number of clients, and an
overstatement of the number of hours provided to clients by not taking into
account the time of attorneys involved in administering the Department and
attending training conferences and seminars. As a result of these discrepancies
the County Counsel's billing rate does not accurately reflect the actual cost of
services provided. -
Since the Zoning Investigation Section is devoted exclusively to enforcing
the County's land use ordinances, it is not involved in providing legal services to
the County Counsel's clients. In FY 1987-88 the cost of operating this unit
including salaries, benefits and overhead amounted to approximately $260,000.
By including the costs of the Zoning Investigation Section, the calculated rate
overstates the County Counsel's hourly billing rate. Similarly, the inclusion of
the paralegal costs in the base costs to compute an attorney hourly billing rate
results in overcharging some clients and undercharging others. In FY 1987-88
the County Counsel's Office expended approximately $292,760 in salaries, benefits
and overhead for paralegals. However of the 81 separate budget units which the
County Counsel bills, six clients accounted for 77 percent of the services provided
by paralegal staff. This analysis is presented in Table 8.
-43-
- -
.
(""'., 0
....., .,~
TableS
MlVor Recipients of Paralegal
Servicp.s. FY 1987-88
Client
Hours
Department of Revenue
Worker's Compensation
GSA Liability Insurance
Public Guardian! Administrator
Public GuardianIProbate
Public GuardianlLPS
1,257
973
1,039
731
3,037
1m2
Total
8,708
Since paralegals are used much more extensively in providing services to certain
departments than others, the cost of providing their service should be separately
accounted for and billed. In addition to paralegals, the Department should
identify and separately charge any other support staff costs which are
disproportionately used to provide services to a given client. For example, the LPS
Public Guardian Ac!=ounting function uses nearly four times the support staff
resources used on average in providing services to other County Counsel clients.
The Section of the County Counsel's Office which processes petitions and
other court actions for individuals conserved under the provisions of the
Lanterman - Petris - Short Act (LPS) utilizes a significantly higher ratio of
support to professional staff than do other sections of the Department.
Accordingly, this analysis of County Counsel billing rates omits the costs of the
LPS Section in arriving at Department-wide charges for attorney and paralegal
services.
Although the law does not restrict the County Counsel's Offic{ from
charging fees which exceed the cost of services provided for LPS cases, the Public
Defender has objected to the current fee structure for certain portions of the
caseload. The County Counsel's Office indicates that delays in processing cases
and increases in the number of requests for evidentiary hearings related to fee
amounts have occurred as a result of the Public Defender's objections. The Public
Defender, County Counsel and Public Administrator - Guardian should
administratively resolve these differences and establish cost based fees as a
minimum fee in contested matters (see Section II.I). Appendix 5 compares the
average cost of County Counsel services for LPS clients with the current rates
charged. This appendix could be used as the basis for establishing a revised fee
schedule.
-44-
-
o
o
Calr.nl~tiQn of Attornev Hours
Currently the Office of the County Counsel bases its billing rate on total
productive attorney hours. Total productive attorney hours are determined by
subtracting the holiday, vacation and sick leave hours from the maximum
number of FTE annual attorney hours (2,088) and multiplying this result by the
total number of budgeted attorney positions.
How(w.er this procedure does not take into account that a substantial
number of productive attorney hours will be expended in administering the office
and devoted towards professional development. During FY 1987-88 6,226 hours or
11 percent of the total 56,479 productive attorney hours were expended on
administration and professional development. As a result, the County Counsel's
Office overstated the number of professional billable hours which would actually
be provided to departments and has consequently understated the hourly billing
rate.
In an effort to reconcile the difference between the actual cost of services
billed to the County Counsel's clients and the cost of providing such services, the
Department of Finance has independently computed the cost of services provided
to the County Counsel's clients. The variance between the County Counsel
billings and the Department of Finance computed actual cost is then included as
an adjustment in the Controller's County-wide indirect cost charge which is
charged to non-General Fund departments as an overhead cost.
~Although this method has proven an effective method in compensating for
discrepancies in the County Counsel's current billing methodology, it has
distorted the true cost recovery of the County Counsel and deprived department
managers of accurate cost data with respect to the cost of legal services. In order
to avoid these discrepancies in the future, the County Counsel should bill actual
charges on an accounting period basis rather than on a quarterly basis as is the
current practice. Therefore, fixed retainer charges should be discontinued unless
a special cir~tance exists to justify imprecise or subsidized charging. This
will provide clients with more timely cost data and County Counsel management
with more timely budget versus actual revenue data.
The table below shows the significant variances in the cost of legal services
provided versus the County Counsel's direct billings for FY 1986-871.
lThe Office of the County Counsel adopted a policy to place each of these clients on a retainer
basis in FY 1987-88.
-45-
- -
o
o
.
Table 9
Comparison of County Counsel Direct Charges Versus the
Total Acltl~l Cosf8 ofProvimnl" Servil'JP..<l
Attorney Cost of Directly Indirect
Deuartment Hours Servioel Billed Overb_d
Insurance (Fund 75) 3,253 $221,584 $190,463 $31,121
Social Services Adm. 6,647 452,848 406,946 45,902
Valley Medical Center 1,394 94,994 66,586 28,408
In order to provide a more accurate cost accounting of the professional
services provided to the County Counsel's clients a step by step procedure was
developed and is included as Appendix 6.
CONCLUSION:
From FY 1983-84 to FY 1987-88 the Department has increased its cost
recovery ratio from 25 percent to 48 percent. By pursuing additional sources
this ratio of cost recovery could be improved. Two revenue sources
identified in this section would yield the General Fund at least an
additional $99,600 annually. By adopting the proposed methodology to
develop the hourly rate for professional services the County Counsel will
provide more accurate cost accountings for its clients for professional
services rendered.
RECOMMF.NllATIONS:
It is recommended that the County Counsel's Office:
- Directly bill the Planning Department and County Executive's
Toxics and Hazardous waste divisions for professional services
rendered. (It should be noted that the recovery of these legal costs
through Planning Department fees is a policy matter for the
Board of Supervisors consideration.)
- Continually attempt to identify other General Fund clients which
receive funding from external agencies which may provide
reimbursement for such services.
- Adopt the billing methodology proposed in this section in order to
charge for professional services on a more accurate and timely
basis.
1 Per Schedule 20 prepared by the Division of Finance.
-46-
o
()
SAV1N~~ENEFlT:
The implementation of these recommendations would result in
additional revenues of approximately $99,600 annually to the General Fund.
In addition, the County Counsel's clients would be provided more accurate
cost data with respect to legal services received.
'-,
-47-
o
o
1.8: ZONING INVESTIGATION COST RECOVERY
THE OPERATING COSTS OF THE ZONING
INVESTIGATION FUNCTION, LOCATED WITHIN
THE COUNTY COUNSEL'S OFFICE, IS
INAPPROPRIATELY INCLUDED AS A COMPONENT OF
THE COUNTY COUNSEL'S HOURLY Bll.LING RATE
FOR LEGAL SERVICES. BY RECOVERING THESE
COSTS ~OUGHPLANNING DEPARTMENT PERMIT
APPLICATiON FEES, PENALTIES ON PERMIT
APPLICATIONS AND FINES AND FORFEITURES, THE
COSTS OF THIS NECESSARY ENFORCEMENT
ACTIVITY CAN BE DIRECTLY RECOVERED FROMTBE
VIOLATORS OF rim COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCES
AND THE COUNTY COULD GENERATE INCREASED
REVENUES ESTIMATED TO AMOUNT TO $182,295
ANNUALLY.
Since the beginning of FY 1982-83 the Zoning Investigation function has
been located within the Office of the County Counsel. The purpose of Zoning
Investigation is to enforce the County's Zoning Ordinance in the unincorporated
areas of Santa Clara County. This function is staffed with one SenIor Zoning
Investigator, two Zoning Investigators and one Secretary.
7.nnlnp' Inve.c:;tistation Function~
In order to enforce compliance with the County's Zoning Ordinance,
Zoning Investigation, in conjunction with the Office of the County Counsel, has
the authority to investigate and prosecute zoning violations. Some of the more
typical violations of the County's zoning ordinance identified by the Zoning
Investigation staff include storage of disabled vehicles on residential property,
operating comniercial businesses in areas zoned 'as residential, maintaining
residence in a mobilehome without securing the prior approval from the County's
Planning Department and multiple families dwelling on plots located in areas
zoned for single family occupancy.
As indicated in Section 1.7 the Office of the County Counsel inappropriately
includes the operating costs of the Zoning Investigation function in its billing rate
for professional services provided to non-General Fund departments. Because
these costs are unrelated to the provision of legal services by the County Counsel,
they should be excluded from the billing rate calculation.
-48-
-
o
:>
Cost ~verv Alternatives
The costs of Zoning Investigation would more appropriately be recovered
through the fees imposed on the various land use permits required by County
Ordinance Codes, through fines and forfeitures and through the imposition of
penalties on application fees.
As part of this management audit a questionnaire was submitted to the
County G.gunsel Offices of eleven of the most populous counties within the State of
California.. The results of this survey indicated that Santa Clara County is the
only major county to place the function of identifying zoning violations within its
_,' Office of the County Counsel.
The function of Zoning Investigation is a service which is typically provided
by the Pl..nning Department in other Counties throughout the State of California.
Santa Clara County's policy, established by the Board of Supervisors, to obtain
partial cost recovery of its planning and related costs is consistent with the
policies of the majority of planning departments throughout the State.
Consequently, the operating costs of Zoning Investigation, even though located in
the County Counsel's Office, should be charged to the PI~nning Department and
the Department should adjust its fee schedule to obtain partial cost recovery in
accordance with the policy of the Board of Supervisors.
Since FY 1983-84 the County has imposed fees on land use and development
permits which are issued by the Planning Department. These fees have enabled
the Planning Department to recover on average 70 percent of total expenditures.
If the Zoning Investigation's costs of $260,422 were included in the budget of the
Planning Department and the Department's permit fees were adjusted to achieve
the same cost recovery that has been achieved during the past four years, the
County would collect an additional $182,295 annually.
An alternative to adjusting land use and development fees, would be to
establish a. policy to penalize the violators. Although each violation of the
County's Zoning Ordin~nce is subject to a penalty of$100 imposed by the Court, as
a policy matter, the Zoning Investigation staff recommends that this penalty be
waived in the event that a violation is corrected before the offender appears in
court.
The Zoning Investigation staff reports that it currently obtains compliance
with the zoning ordinance in 95 percent of the cases where a citation is issued for
a violation. Although considerable time and effort must be expended in obtaining
compliance, since these citations are recommended for dismissal, no revenue is
collected by the County for its enforcement efforts. Furthermore, Zoning
Investigation issues a citation only after all other means to obtain compliance
have been exhausted.
-49-
t'I
\,~..~..
o
.
. Considering the time and expense which is involved in obtaining
compliance, a policy could be adopted to recommend that a $100 fine be levied
regardless of whether the violation has been abated or not based upon the
justification that the County be reimbursed for its cost of enforcement efforts.
During the last six months of FY 1988 a total 46 citations were issued which
covered 281 separate violations of the County's zoning ordinance.
If a $100 penalty were assessed on all violations, the County would collect
an additional $53,200 annually in fines and forfeitures.
-.
Some violations which Zoning Investigation identifies may only be
mitigated through the acquisition of a land use permit. In these instances the
County could impose a penalty fee equal to fifty percent of the original application
fee. The imposition of such a penalty fee would be consistent with current
practices of the Planning Department when they identify unauthorized
construction activity and unauthorized grading activity.
Assuming the same fifty percent penalty were imposed on all zoning
violations which can only be resolved by obtaining a required permit, the Planning
Department would collect $29,040 annually in application penalties. Table 10
indicates the number of applications filed as a result of Zoning Investigation
compliance activity during FY 1987-88 and the revenue which would result from
such a penalty fee.
Table 10
Analysis of Revenue From
Permit Annlication pp.n~ltv Fees
Number of Revenue
Applications Fee Per From 50 Percent
ADl)lication Fib! Anplication Penalty Fee
Use Permits 24 $790 $ 9,480
Special Permit 28 840 11,760
Variance Permit 8 370 1,480
Single Site Approval 8 5ro 2,120
Architectural &
Site Approval 10 840 1.2QQ.
Total 78 $29.040
-50-
-
o
o
CONCLUSION:
Currently the costs of the Zoning Investigation function are
inappropriately recovered in part through billings to non-General Fund
departments. Alternatively, the operating costs of the Zoning Investigation
function could be charged to the Planning Department and the Planning
Department could adjust its fee schedule to recover these costs. A second
alternative would be to adopt a policy which would penalize zoning violators
thr,ough penalty permit application fees as well as from fines and
forfeitures.
RECoMMF.NDATION:
It is recommended that the Board of Supervisors:
Direct Zoning Investigation and the Planning Department to
develop a method to recover at least 70 percent of the operating
costs of the Zoning Investigation function by using the cost
recovery alternatives discussed in this section.
SAVINGSlBRNEFIT:
By achieving a 70 percent cost recovery rate for the Zoning
Investigation function the County would realize an additional $182,295
annually.
-51-
o
o
.
1.9 ORGANT7.ATTONAL DEVRT .oPMENT
THE PROCESSES UTILIZED TO DETERMINE
RESOURCES ALLOCATED TO THE COUNTY
COUNSEL'S OFFICE AND THE DlSTRffiUTION OF
STAFF TO AREAS OF RESPONSffilLITY WITHIN THE
COUNTY COUNSEL'S OFFICE IS INSUFFICIENT.
FURTHER, THE CURRENT ORGANIZATION AND
CENTRALIZATION OF THE COUNTY COUNSEL
STAFF IMPEDES THE DEPARTMENT'S EFFICIENCY
AND EFFECTIVENESS AND THE RESPONSIVENESS
TO CLmNT NEEDS. BY MODIFYING THE CURRENT
ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE, DELINEATING
A TTORNEY AND SUPPORT STAFF DUTIES,
RESPONSIBILITIES AND REPORTING
RELATIONSHIPS AND RELOCATING SOME STAFF,
THESE PROBLEMS CAN BE ALLEVIATED AND THE
SERVICES OF THE COUNTY COUNSEL'S OFFICE
IMPROVED.
Throughout this report, recommendations have been made regarding the
addition and deployment of staff resources within the County Counsel's Office, the
reorganization of certain staff functions and the development of formal policies
and procedures. Each of these recommendations, taken individually, would
strengthen specific areas of the Department's operations. Together the findings
included in this report point to the need for the County and the Department to
accomplish several other objectives for the provision of effective and economical
legal services. Specifically:
. The County Executive should develop procedures which link the service
needs of clients more directly to County Counsel staffing.
. County Counsel should develop a professional staff organization structure
which emphasises responsiveness to client needs. For particularly large
users of County Counsel services, lead attorneys should be assigned
responsibility for coordinating the activities of County Counsel staff as they
relate to the client department. In addition, County Counsel staff should be
located in close proximity to the clients they serve or to Court, as
appropriate.
· The organization structure, particularly as it relates to lines of authority
within the office, should be clearly delineated. Relationships between
professional and support staff should be formally defined by the County
Counsel and enforced through management implementation of policies
and procedures.
Each of these issues is discussed more fully below.
-52-
-
o
()
Reouests For Lel!'al Services and Fundin!!'
Currently, the County Counsel's Office is charged with providing legal
services for the Board of Supervisors and County Executive, and for all County
departments and special districts within the County of Santa Clara. The need for
these services is identified in various ways:
· County or special district officials request advice and legal opinions which
requires the involvement of County Counsel;
. A tort claim or other action is filed with the courts, requiring legal counsel
to defend the County, special districts or their representatives;
· In fullfilling their mandated functions, the County and special districts
initiate legal actions which require representation by counsel.
County Counsel clearly fulfills the role of a support service department in
these instances. Although situations occur when the need for legal
representation is determined based upon County Counsel advice, in every
instance it is because of the needs of client departments that County or contract
counsel is utilized.
.~
Under the current funding structure, departments may not be involved in
the process for estimating the scope and cost of legal services. Discussions with
management from the County Counsel's Office indicates that for general
consultation services provided to departments, County Counsel estimates the
required staffing based upon historical use by departments. Staffing needed for
tort defense and other ongoing casework is determined based upon informal
assessments by County Counsel of workload. Although situations requiring an
unusually high level of legal services may result in more client involvement in
assessing the extent of County Counsel services, in most instances the scope and
cost of services provided to client departments.is determined solely by County
Counsel in the administration of its budget, as approved by the Board of
Supervisors. Further, County Counsel indicates that client departments only
occassionally provide input regarding County Counsel's requests to the County
Executive and the Board of Supervisors for staffing and other resources related to
legal services.
The inability of the County Counsel to estimate and justify the level and cost
of required legal services, as well as the lack of involvement by client departments
in advocating County Counsel staffing requests to provide the legal services for
their programs, has contributed to a number of the deficiencies identified in this
report. Specifically, the weaknesses in the current process of determining the
appropriate level of County Counsel services has contributed to:
-53-
t""'1
o
.
. The reduction or elimination of services to client departments which
otherwise would be willing to pay for necessary staffing to provide
comprehensive legal representation. In fact, some departments have used
increased levels of contract counsel to supplement services which are
unable to be provided by County Counsel due to staffing insufficiencies.
. The lack of understanding by some client departments of the need for
County Counsel services, and of the specific services for which they pay.
'-,
· Reduced ability for County Counsel to articulate to the County Executive
and Board of Supervisors, the need for increased resources necessary to
provide services to client departments.
As an example, Section 1I.4 discusses the extreme workload which has
occurred as a result of increasing child dependency caseload. County Counsel, in
an attempt to meet these caseload requirements, requested additional staffing in
the FY 1988-89 budget. Since this staffing was denied, the County Counsel has
eliminated services to the Public Administrator - Guardian. for full probate,
decedent estate matters and transfered attorney staff to child dependency.
Although this shift in resources has improved the County Counsel's ability to
process child dependency matters, it has adversely affected the provision of
services to PAG clients and has resulted in a loss of revenue to the County.
Further, additional need exists within the child dependency unit for attorneys to
process existing caseload (See Section 1I.4). Although the cost for these services
. would be substantially funded from federal and State sources, additional needs
continue to go unmet due to competing legal resource needs within the County.
Further examples include the Insurance and Risk Management Division of
the General Services Agency, which utilizes a large amount of contract attorney
services to supplement those provided by County Counsel. Discussions with the
manager of this division indicate that he views contract counsel services as being
preferable to County Counsel since contractors are typically more responsive to
the needs of claims adjusters in settling cases. County Counsel has indicated that
because of staffing constraints its attorneys are unable to provide the same level of
interaction with Insurance personnel as is provided by contract attorneys,
reducing the Insurance Divisions level of comfort related to case processing by
County Counsel attorneys. Yet the cost of providing this increased interaction is
far outweighed by the savings which could be achieved by reducing the use of
contract counsel for certain cases (See Section m.l).
In some instances, client department managers have expressed confusion
regarding the necessity of County Counsel services, or have indicated that such
services, in their view, are not as comprehensive as would otherwise be desirable.
On one occasion, a department manager suggested that in certain court hearings
the County could be represented by non-attorney, program staff from the client
department. Yet the nature of the hearings in question are such that, in County
Counsel's opinion, representation by persons other than attorneys would expose
the County to increased case loses.
-54-
- -
""
o
o
Client departments should become more directly involved in determining
the level and cost of legal services. Although in some instances Clients discuss
legal service costs with County Counsel during the budget preparation process,
these discussions are typically reactive - based upon estimates made solely by
County Counsel staff and presented to the County Executive and Board of
Supervisors without client involvement.
As part of the budget preparation process, client departments should be
required, to develop specific requests for legal services, including advice and
representation. These requests should include, at a minimum, descriptions of
the services requested, estimates of the anticipated workload or other factors
which drive the need for legal services and funding available to finance County
Counsel activities. In response to these requests, County Counsel should prepare
staffing and cost estimates for providing the services, and- recommendations
regarding whether contract counsel should be utilized to provide all or a portion of
the services requested. These analyses by County Counsel and the client
departments would then provide the bases for developing County Counsel's budget
and staffing request to the Board of Supervisors.
For some agencies, such as the Transit District, Department of Social
Services and Public Administrator - Guardian, which are heavily funded from
non-County General Fund sources, the process discussed above would permit
them to articulate their legal needs to the County Executive and the Board of
Supervisors more clearly. By establishing a process which shifts the responsibility
for evaluating service needs from County Counsel to the client department,
several benefits could be achieved:
· Client departments, concerned for their own expenditure budgets, would be
more aware of their legal requirements and be able to provide a balance to
County Counsel's perspective on legal resource allocation. County Counsel
will be placed in a position of developing legal services programs which are
more responsive to client needs and funding capabilities.
· Client departments will be provided an incentive to identify means for
reducing legal counsel costs. Because this process would link County
Counsel services more directly to client needs, departments can make
informed decisions regarding whether specific service levels should be
modified or adjusted.
~nization and Location ofC-ountvC-ounsel SNiff
Presently the County Counsel's Office is segmented into four broad
organizational divisions: 1) General Government Litigation; 2) Land Use/I'ransit;
3) Health and Human Services; and, 4) Administrative Supporl Exhibit 2 on the
following page illustrates the current organization structure and position
assignments by function.
-55-
- - - -
.
0 c
'"
'" -
c~ Z
I- ?;- c -a. ~
en .. :!>. c
c 0=_1-t- .2
Z ::J
0 C ~~~-l!: OIl ~
~ c c
0 '5ft1'alalCD 1= o 0 ..
.g s:....=.... c
lii ?;- >- GtCi7DCiio ~ ~
::I --1-........... OIl - O.!!o
--- ouo 0 0;;0- ..
en a. -lDCDQI'1:J a. .E.s!l> ~
4)_ >'>->-aJ(J)(I)CJ) CD 0
::l OG)CDCDCDCI CJ C- ': a.
a 0CC:C<<D___C ftj C) 000..
-C............Ciiftl'CdC'lSC'd 0 Z NGlCGt OJ
Z .!!:3B.2B....OIOIOl> >- >
:5 .c:.O---<<IGtCDCD1:J I- ~ ~.s~.s (;
00<<<0.-'-'-'< <D (J) N I-
~ -------- ~ g ff
~ ......--__(\1__ ~ ::.
~ -------- ~
'.
CO
CO
0> ~
T""
- ~ OIl
CI) >. c
tIJ a... c .. -
CI) ~ ::J 0....-- ..
-o~
C 0 c _ ~ c
.0 0 .c:.... .g
::s ~ o a- as
~ E ?;- > CD=~Qj ..
0 ::J _=_1--0_.... 0
- a: 4100 a.
0 CI) G ->CDG)
C Q; 4)_ >..>'>'cd CCOcn
0 ...J o I ~ ~ ~ ~- _ _ ftj
::s ~~ ~ CD~oooCi=.af (;
0 ~ CI) =>"'- -0---....>00 I-
oeD>. w t50<<<~oj~
- C z 0-
0 C z _00-
(\! 0 G) >.. GJ !! w ~ ------- ~
G ::. CQC\lN~-N(")
::s !< (I)-cn<o -------
CO . 55 r...
- 0 oO(ijg
a... 0:
.0 0 - I- OO=en -
.c CO a... en ~c~-
- CO z c: as "0 as
)( 0 CI) :J-_Q
W .r:::. ~ 0(1)- Q) en
.c: a oCiiC...J w OJ
0 <C ",0 0 OIl
CO - <0;:- 5 >. c Ci
- ~ C .!!- >.
- "'~ 0: 0-_1-
- -~ ::J
C C .<=~ W 0 ~ ~~~ OIl
0 0 en 0 c
CO 0 ~ o (lJ as G) .g
i!:- >= t!c;;c;;o
en CI) .- ::J ___ ........ ..
..... :::0 a. -g~1:J 0
0 CO ::l 4D_ >">'>'edCl)(IJ. a.
~ QCDCDGJCDa 0
.- N roCCC4D__C ftj
- -c............(ijl'lSalCG (;
- - ~ .!!::ISSB....OCD>
0 C .c:.O---alCDCD'1J I-
~ 00<<<0.-'-'<
CO ~ ------- it)
:I: ~ ~~~:!.~~:::. ~
0') ~
a...
0
I-
0: 1::
0 0
n. n.
n.
n. ::J
::l (J)
en - '"
w .. .>< c
> > ....-- .g
~ as ~.!!~
.... 0 a..c -;;;
-- >'0 0
..!!....-t-= a.
CfDC Q.
tl -o::J"",. ftj
Eco....o
Z 'O(53.!!CD (;
~ < <00: I-
- ~-~ ~
a ~ :::..::.:::.
<C ~
-56-
-
o
o
In Section 1.3 recommendations have been made regarding the
reorganization of the Administrative Support Division into a Business and
Administrative Services Division with centralized accounting, enhanced
analytical capability and personnel management functions. To increase the
effectiveness of administrative services, recommendations have been made to add
management and analytical staff. In several other sections, additional staff have
been recommended to increase the effectiveness of the County Counsel's Office
and redu~ costs for legal services in the County. In Section 1.1 recommendations
have been made to develop and formalize policies and procedures.
The implementation of these recommendations would significantly alter
the manner in which County Counsel conducts administrative business services
within the Office. Other modifications to the organization and management of the
Department, which have not been previously discussed in this report, would
further improve administration and the provision of professional services. These
modifications are discussed below:
Zoninl! Investil!ation: The Zoning Investigation Section of the Land Use
and Transit Division of the County Counsel's Office would more appropriately be
placed within the Planning and Development Department of the County. The
zoning code enforcement functions provided by the staff from this Section are
similar to those currently provided by Planning and Development Department
staff in the administration of building inspection and other code enforcement
services.
Discussions with County Counsel management indicate that zoning
enforcement requires special knowledge and familiarity with zoning enforcement
matters unrelated to the operations of a county counsel's office. Because of this,
County Counsel has indicated that management and supervision of this section by
County Counsel managers is minimal.
.Survey responses from County Counsel Offices in 11 of the-most populous
counties in California indicate that Santa Clara County is the only County which
has placed zoning investigation and enforcement functions within the County
Counsel's Office. In every one of the surveyed counties, these activities are
appropriately conducted by planning and building departments. County Counsel
is utilized to support these activities only if zoning enforcement personnel are
unable to administratively obtain code compliance from violators and a civil
enforcement action is necessary.
Since the Zoning Investigation Section was placed in the County Counsel's
Office, the Planning and Development Department has established an
Enforcement Coordinator position which currently oversees the enforcement of
building, grading and certain health and safety codes. Including the functions
provided by the Zoning Investigation Section under the authority of this
Enforcement Coordinator position would insure continuity of County enforcement
policy and improve communications between the various code enforcement units
within the County.
-57-
c
o
~
I;lecause of the similarity of building code enforcement services currently
provided within the Planning and Development Department, the need for
increased management and supervision of Zoning Investigation personnel and
practices in other jurisdictions, the organizational transfer of this unit to the
Planning and Development Department would be appropriate.
Proximitv to Work Location and Client Relations: In Section II.4 of this
report, the efficiencies and effectiveness of locating County Counsel attorneys in
the new fl!.mily courts facility being planned by the County is discussed. With the
current location of the attorneys who provide these services being at 70 West
Hedding Street, over 500 hours of attorney time is wasted annually with the
transport of case files to and from court. By relocating these attorneys and
support staff to the Court, a significant savings of staff time would occur.
However, if the six attorneys, three support staff and case files were
transfered to a location away from the central County Counsel offices, it would be
necessary to provide supervision which otherwise would not exist. As a result, a
lead attorney position should be created to assume this supervisory role at the
satelite location. Since no lead attorney salary differential exists at this time, an
appropriate amount would have to be established by the County. However, if it is
assumed that an Attorney IV position would perform these supervisorial duties
and receive a five percent salary differential, then the annual cost to the County
would amount to approximately $4,000.
Other staff should be placed in locations removed from the central County
Counsel offices. Presently, the Transit District expends in excess of $500,000 in
fees for County Counsel services, representing almost 12 percent of the total cost of
the County Counsel's Office operations. Yet, from discussions with several
management persons from the District, no single attorney has been designated as
the primary representative of the County Counsel's Office for Transit related
issues. Although the Chief Deputy County Counsel for Transportation and Land
Use fulfills this role to some degree, his involvement does not meet the level of
service desired by Transit due to his other management and case related activities
in the Office. As a result, Transit management has expressed dissatisfaction
with certain aspects of the County Counsel's services including the lack of
consistency of services provided by County Counsel attorneys and the
unavailability of County Counsel attorneys when needed..
In order to provide Transit management with the level of service
commensurate with the legal workload and the magnitude of the monies involved
in these issues, the County Counsel should assign an attorney to be physically
located at the Transit District on a full-time basis. This attorney should be
responsible for coordinating all legal issues related to the Transit District and be
consistently. available to respond to Transit management's needs and concerns by
maintaining an office within the Transportation Agency Administration.
Although a five percent differential amounting to $4,000 annually would be
appropriate for these lead responsibilities, this amount could be wholly offset by
fees charged to the Transit District.
-58-
-
o
o
Countv Counsel Office SDace: Consistently, throughout interviews with
County Counsel attorneys, paralegals and support staff, concerns were expressed
regarding the adequacy of office space assigned to County Counsel. Specifically,
attorneys expressed concern regarding the lack of privacy when conducting
business, distractions which occur due to the physical arrangement of attorney
offices and space constraints which could prohibit expansion should the addition
of staff resources recommended in this report be approved by the Board of
Supervisors.
The" concerns expressed by County Counsel employees are not
unwarranted. Within this report 8.3 net additional positions have been
recommended to improve the efficiency of the County Counsel's Office and reduce
costs of legal services to the County. Unless the recommendations discussed
above regarding the transfer of Zoning Investigation staff to the Department of
Planning and Development, the transfer of County Counsel attorneys to the
planned family court facility and the relocation of a lead attorney to the Transit
District are implemented, there will be inadequate space on the ninth floor of the
County Administration Building to house the recommended staff additions.
The County Counsel's Office should pursue the recommendations to
relocate the staff discussed above. In addition, services should be requested from
the County Executive's space design staff to reconfigure the ninth floor office
space layout to provide its most efficient use. On a longer term basis, the County
Counsel should assign analytical staff recommended in this report to develop a
plan for future space needs based on projections of staffing which will be
necessary to meet the growing requirement of the County for legal services.
Exhibit 3 on the following page illustrates a proposed revised organization which
incorporates the recommendations included in this section and throughout the
report.
Ailmini"'trative Authoritv
Section 1.3 discusses the need for the County Counsel's Office to develop a
centralized business division which would include a Business and
Administrative Services Manager position responsible for general administrative
functions within the Department. So that this staff person is better able to provide
effective services, the management duties and authority of the position should be
clearly defined by the County Counsel.
Beyond the authority granted to this position by the County Counsel, other
duties and responsibilities of management need to be better defined to provide
County Counsel staff with clear lines of authority and reporting responsibilities.
This includes the relationship of the Chief Deputy Attorneys to the County counsel
and Assistant County Counsel and to the attorneys and support staff. By
delineating the duties and responsibilities of all of these positions, accountability
will be improved and overlapping and duplicative reporting relationships can be
clarified and corrected as necessary.
-59-
-
CI)
tn
C C
>.:Jo
~ 0--
COm
:J N
o >.0-
O-C
C m
m:JC)
J.. 0 J..
mOO
-
o
C'?
-
.c
.s::.
)(
w
m
-
C
m
en
CI)
.c:
-
1J
CI)
tn
o
a.
o
J..
a.
-
o
CI)
o
0-
-
-
o
z
o
~
~
z
~
o
<l:
a;
Ul >.
51u_
oQ)>.,
_00....
Q) ~ ad!!
~cCl)~
::>::> 0
00-0)
oo~(/)
.2;-c~-
casual
::J(jj~ ~
0._ c:~
o~o
:50~
~.;::-
""~
o
r::
-
(/)
UJ
()
>
0:
UJ
(/)
Z
I- ~
~
U)
:r:
-60-
l-
(/)
Z
~
lii
(/)
::J
o
Z
j
.,
.,-
e '"
>- C (ijo.
Ens.... >-
:J 0=-.....1-
o C ~ ~ ~~
o -fi ftJ <U <U CD
~ >- 41Qj~CPO
::J -==I-oou
0. -CDGJCD"C
~Ci iD"~~~CI)U)CI) ~
0CCCCD___C
-c............(ijcuCQa:scu
~:::::Jo,gS....O)CJ)Q>
.cO;'=;:':;:COCDGlCD"C
oO---a.....J...J-I<(
- --------
..... ..--(\I.....N_(\I
- --------
o
1=
C3
1=
g
o
Cl
..J
~
UJ
ifi
Cl
'"
>- e
E cu =
13..... -x
5 c~~~Gi
o 'fi a.f! asO
~ CD-;::!a;
::J >- .....tn_....'O
Co ---_~gg~
G:I_ >.>->.aJ CCl)", C
a CD CD CD CD 01_ C'lJ
WCCCCD __>
C;SoooCii=caas-o
:c 0 ':: ::: ::: :a .2: ~ ~<C
00<<<0.0...J-I_
'"
S e~E@:~~ff2.
tIJ .!!
~=_!
c >- ~x
.c .... L,- ....
> UCVCUCD
~ -- .0Cio
::J >.=-.....uo
0. CD -CDlII"C
41_ C >->-CU"'l/)"
a lD.... CD Ge (,J
flJQCC4D__C
1iS=oomCUcotO
:c 0<::=;U ~~~
00_<<0.....J-I<
'"
2 6~SeS~=
>-
E
"
o
o
ffi
o
~
UJ
(/)
ffl
z
~
.,
~
i!
10
C
eCD
,,'"
<(~
co
..::;:
'" '"
'" .,
CD 0
.E~
'" .,
all/)
-
~
~
l/)
1ii
~
<(
z
<(
I-
Z
w
::;:
w
~
Z
<(
::;:
10
>-
a;
C
<(
m
~
a:
w
l/)
~
~
g
~
E
CD
E
.,
'"
..
C
..
::;:
I
o
'"
e
~
'"
o
0-
a;
(;
l-
ii>
:::.
10
<i
?':
'"
C
.Q
'iii
o
0-
a;
~
ii>
ui
~
'"
C
.g
0;
o
0-
a;
~
m
o
~
w
'"
~
- 0
m
0-
w
o
9
is
c;;-
ui
-
'"
_-'" C
- G .g
co en
.. 0
EE a..
" "
88 a;
00 '0
<(<( I-
S2 ~
I
t-
'"
w
o
5
a:
w
l/)
<1.
Sl
....I
l=
'"
~
a:
I-
"
..
..
....I
;::-2
>-
.,
C
~
o
:i
:::~
'"
C
.g
0;
o
0-
..
o
I-
e
1l =-j '"
j ~ ~!~ ~
">- CD CD _
:::-=-ut ~
>->->->-CD CD n.
CD CD CD (J)C/)(J)
EEEECiCii
000000
:::=:::=CDCD
<(<(<(<(....1--1.
-
;:- (? C\I ;:- ;:- ~:: ::
-----.....:..;.. -
l/)
w
o
:;:
a:
w
l/)
~
j:::
<(
g:
'"
Z
:!!
o
<(
-'"
~
o .!!
" C
CDcn.2
g (;) a
..- GO
> ~ 0
"1- GO
<( a:
I
.
a;
(;
I-
E
.,
E
C
szo
'"
'"
..
c-'-
0'"
c;;-=
~~
"0::
~ 0
o .,
-l/)
CD ~
"'",
~-
.. '"
::;:c
CD
::: E
o C
~szo
GO ::l
"'..
~-c
_ 0
~ ~
0~
~~
E ~
" 0
<(-
'"
-g ;;
co g>
'" C
'" ..
~ E
O;C
" 0
mo;
.,:2'
.<::"0
~g
-"
1: C
o ..
g.~
~ .,
B~
.5 E
~Gi
C
!a
.. '"
~G;
.. a.
~ ~
o 0
.,;:;
"'~
.."
"'C
CD co
--I
Iii
I-
o
Z
'"
C
.g
0;
o
0.
..
(;
I-
g
-
o
o
CONCLUSION:
The processes utilized to determine resource levels and staff
allocation within the County Counsel's Office could be modified in order to
better define client relationships. Further, the organization and location of
County Counsel staff could result in greater efficiencies and responsiveness
to client needs. To accomplish these objectives, The Department should
mollify the organization and employee reporting structures, relocate some
staff and implement recommendations discussed elsewhere in this report.
RECOMMRNIlATIONS:
It is recommended that the Board of Supervisors:
. Assign the Zoning Investigation Unit function, staffing and
necessary funding to the Department of Planning and
Development.
· Authorize funding for salary differentials to be paid to lead
attorneys established for services to the Transit District and the
Children's Services Division of the Department of Social Services.
It is recommended that the County Executive:
· Develop and implement procedures for County Counsel client
departments to become more directly involved in the process for
estimating the scope and cost of County Counsel services, as
described in this report.
· Through the Personnel Department and Employee Relations
Division, initiate appropriate steps to establish specifications and
salary differentials for lead attorneys responsible for coordinating
services to the Transit District and superVising County Counsel
staff assigned to child dependency caseload.
It is recommended that the County Counsel:
· Implement procedures for responding to requests for service from
client departments according to procedures developed by the
County Executive.
. Work with the Transit District and the Superior Court to establish
appropriate office space for County Counsel staff recommended
for assignment to these locations.
· Request that the County Executive assign space design staff to
reconfigure the ninth floor office space layout to provide its most
efficient use.
-61-
C"
o
.
. Delineate the duties and responsibilities of all managerial
attorney and support staff positions in a manner consistent with
the proposed revised organization as shown in Exhibit 3.
SAVlNGSlBENEFIT:
The Office of the County Counsel would be more efficient and effective
and be more responsive to client needs.
-62-
-
..
o
o
II.l CONSERVATOR..<mIP ACCOUNTINGS
DUE TO PERIODIC STAFF VACANCIES, AN
ESTIMATED BACKLOG OF OVER 390 PUBLIC
ADMINISTRATOR - GUARDIAN (P A G)
CONSERVATORSHIP ACCOUNTINGS HAS
DEVELOPED IN THE COUNTY COUNSEL'S OFFICE.
THIS BACKLOG HAS A VALUE OF APPROXIMATELY
$300,000 ,IN COLLECTABLE PAG, COUNTY COUNSEL
AND PUBLIC DEFENDER FEES. BY TEMPORARILY
urILIZING PARALEGAL STAFF FROM OTHER AREAS
OF THE OFFICE, THE COUNTY COUNSEL COULD
ELl:MINATE THIS BACKLOG. FOlCl'H&(, THE BOARD
OF SUPERVISORS SHOULD APPROVE
APPROXIMATELY $46,500 IN FUNDING FOR
TEMPORARY STAFFING IN THE SUPERIOR COUIn' SO
THAT LEGALLY MANDATED INVESTIGATIONS AND
HEARINGS NECESSARY TO COLLECT THESE FEES
CAN OCCUR. BY PROCESSING THESE
ACCOUNTINGS, THE COUNTY WOULD REALIZE NET
ONE-TIME REVENUE OF APPROXIMATELY $250,000.
The Public Administrator - Guardian (PAG) is responsible for managing
the assets of persons who have been legally conserved under the Lanterman -
Petris _ Short Act (LPS) or the California Probate Code when no other person can
legally provide the conservatorship function. The Office of the County Counsel
provides legal services for the P AG in these matters, and the Public Defender
represents a significant number of these clients in proceedings which are
conducted in their behalf.
Upon the termination of a conservatorship, or on an otherwise periodic
basis, the P AG must prepare an accounting of all receipts . and expenditures of the
estate. These accountings are then presented to the Superior Court for a hearing
to determine whether they are appropriate.1
1
For LPS conservatorships, accountings must be submitted when temporary
conservatorships are terminated and annually once permanent conservatorships have been
granted; for Probate conservatorships, accountings must be submitted after the first year
and then every two years thereafter.
-63-
-
-
--
o
.
,...,
As part of this process, County departments involved in conservatorship
proceedings may determine charges for the services they have provided and
submit a request to the PAG for reimbursement from the conservatee's trust
account. The PAG then includes departmental requests for fees in the
accounting.2
The following administrative process is utilized to determine fees for the
three deptlrtments involved in conservatorship proceedings:
· Fees for regular and extraordinary services provided by the Public
Guardian are determined by PAG clerical staff and reviewed by property
officers. The total fees due are then included in an accounting
document prepared by Department fiscal staff for the Superior Court.
. Once the PAG completes its assessment, the fee calculations are
forwarded to the County Counsel for a determination of regular and
extraordinary legal fees. This determination is initially provided by
clerical staff and then both the PAG accounting and County Counsel
clerical assessment are reviewed for appropriateness by a paralegal.
· After the County Counsel has completed its review, the accounting is
forwarded to the Office of the Public Defender for its determination of
appropriate fees for representing the client. For LPS conservatorships,
a representative of the Public Defender's Office visits each client to
advise them of the petition by the PAG to request fees and determine if
the client has any concerns or objections. For Probate conservatorships,
clients are advised by mail and requested to contact the Public Defender
if they have concerns or objections. Once the client is advised,
appropriate portions of the accounting are completed by Public Defender
staff for the services provided by the Department.
2 Fees are not always collected due to insufficient account assets.
-64-
o
o
. After the Public Defender has completed its assessment, the accounting
is retumed to the County CounseL The accounting is then forwarded to
the P AG for signature.
. When the accounting has been signed by the Public Guardian, it is
returned to County Counsel to calendar the matter for a hearing in the
Superior Court. For all Probate conservatorships where the conservatee
is living, a Probate Investigator for the Superior Court reviews the case
, file, contacts tlIe conservatee and makes recommendations to the Court.
':For both Probate and LPS conservatorships, the accountings are
reviewed by a Superior Court Probate Examiner for appropriateness.
The matter is then considered by a judge.
. If the petition is approved by the Court, the PAG is advised by County
Counsel of the decision. The P AG then issues warrants to the County
departments for the amounts approved by the Court.
The PAG initiates approximately 925 accountings annually which must be
processed in this manner in order for the County to receive payment for services
provided to PAG clients. However, during the past several years backlogs have
developed as a result of temporary staff vacancies in the County Counsel's Office.
Although these staff vacancies are currently filled, the backlog in the County
Counsel's Office continues at a level which has fluctuated between 369 and 512
cases during the past 15 months. Currently, PAG records indicate that a backlog
of approximately 275 LPS accountings, 193 Probate accountings, 9 dual status
LPSlProbate accountings and 9 miscellaneous accountings exists at the County
Counsel level, for a total backlog of 486 accountings.
Some discrepancies exist between the records maintained by PAG which
indicate the number of backlogged accountings and the number County Counsel
indicates exist. Given the poor condition of records in the County Counsel's
Office, we could not confirm whether the lower number of unprocessed
accountings which they believe exist are an accurate reflection of the true backlog.
However, we adjusted our estimates of the current backlog based on information
received from County Counsel. Consequently, for purposes of this analysis we
have revised the PAG record of the combined accounting backlog downward from
486 to 389. County Counsel and the PAG should work together to rectify the
discrepancies in their records regarding the number of PAG accountings
referred to County Counsel. In addition, County Counsel should develop
comprehensive logs which list accountings referred by the PAG alphabetically
and track the accountings by major processing stage. Although the Department
has initiated a log for LPS accountings, this log is not well organized, nor can it be
reconciled to P AG records.
Using fee accountings and trust fund information provided by the PAG, we
estimate the following revenues would be realized by the County if the backlogged
accountings were processed:
-65-
-
~
"'"
o
Table 11
Estin"'~ofLPS and Probate
Fees Which Could Be Collected
Bv ~1l~Backlosmed Al'r.nnntin,..,.
-'.
DerntrbnP.ut
Estimated
Collectionc;
Public Guardian
County Counsel
Public Defender
$187,760
78,693
31.927
$298,380
Total Collections
Of this amount, approximately $163,277 could be collected immediately. The
remaining $135,103 would be collected during a ten month installment payment
period after the Court order is received.
Included below is a discussion of the one-time costs which would be
necessary to process this backlog in a timely mRnner. Based on this analysis, it
would cost approximately $46,500 in temporary staff for the Superior Court to
conduct mandatory investigations prior to the Court hearings, and to provide pro-
tem judges and support staff to consider the accounting petitions. As a result, the
County would realize net revenue of approximately $251,880 if temporary staffing
and expenditures are approved.
BacldOl!'~n~
County Counsel's otIioe
In the County Counsel's Office, there are two levels of accounting review
which occur before fees may be collected~ At the first level, clerical staff review
the case files to determine the appropriate amount of County Counsel fees to
assess. This is the processing stage at which previous staff vacancies resulted in
an unprocessed backlog. Since filling these vacancies, the backlogged
accountings have been processed by tlIese clerical staff and are awaiting a second
level review by paralegal staff, additional information from the PAG or processing
by the Public Defender.
At this second level, paralegals are responsible for reviewing the
accounting submitted by the PAG and the request calculated by clerical staff for
County Counsel fees. This review is comprehensive and includes:
. A determination of whether the amount of fees assessed for County
Counsel are appropriate given the circumstances of the case;
· A review of specific calculations by PAG and County Counsel staff to
determine whether computational errors have been made;
-66-
-
o
o
. A review of the accounting documentation to insure its format and
content comply with the Rules of the Court; and,
. A review of the case file for other matters which may become legal
issues when the petition is considered by the Court.
The current backlog of accountings represents approximately forty percent of the
number processed by County Counsel annually. To complete the processing of
these backlogged accountings, we estimate it would require approximately 0.4
Full Time'Equivalent (FTE) Paralegal Technician positions.
In Section III.l we recommend the addition of three attorneys and one
paralegal position to increase the County Counsel's involvement with the
processing of tort litigation currently assigned to contract counsel. Because the
assignment of tort cases to County Counsel attorneys would occur incrementally,
the positions we are recommending would not be immediately required for the tort
defense function. As a result, we have recommended in Section II.2 of this report
that the new paralegal be utilized on an interim basis to assist in the processing of
decedent estate probate matters until other efficiency measures recommended in
this report are implemented. Similarly, we believe the paralegal position
recommended for tort defense could be utilized to assist in the elimination of the
conservatorship accounting backlog without additional cost to the County.
Public Defender's Office
Discussions with staff from the Public Defender's Office indicate that the
impact of processing probate accountings would have minimal impact on
Department workload. However, the processing of LPS accountings could have
some impact and raises certain issues which could result in accounting petitions
being contested by the Public Defender in Court.
For each LPS accounting which is filed by the County Counsel, the Public
Defender is required by law to_ advise the client of the petition and the amount of
fees being assessed. As a result. for all 275 LPS and 18 dual status LPSlProbate
accountings a Public Defender investigator would be required to contact the
clients and, if necessary, meet with them to advise them of the petition.
Further, the PiIblic Defender must assess the amount of fees to be charged
for their services to clients during the conservatorship period. Based on
discussions with Public Defender staff, these investigation and accounting
functions could be accomplished by existing staff if the accountings were
completed over a period of several months and were not processed at one time.
-67-
(")
',-.
o
.
. In addition, Public Defender attorneys have indicated that the fees presently
charged by the PAG and County Counsel for LPS conservatorships are
unreasonable and do not represent the costs for services provided by these
departments. As a result, the Public Defender's Office has indicated that unless
these standard fees are administratively reduced, it is probable that they will
contest LPS accounting petitions in order to receive a modification or waiver of the
fee amount on an individual petition basis.
This is a matter which will have to be resolved by the Court for each petition
filed.3 However, the Board of Supervisors should direct the P AG, County Counsel
and Public Defender to administratively resolve any disagreement over LPS
conservatorship fee amounts. Section 1.7 discusses the analysis of a cost based fee
structure for LPS services more fully.
Superior Court
Once a Probate accounting petition for living conservatees is filed with the
Superior Court, Court Investigators are assigned to investigate the status of the
conservatee to insure that their personal and financial welfare are being
appropriately managed and that the petition requests are legitimate. Discussions
with the Court Investigation Unit manager indicate that it requires the efforts of
an investigator for one full work day to complete such an investigation.
At present PAG records indicate there are 131 probate conservatorships
and 9 dual status LPSlProbate conservatorships which would require such an
investigation prior to a Superior Court hearing. Approximately 40 of these will
have had an investigation within a period of time acceptable to the Court, in
accordance with the bi-annual review process mandated by the Probate Code.
Therefore, approximately 91 probate investigations would have to be conducted by
the Superior Court Investigation Unit before these accountings could be
processed. Based upon the one day estimate for processing these cases, this
would require approximately 0.5 FTE Court Investigators at a cost'of$19,700. The
Board of Supervisors should approve this funding and provide authorization to
retain suitable temporary staff to conduct these investigations in a timely
manner.
In addition to the probate investigations, all conservatorship matters heard
before the Court require a review of the petition and other relevant case
information by Superior Court Probate Examiners to develop recommendations
for the judge. Discussions with the Probate Examiner Unit at the Superior Court
indicate that for accountings, a Probate Examiner can process approximately 20
petitions per day. Given the current backlog of approximately 485 accountings,
this would require approximately 24 work days of effort to complete. According to
the Court Executive Officer, this additional workload could be absorbed by 0.25
additional Probate Examiner staff at an estimated cost of $9,800.
3 Should the Public Defender proceed in this manner, it could affect the amount and the timely
collection of fees currently due.
-68-
-
o
o
.With an increase of 485 petitions calendared in one year, it would be
necessary to add additional judicial staff and support. Based on current judicial
effort to process ongoing workload, approximately 0.125 pro-tem judicial positions
would have to be authorized with support staff to process these backlogged
accountings. The cost of these additional Court staff would be approximately
$17,000.
Snmm~7.
The processing of Probate and LPS accountings requires the involvement of
multiple departments and staff to accomplish. The Public Guardian develops the
accounting and the documentation necessary for the Court petition utilizing
clerical, property officer and accounting staff; within the County Counsel's Office,
clerical and paralegal staff are involved in the calculation of legal fees and review
of accountings; the Public Defender's Office must conduct investigations on all
LPS petitions and assess fees for both LPS and Probate services, which requires
the efforts of attorney, investigator and clerical staff; and the Superior Court must
conduct investigations on all Probate matters when the client is living, review all
accounting petitions filed with the Court and conduct hearings to deternIine the
appropriateness of the accounting requests.
Because of the interrelationship between these departments andthe critical
role each has in the LPS and Probate conservatorship process, it is essential that
the processing of this backlog be approached systematically. Therefore, the
resources required for each of these departments to complete their responsibilities
regarding conservatorship accountings are critical if the backlog is to be
eliminated. In SUDImary, we propose that the following funding for temporary
staffbe approved by the Board of Supervisors:
Table 12
Proposed SmffingResourees
Reauired to ~ AlY'Jnuotinl!' Backloe;
Deuarlment
County Counsel
Public Defender
Superior Court
Superior Court
Superior Court
Fnnl'fion
Fl'E's
Fundinl!'
Accounting Review
LPS Investigation
Probate Investigation
Probate Examination
Conservatorship Hearings
0.00
0.00
0.50
0.25
Q.12
0.87
$ 0.00
0.00
19,700.00
9,800.00
17.000.00
$46,500.00
Total FTE's and Cost
Based on this analysis, the County would realize net one-time revenue of
approximately $250,000 out of the total projected collections of $300,000 by
expending the resources necessary to process the accounting backlog.
-69-
~,
o
..
f",
CONCLUSION:
Due to periodic staff vacancies, an estimated backlog of over 390
Public Administrator - Guardian (PAG) conservatorship accountings has
developed in the County Counsel's office. This backlog has a value of
approximately $300,000 in collectable PAG, County Counsel and Public
Defender fees. By temporarily utilizing paralegal staff from other areas of
the office, the County Counsel could eliminate this backlog. Further, the
Board of Supervisors should approve approximately $46,500 in funding for
temporary staffing in the Superior Court so that legally mandated
investigations and hearings necessary to collect these fees can occur. By
processing these accountings, the County would realize net one-time
revenue of approximately $250,000.
RECOMMRNTlATIONS:
We recommend that the Board of Supervisors:
.. Authorize the funding for pro-tem judicial positions and
temporary staffing, as discussed in this report. The total one-time
cost of these staffing increases would be $46,500.
.. Direct the Public Administrator - Guardian, County Counsel and
Public Defender to administratively attempt to resolve any
disagreement regarding appropriate LPS fee amounts.
We recommend that County Counsel:
.. On an interim basis, utilize paralegal staff proposed for tort
defense in Section 111.1 of this report to process backlogged
conservatorship accountings.
.. Work with the Public Administrator - Guardian to rectify
differences in records regarding the number and status of
conservatorship accountings.
.. Develop a comprehensive system for logging accounting petitions
and tracking them through the hearing process.
SAVINGSlBENEFITi
The County would realize one-time net revenue of $250,000. The
number of contested hearings regarding LPS fees would be reduced. The
County Counsel would maintain more comprehensive records on the
number of accounting petitions referred to the Department and petition
status in the hearing process.
-70-
.-..
.
o
o
11.2 DECEDENT ESTATES
FEES COLLECTED FOR COUNTY COUNSEL SERVICES
PROVIDED TO THE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATOR (PA)
ON DECEDENT ESTATES HAVE RESULTED IN NET
REVENUE TO THE COUNTY OF APPROXIMATELY
$25,000 PER YEAR. HOWEVER, DUE TO WORKLOAD
CONSTRAINTS IN FY 1988-89, THE COUNTY
COUNSEL HAS DETERMINED THAT NEW DECEDENT
ESTATE-' CASE ASSIGNMENTS WILL NOT BE
ACCEPrED FROM THE PA; INSTEAD, THESE LEGAL
SERVICES WILL BE PROVIDED BY FOUR CONTRACT
LAW ~ AT A COST TO ESTATE HEIRS WHICH
COULD POTENTIALLY EXCEED THE AMOUNTS
CHARGED BY COUNTY COUNSEL. By CONTJNUING
TO PROVIDE LEGAL SERVICES ON ALL DECEDENT
ESTATES, THE COUNTY COUNSEL COULD REALIZE
ADDITIONAL NET REVENUE OF APPROXIMATELY
$25,000 ANNUALLY AND CONTROL LEGAL COSTS
FOR ESTATE HEIRS.
When a person dies and no executor or administrator is available
(according to Probate Code Section (22) or when the Superior Court believes it is
otherwise appropriate, the Public Administrator (P A) may be appointed to act as
the administrator of an estate. In fulfilling this role, the P A may be required to
conduct many complex fiduciary activities, including the sale of real property, the
management or liquidation of stocks and bonds and the payment of federal, state
or local taxes. If the decedent estate value equals or exceeds $60,000, a probate
proceeding must be commenced in the Superior Court. In these "Full Probate"
matters, the Public Administrator is represented by legal counsel.
Until FY 1988-89, PA legal representation in Full Probate decedent estates
was provided exclusively by County Counsel attorneys. In FY 1988-89, County
. Counsel management determined that because of competing priorities the Office
would no longer represent the PA in these matters. Rather, the PA and County
Counsel selected four contract law firms to absorb this workload.
LeI!'al Fees
Probate Code Section 910 establishes the amount of ordinary fees which may
be paid from estate funds for attorney services. These fees are determined
according to estate value, as follows:
-71-
("".,
o
.
.
. Four percent of the first $15,000;
. Three percent of the next $85,000;
· Two percent of the next $900,000:
· One percent of the next $9 Inillion;
e-, One-half percent of the next $15 million; and,
· A reasonable amount determined by the Superior Court for all estates
valued over $25 million.
In addition, Probate Code Section 911 permits attorneys to petition the Court for
additional compensation. These extraordinary fees may be approved by the Court
if deemed proper.
Countv Con"",..' Services
Analysis of statistics provided by the PA indicate that on average Full
Probate cases reach final disposition within 2.5 to 3.0 years following death.
During that time period, the PA may be involved with vari.pus activities regarding
administration of the estate and disposition of assets. However, County Counsel
involvement in required only when legal issues need to be addressed or an estate
matter requires Court approval. On average in recent years, approximately 70
Full Probate cases have been disposed of annually by the County Counsel.
Attorney fees collected through the final accounting on these cases have averaged
approximately $55,000 each year.
On an annual basis, the County Counsel has committed approximately 800
hours of attorney and paralegal staff time to this activity. The direct cost of
salaries and benefits for these staff, plus clerical support, has equalled
approximately $30,000 annually. Therefore, the net revenue to the County from
conducting this activity with County Counsel attorneys has been approximately
$25,000 annually.
The County Counsel's decision to discontinue accepting Full Probate cases
from the PA in FY 1988-89 will not result in immediate revenue losses to the
County. Because of the multi-year processing of these estate matters, revenue
will continue to be received for the next several years from County Counsel's
involvement with the current caseload. However, the amount collected will
continually decline until the current decedent estate caseload is exhausted and
fees are no longer collected. By retaining this caseload within the County
Counsel's Office, the County will continue to receive net additional annual
revenue of $25,000. In fact, it is probable that fees which would be paid to the
County Counsel to support decedent estate workload will increase at a greater rate
than will costs in future years. Although specific increases cannot be projected,
discussions with representatives from the PA and County Counsel indicate that
one reason increases may occur is due to the rising cost of real property values.
-72-
-
o
c'
Since the increasing value of real property will affect the bases for calculating
attorney fees, the County will likely realize significant revenue increases when
compared to the cost of operating the decedent estate program.
We believe the additional workload which would occur as a result of
retaining the Full Probate caseload could be absorbed by the County Counsel
through the implementation of recommendations included in Section 1.4 of this
report. Until sufficient attorney and paralegal staff savings are achieved from
implementing recommendations included in this section, the County Counsel
could utilize staff recommended in Section lI1.1 related to tort defense for
decedent estate caseload. Should workload increase due to increased decedent
estate referrals in the future, County Counsel and the PA should determine the
additional staff requirement and request such staff from the Board of Supervisors.
An additional consideration when analyzing the benefits of retaining
decedent estate legal services within the CoUIity Counsel's Office is related to the
potential cost of private legal services to the estate heirs. Although the Probate
Code regulates base fees according to the estate value, extraordinary fees may be
requested from the Court. It is the belief of County Counsel attorneys and
representatives from the PA that private attorneys will be more aggressive than
County Counsel in requesting these fees, thus impacting the total cost to the
estates. Although potential fee practices of private law firms cannot be
confirmed, they should be considered when evaluating the potential impact of
discontinuing County Counsel Full Probate services.
CONCLUSION:
Fees collected for County Counsel services provided to the Public
Administrator (PA) on Decedent Estates have resulted in net revenue to the
County of approximately $25,000 per year. However, due to workload
constraints in FY 1988-89, the County Counsel has determined that new
decedent estate case assignments will not be accepted from the P A; instead,
these legal services will-be provided by four contract law firms at a cost to
estate heirs which could potentially exceed the amounts charged by County
Counsel. By continuing to provide legal services on all decedent estates
with existing staff, the County Counsel could realize additional net revenue
of approximately $25,000 annually and control legal costs for estate heirs.
RECOMMF.NllATIONS:
We recommend that the County Counsel:
. Continue accepting Full Probate decedent estate caseload from the
Public Administrator;
-73-
,....,
o
-
.
. Utilize existing staff made available from implementing
recommendations included in Section 1.4 of this report. Until
such recommendations are implemented, utilize staffing
recommended in Section llI.1 related to tort defense. It should be
noted that the availability of staffing from Section III.l of this
report would require approval by the Board of Supervisors and
recruitment of three attorneys. In the event that defense staffing
is not approved by the Board of Supervisors, prepare a
supplemental appropriation request for adequate staffing to
process decedent estates.
SAVlNGSlRENEFIT;
The County would realize revenue net of costs of approximately
$25,000 annually. This revenue could potentially increase as estate values
escalate due to rising real estate values. Cost of legal services for estate
heirs could be better contained.
-74-
-
-
-
.
o
,~
II.8 DSS-SSI ADVOCACY PROGRAM
THE COUNTY COUNSEL'S OFFICE HAS PROVIDED
LEGAL SERVICES FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL
SERVICES' S.S.I. ADVOCACY PROGRAM SINCE
JANUARY 1986. THIS PROGRAM UfILIZES LEGAL
AND SOCIAL SERVICES TO OBTAIN DISABILITY AND
MEDI-CAL BENEFITS FOR DISABLED GENERAL
AsSISTANCE RECIPIENTS. WHEN A DISABILITY
CLAIM IS 'APPROVED BY SOCIAL SECURITY, THE
COUNTY IS REIMBURSED FOR ITS PRIOR GENERAL
ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS SINCE THE DATE OF
APPLICATION FOR DISABILITY AND THE COUNTY IS
AUTHORIZED TO RETROACTIVELY BILL MEDI-CAL
FOR MENTAL HEALTH AND MEDICAL SERVICES
PROVIDED THE APPLICANT DURING THE SAME
PERIOD. DUE TO INADEQUATE COORDINATION
BETWEEN THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES,
MENTAL HEALTH AND VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER
(VMC), OVER 90 PERCENT OF THE REIMBURSABLE
MEDICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH COSTS HAVE NOT
BEEN CLAIMED. By IMPLEMENTING PROCEDURES
TO NOTIFY VMC AND MENTAL HEALTH OF-ALL
SSI APPROVALS, BY PROCESSING ALL
RETROACTIVE MEDI-CAL CLAIMS AND BY
PROVIDING LEGAL REPRESENTATION FOR MORE
DISABLED GENERAL ASsISTANCE RECll'IENI'S, THE
COUNTY COULD REALIZE INCREASED REVENUES
NET OF COSTS ESTIMATED TO AMOUNT TO
APPROXIMATELY $735,000-$944,000 ANNUALLY
AND NET ONE-TIME REVENUES OF APPROXIMATELY
$1,053,000-$1,591,000.
In 1985 the County Counsel's Office assisted the Department of Social
Services (DSS) in developing a program called the SSI-Advocacy Program. The
program was funded in FY 1985-86 and began operations in January 1986. The
program concept involves assisting mentally and medically disabled General
Assistance (GA) recipients in obtaining approval of applications for disability
from the Social Security Administration. To assist the County's disabled GA
recipients, this program provides a combination of social services and legal
support in order to submit applications for Supplemental Security Income (SSl)
and to appeal denials as necessary. When successful, the County is rewarded in
several ways which include:
. Reimbursement of all General Assistance payments made to the
applicant since the date of application for disability. General Assistance
payments currently range from $287 to $326 per month;
-75-
-
c
o
.
.
. Future cost avoidance by removing persons from the General Assistance
rolls who would most likely remain on the rolls as a County liability
until age 65 unless preceded by death. Future cost savings amounts to
$3,444 to $3,912 per year per person based on current aid payment rates;
. Reimbursement of County costs of medical and mental health services
provided to the applicant retroactively to the month of application for
disability. These costs must be claimed by Valley Medical Center and
~ental Health to the State for reimbursement through the Medi-Cal
program;
· Reimbursement of the County Counsel's costs of representing these
clients through direct charging of fees to clients whose applications are
approved.
Since the inception of the program, the SSI-Advocacy Unit has been very effective
as shown in Table 13 on the following page:
-76-
0 .....
.. V
Table 13
General Assistance Recovered by the
SSI _ AdvnCA~ ProP'rHm frnm .Janllarv 1986 throuP'h AUP'u1d: 1988
SSI Advocacy SSI General Assistance
Yearl Program Case Check Recovered by the SSI
Month Annrovalg R.P.cp.ivp.d Advo("..JIfW ProP'rAm
:w!ll
August 5 $99,469 $5,469
July 7 146,853 32,783
June 5 145,968 17,957
May 2 168,735 8,037
April 5 114,944 17,334
March 5 120,209 17,996
February 7 221,872 21,105
January ~ 132.358 22.085
Total ~ $1.150.408 $142.'166 a
Average 5.13 $143,801 $1'1,846
ll!lU
December 4 $44,097 $14,706
November 6 108,737 31,016
October 2 50,171 13,263
September 5 63,243 5,918
August 4 41,138 9,871
July 2 59,193 4,176
June 4 60,674 10,400
May 3 42,453 3,624
April 4 75,541 7,221
March 6 66,762 23,082
February 7 52,860 21,424
January ~ 26 892 11287
Total U $691.'161 $155.988 b
1.I!.ll.G
December 5 $64,224 $17,769
November 4 46,795 10,511
October 5 94,902 18,759
September I 78,074 2,858
August 7 73,171 9,066
July 7 61,696 7,975
June 9 82,942 10.400
May 3 42,060 3,624
April 7 70,200 7,221
March 21 47,191 23,082
February 19 28,255 21,424
January 12 38 387 11 287
Total ~ $'127.897 $143.976
Average 8.17 $60,658 $11,998
1986-1988 Total ill $2.570.066 $442.730
a Plus $6,479 additional recovery by DSS-Recovery and Legal from SSI-Advocacy
Program clients and $2,252 through a GA program reimbursement.
b Plus $3,103 additional recovery by DSS-Recovery and Legal from SSI-Advocacy Program Clients.
o
o
~
As Table 13 shows the SSI Advocacy Program has been effective in
successfully representing disabled GA recipients before the Social Security
Administration. Case approvals are averaging over five per month and recovery
of prior General Assistance payments is estimated to amount to more than
$200,000 in 1988. This one revenue source exceeds the County's variable cost of
operating the SSI-Advocacy program, and, when the associated savings related to
future General Assistance cost avoidance is considered the County benefits by an
additional,.$224,OOO annually. However, the development of inter-departmental
policies and procedures necessary to obtain reimbursement for the County of its
medical and mental health costs expended on GA recipients approved for SSI has
substantially not occurred. The policy of the DSS-SSI-Advocacy Unit has been to
provide a list of the client names, social security numbers and date of birth
information monthly to Valley Medical Center for review and billing to Medi-Cal
for previously unbilled services. However, this information accounts for only a
small portion of the SSI approvals obtained each month. Although DSS, VMC
and Mental Health have had several discussions over the past two years
regarding the potential revenue which could be realized by processing retro-active
Medi-Cal claiIns on these cases, no system has been developed to refer and
process all SSI approvals on a monthly basis. As a result, although about 191
accounts have been referred to VMC since 1986 as shown in Table 13. These
referrals represent only 11.3 percent of the total approvals as shown in Table 14.
-78-
- . - -
- :)
~ 0 Table 14
Supplemental Security Income (SSn and Retroactive Medi-Cal
AuuroV9l~ by Month from January 1986 throul!h December 1988
Case Case
Approvals Approvals
ObminM by the {)bminM by
SSlAvocacy Private Counsel
Yp~rJM:onth lIDit and Other T2tal
.1aBB
December (projected) 5.13 49.63 54.75
November (projected) 5.13 49.63 54.75
October (projected) 5.13 49.63 54.75
September (projected) 5.13 49.63 54.75
August 5 :r1 42
July 7 43 ro
June 5 52 Sl
May 2 57 59
April 5 56 61
March 5 47 52
February 7 71 78
January .5 Me ~
Total m 1m ffi1.
Average 5.13 42.50 54.75
.mB7
Decemb~r 4 39 43
November 6 58 64
October 2 32 34
September 5 ro 55
August 4 47 51
July 2 48 ro
June 4 47 51
May 3 48 51
April 4 45 49
March 6 58 64
February 7 48 55
January .5 22 ;ll
Total .m ~ .ma
Average 4.33 38.17 49.83
.1D86
December 5 40 45
November 4 42 46
October 5 48 53
September 1 42 43
August 7 58 ffi
July 7 36 43
June 12 43 55
May 12 43 55
April 12 32 44
March 11 30 41
February 11 2ii :r1
January 11 13. 8:1
Total m lil3 ill
Average 8.17 34.00 50.92
1986-1988 Total ill l622 ~
P..........t 11<l '1<l '1 loon
- -
-
-
o
o
.
~
. Analysic; of Potential Revenue from Researc-lIinl!' DSS-S..';I Cases
In order to test the revenue potential to VMC, Mental Health and
Drug Abuse, a systematic random sample of 50 cases was selected from SSI
approvals obtained between January and June 1988. These cases were
compared with VMC, Mental Health and Drug Abuse patient records.
OI).ly one of the 50 clients had been seen by the Drug Abuse Program and
that person did not receive any Medi-Cal eligible services. The Mental
Health Program had provided services to 27 of the 50 clients and VMC
provided services to 37 of the 50 clients. Twenty-three of the Mental Health
clients (46%) received services during their period of retroactive eligibility
and eight had received services which had not been billed to Medi-Cal.
Twenty-nine of the VMC clients (58%) received services during their period
of retroactive eligibility and 24 had received services which had not been
billed to Medi-Cal, projected revenue from billing these clients is as follows:
VMC-Inpatient Services:
Of the 50 cases sampled, 15 had been inpatients at VMC during their
respective periods of retroactive Medi-Cal eligibility. Of these 15, 3 patients who
received 26 days of treatment had not been billed to Medi-Cal. Based on the
applicable contract reimbursement ratesI and allowing for a six percent denial
rate by the State, the Hospital can recover approximately $19,654 or an average of
$393.07 for each of the 50 clients in the sample. On an ongoing basis, DSS
processes about 657 SSI-retroactive Medi-Cal approvals annually. By reviewing
these cases the Hospital could realize approximately $258,247 per year. In
addition, a backlog of approved cases not previously provided to the Hospital are
projected to number 1,656 as of 12/31/88. These cases were approved between 1986
and 1988. Assuming the average reimbursement to the Hospital amounted to 90
percent of the $393.07 average from the current sample, the Hospital could recover
an additional $585,832 as a one-time revenue for inpatient services.
VMC-Outnatient Services:
The 50 clients in the sample had a total of 152 outpatient accounts at VMC
during their respective retroactive Medi-Cal eligibility periods. This amounts to
an average of 3.04 accounts per client. A random sample of 25 of the 152 accounts
was conducted to determine the proportion of outpatient accounts that had not
been billed but now could be billed. This sample showed that 52 percent of the
outpatient accounts could be charged to Medi-Cal. A third random sample of 20
outpatient accounts was selected to determine the average reimbursement to
VMC from outpatient accounts that are billed. This sample revealed that the
average Medi-Cal aCcount billing totalled $760.94. Analysis of remittance advices
from the State determined that 39.35 percent of the charges traced to the
remittance advices were reimbursed. The actual average amount reimbursed per
I The current inpatient per diem rate is $850.
-80-
- -
-
,
o
,'\
:)
account for charges which could be traced to remittance advices was $218.05.
This average reimbursement was based on $10,530 of reimbursements confirmed
by remittance advices from a total of $15,219 of charges submitted to Medi-Cal for
the 20 outpatient accounts in this sample. If all of the charges were reimbursed
at the 39.35 percent rate, an average of $299.43 per account would be reimbursed of
the average of $760.94 of charges per account. Assuming the actual average
reimbursement per account would be between the $218.05 and the $299.43,
perhaps about $250.00, each client in the 50 client sample could generate $395.20
(3.04 accounts, 52 percent of which woUld be billable at $250.00 per account). On
an ongomg basis, 657 clients annually could produce $259,646 in reimbursements
for the Hospital. In addition, the backlog of client accounts represents a one-time
potential revenue of $523,561 assuming that only 80 percent of the potential is
collected as a result of lower charges in past years and not submitting claims on
patients with account charges totalling less than $500.
In addition to the sample of 50 SSI approved cases that were independently
reviewed, VMC has processed 73 of the cases referred by the SSI Advocacy Unit
through October 1988. The actual results of reviewing each case and billing Medi-
Cal for previously unbilled charges is as follows:
Projected Number of Number of
TvpeofService r.h~n>'P.s Revenue Clients Dim
Inpatient $51,437 $57,926 9 81
Outpatient 57.837 22.759 41
Total .$109,274 .$80,685 00
The average inpatient revenue per client is $793.51 or about double the amount
projected from our sample. The average outpatient revenue per client is $311.77
or about 21 percent less than projected from our sample. However, the VMC
Patient Business Services Office did not process any clients with charges of less
than $500. Based on the Hospital's actual results from t;p.ese 73 cases, the
potential revenue from inpatient reimbursements would be greater. than projected
from our sample and revenue from outpatient reimbursements would be less.
Table 15 below summarizes the projected potential revenues which the hospital
could realize by reviewing and billing all SSI cases from the Department of Social
Services.
Table 15
Projected Reimbursements from Medi-Cal
9fPreviously Unr.l~imed Hosuital (',osts
'!'vue of Service
Based on 50 Case Sample:
Annual One-Time
'." l3ased on 73 Cases
Reviewed by VMC:
Annual One-Time
Inpatient
Outpatient
Total
$258,247
2.';9.646
~17,893
$585,832
523.561
~l,l09,393
$521,336
204.833
.$726,169
$1,182,647
464.662
~1,647,309
-81-
- -
-
- -
o
o
.
r
Mental Health Services
Of the 50 clients in our sample, 19 were treated by Mental Health in FY
1986-87 and received 1,076 units of service. Eight of the 19 clients who received 127
units of service were not billed to Medi-Cal. During FY 1987-88 23 clients were
treated and 6 received 18 units of service that were not billed to Medi-Cal. In total,
145 units of service could have been claimed resulting in additional revenue of
$8,620 or an average of $172.40 for each of the 50 clients in the sample. This
projected-revenue amount is based on the County receiving reimbursement for
only the federal government 50 percent of the billable charges not previously
claimed since the County's mental-health funding from the State has a
maximum limit which the County has already claimed. However, the projected
reimbursement of federal funds of the $8,620 also is based only on services
provided in FY 1986-87 and FY 1987-88. Although it has been State policy to limit
all claims to 16 months after the close of a fiscal year, the State is reviewing its
legal authority to refuse to reimburse the federal portion of Mental Health costs
previously incurred and specifically authorized for payment by the Social Security
Administration or a federal district court. At a minimum, based on the average
of $172.40 per case processed, it is estimated that $113,267 could be realized by
Mental Health if all of these Department of Social Services SSI cases are reviewed
and billed. Depending on the outcome of the State's investigation into honoring
claims for services provided prior to FY 1987-88, additional federal revenues may
be available on both an ongoing basis and as result of reviewing the remaining
1,766 of the 1,816 cases from 1986 through 1988 shown in Table -- which Mental
Health has not yet reviewed.
· An~lysi!; ofCosm ~l~ted to Retroactive Medi-Cal C1~ims on IJSS....c;;.~I c~_
Estimated staffing and equipment costs necessary to research these
cases and prepare Medi-Cal claims were based on discussions with
departmental staff and time spent researching and processing the 50 DSS-
SSI cases in our sample. The following schedule identifies these costs, net
of revenues unrelated to Medi-Cal reimbursements, by department.
Annual
Number Po.<rition Cl~~ficationlEauinment Tvue !;mt
One-Time
!;mt
Vallev Medical Center
1 Patient Business Services Clerk
2 Patient Business Services Clerk
(extra help-6 months)
2 Microfiche Reader - Printers
Total
$29,087
$
$29.087
21,875
5.600
$27.475
Mental Health Bureau
0.25 Account Clerk II
Computer Costs
Total
$ 7,577
6.000
$13.577
-82-
- - -
- -
-
o
:)
Deoartment of Social Services
0.25 Eligibility Worker III (Hospital) $4,243 net $
1.25 Eligibility Worker III (Hospital
extra help-6 months) 8,102 net
1 Eligibility Worker II (SSI Advocacy -
extra help-3 months) 5.902
-. Total ~ $14.004
Sllmmarv of Costs:
Valley Medical Center $29,087 $27,475
Mental Health Bureau 13,577 1,500
Social Services 4.243 14.004
Total ~,907 ~,979
. C..ost-Benefit Analvsis of Ex:pandinl!' the Service Level of the DSS-SSI
~cvUnit
The Department of Social Services - SSI Advocacy Program began
operations in January 1986. At that time there were 501 General
Assistance recipients who had applied to the Social Security
Administration for Supplemental Security Income (881) due to disabilities.
General Assistance recipients in this group are considered to be in the
General Assistance - Interim Assistance Program. As of June 30, 1988
there were 549 General Assistance recipients in the interim assistance
program which represents a 10 percent increase in this group despite the
successful efforts of the County Counsel's Office and the SSI - Advocacy
staff. The current staffing of the SSI - Advocacy Program includes three
.social workers and 20Q.to 300 County Counsel hours annually. At this
. staffing level approximately 105 cases can be worked at any given time.
Correspondingly, over 400 cases cannot be thoroughly reviewed and
provided whatever staff and legal assistance which may be necessary to
obtain a disability award from the Social Security Administration for these
General Assistance clients. Although many of the 400 plus cases would not
require assistance, it is estimated by DSS management that about one-half
of these cases could benefit from representation by the SSI-Advocacy
Program staff. Based on a review of the SSI Advocacy Program costs,
revenues and performance statistics since 1986 and given the sizable
caseload not being served it is projected that an expanded program would
result in increased benefits to both the County and the disabled General
Assistance recipients as shown in Table 16 on the following page.
-83-
-
- -
o
-
-
.
o
Table 16
Analysis of the Costs and Benefits to the County
of the SSI..Adwcaey Program
Based on the CmrentServioe Level and a
Proiected ErruondedLevelofProl!lamServi"""
Cun-ent Program Service Level:
Exnenditures:
~
$ 33,324
771>72
27,411
271>58
16,401
5,000
1 Social Worker I
2 Social Worker II
1 Clerk Typist
0.5 Social Worker Suprv.
213 County Counsel Hrs,
Contract Doctors
Total
SlI!7 .266
RevP.nnemRenefit~~
G.A. Recovery
Est. VMC - M.H Reimb.
G.A. Expenditure Savings
Co. Counsel Fees
$225,395
58,601
224,358
4.000 a
Total
512..'1.'>4
Net Benefit to County
$325.088
~mlPerformance Data:
Daily Client Capacity
SSI Applications Approved
1m
61
a
Expanded Program Service Level:
E:menditures:
~
$ 66,648
116,358
27,411
34,727
2 Social Worker I
3 - Social Worker II
1 Clerk Typist
1 Paralegal
0.5 Social Worker Suprv.
675 County Counsel Hrs,
Contract Doctors
271>58
23,100 b
8000
Total
S303JlO2
RevenuesIRenefit..c;:
G.A. Recovery
Est. VMC. - M.H. Reimb.
G.A. Expenditure Savings
Co. Counsel Fees
Reduced Overhead Reimb.
$327,931 c
94,146
360,440
8,000 a
(10,526)
Total
779.991
Net Benefit to County
$476 189
Increased Net Benefit
$151.1 01
Prol!ram!Performance Data:
Daily Client Capacity
SSI Applications Approved
210
9l
County Counsel fees collected would be credited to the County Counsel's budget and a
corresponding reduction would be made in charges to DSS for County Counsel hours.
b Approximately 375 hours costing $28,875 is considered a one-time expense and is not
reflected in this amount.
c
Increased recovery of G.A. interim assistance is projected based on the doubling of
staffing resulting in a 60% increase in SSI approvals from 61 to 98 cases annually and
collecting 75% ofthe average amount collected per case at the current program level.
-84-
-
o
J
Table 16 projects an expanded SSI-Advocacy Program with six professional
staff versus the three staff positions in the current program. In addition, County
Counsel support is projected at 675 hours compared with the 213 used in FY 1987-
88. The higher number of County Counsel hours would be required primarily for
training purposes and would be expected to decrease after about six months to an
annual level slightly greater than currently required. The projected program
impact of the expanded service level would result in a 60 percent increase in
disability application approvals from approximately 61 to 98 annually. The
projectedf.inancial impact on the County of the expanded SSI-Advocacy Program
would be an increase in expenses from $187,266 to $303,802 annually, an increase
in revenues and benefits from $512,354 to $779,991 and an increase in net benefit to
the County from $325,088 to $476,189. Therefore, the projected increased net
benefit to the County of an expanded SSI-Advocacy Program is estimated to
amount to $151,101 annually when fully implemented.
CONCLUSION:
The SSI-Advocacy Program which provides legal assistance to
disabled General Assistance recipients has been successful in removing
persons from General Assistance and thereby recovering significant
amounts of prior General Assistance payments and avoiding future
General Assistance costs. However, insufficient coordination with VMC
and Mental Health and the inability of the Hospital and Mental Health to
implement procedures to process these retroactive Medi-Cal claims has
resulted in a failure to receive reimbursement of significant medical and
mental health costs. Through improved inter-departmental coordination,
increased staffing to prepare retroactive Medi-Cal bills and expansion of the
SSI-Advocacy Program services, the County could realize one-time net
revenues estimated to amount to $1,053,476 to $1,591,392 and ongoing net
revenues and reduced expenditures estimated to amount to $735,354 to
$943,030 annually.
RECOMMF.NTlATIONS:
It is recommended that the SSI-Advocacy Program of the
Department of Social Services:
Prepare a comprehensive list monthly of all DSS clients approved
for SSI including their names, date of birth and social security
numbers. This list should include all approvals identified on the
monthly DSS-Fiscal report and the monthly DSS-Legal and
Recovery report. For each client name, the award notice from the
Social Security Administration identifying the date of retroactive
Medi-Cal eligibility should be obtained from DSS-Fiscal and
attached to the monthly list of SSI approvals. If no award notice is
received from the Social Security Administration, a copy of the
DSS-Fiscal notice (Form SC 1310) to the Social Security
Administration specifying the retroactive date of Medi-Cal
eligibility should be attached to the monthly list of SSI approvals.
-85-
-
o
o
.
The complete list with attachments should be transmitted on a
timely basis to the Patient Business Services Section of Valley
Medical Center and to the Accounting Section of the Mental
Health Bureau;
Compile a retroactive list of SSI approvals between 1986 and 1988
containing the same information and documentation as described
in the previous recommendation. Because social security award
notices are not available for SSI approvals prior to January 1988,
copies of DSS forms SSP-14 which specify the date of retroactive
Medi-Cal eligibility should be substituted to document the
retroactive date. The retroactive list with attached documentation
should be transmitted to VMC and Mental Health as portions are
completed;
Prepare a supplemental appropriation request to fund an
expansion of the SSI-advocacy program as described in this
section and to compile the retroactive list of SSI approvals and the
supporting documentation;
Submit annual reports to the Board of Supervisors including
revenues, expenditures, and other data to allow for the ongoing
monitoring of the SSI-advocacy program.
It is recommended that the Department of Social Services - VMC
Unit:
Prepare a supplemental appropriation request to fund additional
eligibility worker staffing to process retroactive Medi-Cal claims
as specified in this section;
It is recommended that the Valley Medical Center and the Mental
Health Bureau:
Review and prepare retroactive Medi-Cal bills for cases referred
from the Department of Social Services - SSI Advocacy Program
as appropriate.
Prepare a supplemental appropriation request to fund the costs of
processing retroactive Medi-Cal bills; described in this section.
It is recommended that the County Counsel:
Prepare a supplemental appropriation request to fund a full time
paralegal position and an additional 462 attorney hours for the
expansion of the SSI advocacy program as described in this
section.
-86-
-
..
o
J
SAVINGSfBENEFIT:
The implementation of these recommendations would result in
increased revenues and reduced expenditures as shown in the table below.
In addition, a 100 percent increase in the amount of legal and other
assistance provided to disabled General Assistance recipients would be
realized, resulting in a 60 percent increase in the number of disability
app!ications approved by the Social Security Administration.
-87-
-
.
0 0
CD 1<'1
M "<j' ,gj
r-- 0 t-:.
q M ...... I......
r-- CD CD 0>
0 I ~ <0 10
~ ...... ......- ......
..-< 0>
, ul; 0
r--
0) C') C')
r-- 10 <Xl.
00 ~ C')
0) <'I
00 ......
* ..-<
*
:>.
aI. r-- ~ i r-- ~m 0
i~ C') ~ ~ 0
<0 10
t-= .... "<j'- ..-<
~ ~ ~ .... *
!l a. * '"'
0
g,g bll
r::
~J .~
il r-- I I , ,
<0 al
C'l to
C"S 0
.... '"'
.... ~
]1' *
'"'
l'- .s
...c
..9l ;:l
l~ 0> ~
~ 0> 0> 0 El
C')
<0 r~ t-= 0
l! .~ca .... (J
<0- D C'l "<j' '"'
J~~~ C'l 0> <0 cE
r-- <0 ..-<
. , . ....
-a] C') C') C') '"
0) <0 0) 0
~~ 00 10 C') (J
r~ t-= r1; 0; r::
.... 0
10 .... 0
.~
* ..-< ....
al
* ....
r::
wlil '" a>
a> El
'"' a>
;:l -
.... S-
.~
-0
r:: .~
a> a>
~ El
a> :0
,
-0 '" '" a>
.... .... r::
a> '" '"
(J 0 :> 0 0
;:l 0 0 al
-0 a>
a> r:: P:: r:: a>
~ 0 0 -0
:0 "'C :0 ;:l
;:l a> -
al '" al (J
r:: .... al .... r::
a> r:: a> r:: .~
:> a> '"' a>
a> El tJ El ....
'"' r:: 0
a> .... a>.... r::
"'C - tl:l ..... -tl:l
a> S- a> a> ~a> '"
bll'" r:: S El r:: a>
r::al ..... a> .....a> 0
.- c:l
.~ a> '" ~ E-< ",1Il
0,",
blltJ '" .... , "'.... al
r:: r:: a> a> a> a> a>
H Z r:: HZ
0..... 0
. .
-
o
:)
ll.4 DSS cmr.n DEPENDENCY SERVICES
THE COUNTY COUNSEL REPRESENTS THE
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES IN
APPROXIMATELY 3400 CURRENTLY OPEN CHILD
DEPENDENCY CASES HEARD IN JUVENILE COURT,
SUPERIOR COURT AND STATE APPELLATE COURT.
DUE TO INADEQUATE STAFFING, INAPPROPRIATE
OFFICE LOCATION AND UNDER UTILIZATION AND
DEVELOPMENT OF COMPUTERIZED OFFICE
MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, THE COUNTY COUNSEL
MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, THE COUNTY COUNSEL
HAS BEEN HAMPERED IN THE DELIVERY OF THESE
SERVICES. AS A RESULT, INADEQUATE CASE
PREPARATION OCCURS, LEGAL ADVISORY SERVICES
ARE UNTIMELY, OVER 500 ATrORNEY HOURS ARE
WASTED ANNUALLY IN TRANSIT TO AND FROM
COURT AND THE INTERNAL OFFICE MANAGEMENT
OF THIS CASELOAD IS INEFFICIENT. BY
AUTHORIZING AN ADDITIONAL ATTORNEY
POSITION, PROVIDING SUFFICIENT OFFICE SPACE
FOR THE COUNTY COUNSEL IN TIlE NEW FAMILY
COURTS FACILITY AND ENHANCING THE
DEPENDENCY CASE TRACKING SYSTEM. THESE
PROBLEMS COULD BE ALLEVIATED AT A GENERAL
FuND.COSTOF ABOur$40,156.
DSS-DenAnt1An~ Ca..<;e Attorney j;lmffinl"
The Department of Social Services (DSS) is the largest single client of the
County Counsel's office, 'purchasing approximately 12,000 attorney hours
annually or more than 20 percent of the entire County Counsel's office services
The bulk of these services are devoted to representation of the Department of Social
Services at court hearings and trials involving child dependency cases. Currently
there are about 3,400 open cases which are assigned to approximately 200 social
workers. Due to very explicit statutory provisions in the State Welfare and
Institutions Code, extensive legal proceedings are required in juvenile court
which has three courts assigned on a full time basis to hear these matters. In
addition, trials lasting a day or longer are heard in downtown Superior Court and
occupy one courtroom on approximately a full time basis. Lastly, a significant
number of cases are appealed to the State Appellate Court where the County
Counsel represents DSS in such appeals.
-89-
-
o
o
.
. Based on an analysis of County Counsel time records for the six months
from January through June 1988 for the attorneys assigned to DSS - dependency
cases, approximately 80 percent to 84 percent of their time was spent in or
assigned to court. By comparison, the reported amount of attorney time spent in
court, in five other counties surveyed on this issue, including Alameda, Orange,
Sacramento, San Diego and San Francisco, ranged from 50 percent to 75 percent.
The burden of devoting such a high proportion of time to court impacts other
areas of each attorney's responsibilities. In the available 16 percent to 20 percent
of their time, which equates to 6.4 to 8.0 hours per week, each attorney must
prepare for court including interviewing clients and witnesses, reviewing reports
and doing research; collectively they must provide advisory services to about 200
social workers and their supervisors regarding legal issues which arise daily in
the management of these cases; and lastly, they must handle the preparation of
Civil Code Section 232 petitions and other court documents, as well as represent
the Department at the State Appellate Court on all cases that are appealed.
Because of the general inaccessibility of the DSS legal staff, the Department of
Social Services staff, supervisors and management have expressed dissatisfaction
with this aspect of County Counsel services. Based on observations these
complaints are valid. It is typical for DSS attorneys to return to their offices at the
end of the day to find 15 to 20 messages related to phone calls from DSS staff. If
more staff were available to the County Counsel the attorneys could staff an office
at DSS one day per week on a regularly scheduled rotational basis to be more
available to DSS staff. Further, an additional position would enable the County
Counsel to reduce average court time per attorney to a level of about 75 percent
which would provide more time for preparation of responses to appeals and the
other activities described above. A secondary impact of the current workload of
this unit, which in an empirical manner validates its excessiveness, has been the
resignation of one attorney and the transfer of another attorney in order to avoid a
resignation. It should be noted that the addition of one Attorney would bring the
County Counsel's staffing to a level approximately equivalent to the lowest of the
five counties surveyed (75 percent court time). The consensus of the five counties
surveyed regarding a reasonable proportion of Attorney time assigned to Court
duty was 50 percent. ..~
Inefficiencv of the Current ('A)untv Coun~l Office Location for DSS-Deuendencv
Case Attornevs
Another impediment to the delivery of services by the DSS-child dependency
cases attorneys is the inappropriateness of their office location. Three attorneys
are required to staff three courtrooms in the juvenile court building on Guadalupe
Street near Hedding Street on a daily basis. Because the County Counsel's offices,
records and support staff are located at 70 Wes! Hedding Street, each day three
attorneys must carry or cart 20 to 30 files to the juvenile court building requiring
at least one and sometimes two round trips per day. As a result, it is estimated
that over 500 attorney hours are wasted each year walking between court and the
County administration building. In addition if the County Counsel's DSS-staff
had an adequate office in the court facility for the attorneys, their case records and
support staff more productive use could be made of idle court time due to delays,
recesses, etc. Presently, office facilities in the court building are only available for
-90-
-
o
()
the District Attorney and the Public Defender. However, a proposed new family
courts' facility will have adequate room for six attorneys, three support staff and
case files so that the County Counsel's DSS-Child Dependency Unit can be
relocated to that site when it is available. Based on current projections this facility
could be available by January I, 1990.
Enlum.....mput of the ComDutP.ri7'M Cac;e Trap-kin... SYStem
In order to manage the estimated 3,400 open dependency cases, the County
Counsel's -Office has developed a case tracking system which identifies the child's
name, the social worker's name, the date the case was opened.etc.. However, this
information is not used for developing trial or court calendars or generating other
management information. No reports are generated from this system for any of
the attorneys or the Chief Deputy to manage these cases or to monitor workload.
Further it has never been purged to segregate or eliminate closed cases. By
modifying this computer system to include case status, the next hearing date, the
type of hearing and the court assigned, several management applications could be
developed.
Currently, a manual court trial calendar is maintained by the Chief
Deputy Attorney through input from each attorney who report future trials on a
multi-part form designed for that purpose. However due to omissions and the
lack of procedures to identify omissions, errors in this calendar can and have
caused disruptions in assignments. If information on all future court hearings
including trials, the court dates and the court rooms was entered into the system
on a daily basis, the County Counsel could generate its own calendar for each
court a week or even a month in advance and the calendar could be updated daily
or as often as necessary. To implement an internal calendaring system, clerical
staff would need to update the computer daily from the case status information
which each attorney currently records on a cover sheet included in each case file.
Once this case status information was entered into the computer a sort by
date and courtroom could automatically generate calendars; a sort of cases with
the current status designated as trial pending would automatically generate a
trial calendar. In addition, a wide variety of management information could be
obtained including:
· The number and listing of open cases
· The number and listing of cases awaiting the filing of '232' petitions
. The number and listing of cases awaiting the filing of guardianship
petitions
· The number and listing of closed cases by year
-91-
-
Q
o
-
. The generation of this information would allow the Chief Deputy to monitor
workload and equalize assignments, to improve planning for staffing during
periods of high demand, to monitor the status of '232' petitions awaiting to be filed
and to monitor court deadlines and the status of cases on appeal. In addition, by
generating court calendars in advance, support staff can locate and review files to
verify that any case reports or other documents have been received, or if not
received, to obtain them in advance of the court date for the attorneys.
CQ~CLUSION:
The County Counsel's DSS-Child Dependency Unit has a significant
court case load which requires proportionately more court time than any of
five oth~r counties surveyed. This court time impedes the ability of the
attorneys to do sufficient case preparation, to provide advisory services to
DSS staff on a timely basis and to represent the Department on appeals
before the State Appellate Court. In addition the current County Counsel
office location is inefficient and the office's computerized case tracking
system is under utilized and under developed.
RECOMMENDATIONS;
It is recommended that the County Counsel:
Request an additional attorney position to staff the DSS - Child
Dependency Unit. If approved, consideration should be given to
staffing a legal office at the Department of Social Services one day
per week. It should be noted that if approved, this position would
provide Attorney staffing for this function equivalent to the lowest
of five counties surveyed.
Enhance the computerized DSS - case tracking system to generate
management reports, to monitor cases and workload and to
prepare court and trial calendars.
It is recommended that the Superior Court:
- Allocate sufficient space for the County Counsel's DSS-Child
Dependency Unit attorneys, sport staff, records and equipment in
the new family courts facility.
SAVINGSlBENEFIT.i
The implementation of these recommendations would result in
improved legal services to the Department of Social Services, the more
efficient use of County Counsel attorney time, and greater managerial
control over these cases and related staffing issues. The cost of an attorney
position is estimated to amount to $80,311 annually of which approximately
50 percent or $40,156 would be reimbursed by State and federal funds.
-92-
-
o
()
111.1 TORT DEFENSE LITIGATION
IN FY 1987-88, SANTA CLARA COUNTY AND THE
TRANSIT DISTRICT PURCHASED APPROXIMATELY
$700,000 WORTH OF CONTRACT ATTORNEY
SERVICES TO SUPPLEMENT LEGAL SERVICES
PROVIDED BY COUNTY COUNSEL FOR TORT
DEFENSE. WITH THE EXCEPTION OF
APPROXIMATELY $165,000 EXPENDED FOR
CONTRACT COUNSEL TO REPRESENT THE COUNTY
IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CLAIMS, THESE CASES
DID NOT REQUIRE SPECIAL LEGAL EM"J!OK.l"iSE TO BE
SUCCESSFULLY LITIGATED, NOR DID CONFLICT OF
INTEREST CmCUMSTANCES EXIST WHICH WOULD
HAVE PROHmITED COUNTY COUNSEL FROM
PROVIDING LEGAL REPRESENTATION. BY ADDING
SUFFICIENT COUNTY COUNSEL ATTORNEYS,
PARALEGALS AND CLERICAL SUPPORT STAFF TO
ABSORB A MAJOR PORTION OF THE CONTRACTOR
WORKLOAD AND ESTABT.T~G PROCEDURES FOR
MONITORING CASE ACTIVITY, THE COUNTY AND
TRANSIT DISTRICT COULD AlIl1.lJ!;v'E NET SAVINGS
OF ATLEAST $180,000 PER YEAR IN LEGAL COSTS.
Section A22-16 of the Santa Clara County Ordinance Code identifies the
County Counsel as the "legal officer of the departments, institutions, boards,
commissions and districts of the County government". To accomplish this
charge, the Office of the County Counsel employs 33 attorneys, nine paralegal
technicians and 30 clerical and administrative support staff at a FY 1989 budgeted
cost of $4.3 million. In FY 1987-88, the County and the Transit District also
purchased over $1.4 million worth of contract attorney services through the
County Counsel to supplement the activities of County attorneys.
According to the County Counsel, contract attorneys are employed by the
Office:
. In circumstances where representation by County Counsel attorneys
constitutes a conflict of interest;
. When lawsuits require special legal expertise which the County Counsel
believes his staff does not possess; and,
. When the County Counsel believes his staff would be unable to adequately
represent clients due to attorney unavailability.
In FY 1987-88, approximately $700,000 of the cost for contract legal counsel was
due to instances of conflict of interest or the need for special expertise. Of the
remaining $700,000 in contract attorney expenses, $165,000 was expended in
defense of medical malpractice claims against the County and $535,000 was
expended for general litigation, automobile liability and Transit District tort
defense.
-93-
1""\
\...........-'
o
.
Ca-reload A'lSil!l1ment and C.-osts
A wide variety of tort claims are filed against the County of Santa Clara and
the Transit District. Most common are claims for medical malpractice; assault
and battery; unsafe road conditions; injuries and property damage occurring on
property and in facilities and vehicles owned by the County and Transit District;
and, vehicular accidents. Depending on the amount of exposure and merits of
each individual case, the involvement of legal counsel can vary significantly.
All-'costs for tort defense are paid by County departments, the Transit
District and other special districts through the General Services Agency (GSA)
Insurance Risk Management Division. Prior to FY 1983-84, County Counsel did
not represent the County, Transit or special districts in tort litigation; rather,
these legal services were purchased exclusively from contract attorneys and law
firms.
Beginning in FY 1983-84, County Counsel began to provide some legal
services directly to GSA for tort defense. In that year, approximately 11 percent of
the cost to GSA for attorney services were billed by County Counsel. By FY 1987-
88, this amount had increased to approximately 19 percent. Although services
provided by contract attorneys reflected 81 percent of total tort litigation costs, only
54 percent of all tort cases referred by GSA Insurance were assigned to contract
legal counsel in FY 1987-88; the remaining 46 percent were retained by County
Counsel. -
The difference between caseload assignment and legal costs (i.e. contract
counsel receiving 54 percent of the cases but billing 81 percent of the costs) has
occurred principally as a direct result of County Counsel case assignment policies
and the following factors:
. The base hourly billing rate charged to GSA by County Counsel is
approximately 11 percent less than those charged by the contract law firms.
· County Counsel utilizes paralegal technicians for researching legal issues
and preparing legal documents to a greater degree than do contract law
firms. The lower salaries paid to these individuals reduces the average
hourly billing rate charged to GSA by County Counsel.
. Cases retained by County Counsel are often those which require less
involvement by legal staff than others, resulting in a lower average case
cost for County Counsel than for contract attorneys.
County Counsel's increased involvement in tort litigation reflects an effort by the
Office to reduce overall litigation costs to the County. However, opportunity
continues to exist to reduce the level of contract attorney services further, which
could result in significant savings to the County and Transit District.
-94-
o
C>
A'lsi..-nnient of InM"P.ased Cac;eload to (',ountv Connc;el
Discussions with representatives from the County Counsel's Office indicate
that a significant portion of the cases presently assigned to contract counsel could
be retained by County Counsel if sufficient attorney and paralegal staff were
approved for the Office. Although it would be necessary to retain contract
attorneys for conflict cases, special litigation cases and certain cases which would
require extreme involvement by counsel (for example, in cases where a lengthy
jury trial-is anticipated), a significant portion of contract attorney services could
be reduced.
We believe that approximately $535,000 worth of contract attorney services,
out of more than $1.4 million in total services purchased by the County in FY 1987-
88, could be replaced by County Counsel attorneys and paralegal support.'
Specifically, the additional caseload would include:
. Approximately 25 percent of all medical malpractice litigation currently
assigned to contract attorneys. Typically, County Counsel would
assume responsibility for the less complex cases and act as co-counsel
with contract attorneys on other more complex litigation. Discussions
with County Counsel management indicates that in addition to the cost
savings which would occur, County Counsel attorneys would be
provided with increased exposure to this category of litigation and be
better able to respond to inquiries by the Board of Supervisors and other
County managers regarding settlement decisions and other matters.
. Approximately 80 percent of all general and automobile liability cases
currently assigned to contract attorneys. This would permit the
continuation of attorney contracts to represent the County in conflict and
other special litigation circumstances.
. Approximately 75 percent of all Transit District tort litigation currently
assigned to contract attorneys. As with general and automobile liability,
this would permit the continuation of attorney contracts to represent the
District in conflict and special litigation circumstances.
GSA and County Counsel management have advised us that several of the contract law firms
which are assigned tort litigation have contacted the County regarding restructuring and
increasing their rates. To the extent the County agrees to any rate modifications, these costs
would increase. To the extent such costs increase. so would the savings from implementation
of recommendations in this finding. The last rate increase given to contracting law firms
was in April, 1986.
-95-
~ -
-
o
-
o
Based on an analysis of contract counsel billings, approximately four full
time equivalent (FTE) legal positions and clerical support would be necessary for
County Counsel to assume this increased workload.2 Discussions with the Chief
Deputy County Counsel who manages the Office's Litigation Section indicates the
following specific staffing would be required:
No. Pos. :.I:itk
-3~0 Attorney IV
1.0 Paralegal Technicians
2.0 Secretary I
0.5 Clerk Typist
Total All Positions
~
$24O,934a
34,509
64,741
13.631
$353,815
a Estimated at Attorney IV, Step 3.
Based on these projected costs, the County and the Transit District would save an
estimated $180,000 annually by providing these services directly. This would
equate to $140,000 savings for the County and $40,000 savings for the Transit
District annually.
Litil!'ation Monitorirnt
The GSA Insurance Risk Management Division is responsible for
administering all personal injury and property damage claims against the
County and the Transit District. If a claim is not settled prior to the filing of a
lawsuit, claims adjusters monitor the progress of the case and confer with the
attorney assigned to represent the County or the District. It is essential that GSA
Insurance be sufficiently advised of case status for several reasons:
.
To be provided with sufficient information to continually assess the
risk to the County or Transit District and the adequacy of insurance
reserves established for the claim;
To insure that the claim is settled as quickly as possible and in the best
interests of the County;
To insure that all County policies regarding claim settlement are
followed.
.
.
2 Included in these staffing projections are sufficient positions to implement an enhanced
litigation monitoring program, discussed below.
-96-
-
o
<)
On November 19, 1986, the County Executive reported to the Board of
Supervisors regarding the feasibility of transferring the GSA Insurance Risk
Management Division to the County Counsel's Office. At that time, it was
recommended that the Division remain a part of GSA -- a recommendation with
which we agree. It was also indicated that through the implementation of
policies and procedures and a greater team approach to the claims management
function, communications between Insurance and County Counsel would be
improved.
Currently, policies and procedures regarding interaction between these two
Departments are being developed. In addition, efforts have been made to improve
communications between the two Departments with periodic meetings between
attorney and adjuster staff and occasional written status reports provided by
attorneys.
However, discussions with both Departments indicates that the systems
established at this time are inadequate for the Insurance Risk Management
Division to properly accomplish the objectives stated above. It is the strong belief
by GSA Insurance staff that one benefit from using contract counsel is that they
provide more regular and more thorough reports to the adjusters than does
County Counsel.
Included in our staffing recommendations for County Counsel is an
estimate of the additional staffing needed to provide the information necessary for
GSA to adequately monitor County Counsel cases. Based on our
recommendations, we believe County Counsel would be adequately staffed to
provide:
. Initial reports on all claims assigned to County Counsel attorneys
within 30 to 45 days of receipt which would include analysis and a
proposed plan of action.
. Quarterly written summaries on all cases assigned to County
Counsel where significant activity has occurred, such as the filing of
documents with the court, the taking of a deposition or substantive
discussions with the plaintiff which impact settlement. Emphasis
would be placed on those cases with a high dollar exposure and those
which may be precedent setting.
. Bi-annual written reports on all cases with limited activity or no
activity by the plaintiff.
. Verbal notification of changes in case status affecting damages or
potential liability during interim periods.
. Access to County Counsel case files when requested by Insurance
staff.
-97 -
-
- -
-
Q
o
.
County Counsel and GSA Insurance should immediately develop formal
policies and procedures for a comprehensive monitoring program which
incorporates these minimum reporting standards. Once additional staff
recommended in this finding are approved by the Board of Supervisors, such
monitoring procedures should be implemented. Until such time as this occurs,
the two departments should continue efforts to communicate regarding tort
claims to the extent possible given current staffing assignments.
CONCLUSION:
-.
In FY 1987-88, Santa Clara County and the Transit District
purchased approximately $700,000 worth of contract attorney services to
supplement legal services provided by county counsel for tort defense. With
the exception of approximately $165,000 expended for contract counsel to
represent the County in medical malpractice claims, these cases did not
require special legal expertise to be successfully litigated, nor did conflict of
interest circumstances exist which would have prohibited County Counsel
from providing legal representation. By adding sufficient County Counsel
attorneys, paralegals and support staff to absorb a major portion of the
contractor workload, and establishing procedures for monitoring case
activity, the County and Transit District could achieve net savings of at least
$180,000 per year in legal costs.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
We recommend that the Board of Supervisors:
· Authorize the following positions and funding for the Office of the
County Counsel:
Positions Title ~
3.0 Attorney IV $240,934
1.0 Paralegal Technician 34,509
2.0 Secretary I 64,741
0.5 Clerk Typist 13.631
Total All Positions $353,815
We recommend that the Office of the County Counsel and GSA
Insurance Risk Management Division:
· Immediately develop formal policies and procedures for a
comprehensive monitoring program which incorporates
minimum reporting standards discussed in this report.
-98-
o
()
SAVINGSlBENEFIT:
The County would save an estimated $140,000 annually and the
Transit District would save an estimated $40,000 annually in the cost of
contract legal counsel, net of expenses for County Counsel attorneys.
Claims monitoring and administration would be improved.
-99-
o
o
IV.l BAILBoNDFoRFElTImR~
THE COUNTY COUNSEL IS RESPONSffiLE FOR
COlLECTING SUMMARY JUDGMENTS ON BAIL BOND
FORFEITURES FOR THE SUPEmORAND MUNICIPAL
COURTS. DUE TO INADEQUATE MONITORING AND
RECORD KEEPING AND POOR COORDINATION
BETWEEN THE COURTS AND THE COUNTY
COUNSEL'S OFFICE, ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1988 97
SUMMARY,JUDGMENTS AMOUNTING TO $434,463
INCLUDING UNPAID INTEREST WERE
UNCOLLECTED. TwENTY-ONE OF THESE
SUMMARY JUDGMENTS VALUED AT $73,405 HAD
BEEN ALLOWED TO GO UNCOlLECTED FOR MORE
THAN TWO YEARS THEREBY EXPIRING AND
MAKING THE COLLECTABILITY OF THESE
JUDGMENTS UNCERTAIN. OF MORE THAN 200
SUMMARY JUDGMENTS ORDERED SINCE 1986,
THIRTEEN SUMMARY JUDGMENTS VALUED AT
$26,397 HAD NEVER BEEN TRANSMITTED BY THE
MUNICIPAL COURT TO THE COUNTY COUNSEL'S
OFFICE FOR COlLECTION. Nl!a:.ll::l.lm THE SUPERIOR
NOR THE MUNICIPAL COURT COLLECTS THE
INTEREST PERMITTED BY STAT:g LAW ON
SUMMARY JUDGMENTS WHEN THEY ARE PAID AND
BOTH THE COURTS AND THE SHERIFF CONTINUE
TO ACCEPT BAIL BONDS FROM BONDING
COMPANIES WITH OUTSTANDING SUMMARY
JUDGMENTS IN VIOLATION OF THE PENAL CODE.
By DEVELOPING AND IMPLEMENTING
APPROPRIATE PROCEDURES AND TRANSFERRING
CERTAIN COLLECTION RESPONSmILITIES TO THE
DEPARTMENT .OF REVENUE, THE COUNTY
COUNSEL AND THE..cOURTS CAN FULLY COLLECT
FUTURE JUDGMENTS RESULTING IN INCREASED
REVENUES ESTIMATED TO AMOUNT TO
APPROXIMATELY $48,000 ANNUALLY AND ONE-
TIME REVENUES ESTIMATED AT $560,000 TO BE
DISTRIBUTED B~TWJ!;EN THE COUNTY AND THE
LOCAL ARRESTING AGENCIES.
The County Counsel is responsible for the collection of all summary
judgments on bail bond forfeitures for the Superior and Municipal Courts in
accordance with Penal Code Section 1306. Based on a review of County Counsel
records in April of 1986, the County Counsel had not collected 48 summary
judgments valued at $128,018 excluding accumulated interest. A current review
of the same records in the County Counsel's Office and the San Jose Division of
the Municipal Court revealed that the volume and value of uncollected summary
-100-
o
c>
judgments had grown to 97 totalling $394,748 plus $39,715 in accumulated interest
as shown below in Table 18:
Table 18
Comparison ofUnoollected SummAry Judgments
April 1986 to Ocioher 1988
SummAry Judgments April 1986 Orinher 1988
ExD1nnO' Within- Nllm~ Value Number Value
Expired 7 $25,145 21 $57,393
0-90 days 3 7,750 7 21,210
91-180 days 5 12,750 4 8,500
181-360 days 11 26,315 17 66,649
361-730 days ~ 56.058 -Aa 240.996
Total 48 $l28.018 m $394,748
In addition to the overall growth in outstanding 5" mTn llry judgments,Table
17 above, identifies 21 summary judgments in the County Counsel's open files
that expired without collection, resulting in the loss of $57,393 plus $16,012 in
uncollected interest.
In accordance with provisions of the Penal Code, summary judgments not
collected within two years from the date of entry of judgment expire.
Consequently, it is important for the County Counsel's Office, which has the
collections responsibility, to actively monitor the status of all judgments until
collection is effected. In order to do this, a computer based tracking system would
enable support staff to most efficiently compile the relevant information on each
judgment, to monitor collection efforts and to compute interest charges.
Appendix VII includes two summary judgment monitoring reports which were
developed to conduct this analysis. By scanning the report entitled, 'Analysis of
S11mmllry Judgments by Days-Remaining to Expiration,' the collection efforts of
the County's Counsel's Office could be focused on those judgments nearest
expiration. For example, the 511mm,,,y on page three of that report indicates that
seven judgments amounting to $25,212 were due to expire within 90 days from the
date of the report and another four valued at an additional $9,866 would expire
within 180 days. The report also indicates the S11mmAry judgments for which no
demand letter has been sent. It revealed that no demand letter was sent for 30
summary judgments or 31 percent of the 97 S11mmllry judgments. The report
entitled 'Analysis of Summary Judgments by Surety Company', summarizes the
judgments by insurance company. It shows that four insurance companies each
had 12 to 32 outstanding summary judgments totalling from $40,572 to $159,368.
The courts and the Sheriff were continuing to honor bail bonds from three of these
four companies in violation of Penal Code Section 1308 which states, "No court or
magistrate shall accept any person or corporation as surety on bail if any
summary judgment against any person or corporation entered pursuant to
Section 1306 rem"inll unpaid after the expiration of 20 days after service of notice
of the entry of S11Tnmllry judgment..... The software used to generate both of the
-101-
I"""l
'--
-
o
above reports including all of the data entered into the system for this analysis is
available to the Department, without cost at their request.
Most of the previously described problems were caused by poor record
keeping, inadequate control systems and insufficient monitoring by responsible
staff and management, however, other problems resulted from inadequate or
nonexistent procedures and a lack of coordination between the courts and the
County Counsel's Office. A review of the bail bond forfeiture register of the San
Jose Division of the Municipal Court identified 13 summary judgments totalling
$26,397 inCluding interest which had not been paid within 20 days after the date of
entry of the judgment and no notification of nonpayment had been sent to the
County Counsel. Although none of these judgments had expired, eight had
approximately eight months remaining until expiration. Since 1987 the
Municipal court has had detailed procedures for processing summary
judgments. Consequently, the failure to adequately process these 13 summary
judgments is probably attributable in part to staff turnover. Currently, the Court
reports that all summary judgments are being fully and correctly processed. In
addition to the processing problems, discussions with supervisors in both
Superior and Municipal Court confirmed that neither court computes and
charges interest on unpaid judgments despite the provisions of Sections 685.010
and 685..020 of the Code of Civil Procedure which specify that interest accrues at
the rate of 10 percent from the date of entry of judgment.
Inadeauate Policies and Procedures
All of the aforementioned problems can be corrected by implementing
specific policies and procedures. The inability of the County Counsel to collect
monies due on all judgments prior to their expiration could be remedied by
implementation of a computerized monitoring system. The Court's inability to
refer all unpaid summary judgments to the County Counsel in a timely manner
could be remedied by more carefully following existing procedures for the Court
staff to periodically audit the bond forfeiture register to ensure that notices of
payment of summary judgments are sent to the County Counsel immediately
following receipt of payment. All notices should include the court case number,
the date of payment, the amount of principal, the amount of interest, the bond
number, the name of the insurance company and the name of the defendant.
Although there were actually 97 summary judgments amounting to $434,463
outstanding as of September 30, 1988, the County Counsel's records indicated that
there were 162 summary judgments amounting to $719,514 including interest
which were uncollected at that time. Sixty-five summary judgments amounting
to $285,051 had been paid or set aside by the courts but County Counsel had not
been advised of such actions.
Although a Deputy Counsel is assigned legal responsibility for collection of
summary judgments, the day-to-day collection activities are performed by a
clerical staff member. This function is managed as an ancillary duty of a legal
stenographer whose primary responsibility is to provide clerical and support
services to several attorneys on the County Counsel staff. Therefore, the
summary judgment collection function, which has a two-year expiration
-102-
o
c>
timeline, has a low priority when compared with the daily deadlines of preparing
legal documents for court and preparing contracts, correspondence, memos and
other materials which also have daily deadlines to be met. To exacerbate the
situation, there are few written policies and procedures to govern and guide the
operations of the collection function and the procedures which have been
developed are inadequate. Consequently, there are insufficient written standards
as to what actions should be taken or when they should be taken. There are no
periodic reports prepared to age summary judgments and trigger further
collection actions. There are no periodic reports generated to monitor the total
volume of outstanding summary judgments and to advise County Counsel
administration and the Courts of their status. There are no reports generated by
either the Courts or the County Counsel which could be shared in order to validate
the ongoing list of outstanding judgments. County Counsel does not know on a
day-to-day basis if it has received all uncollected summary judgments or if it has
been advised of all payments made on outstanding summary judgments.
Following the April 1986 management audit of the Municipal Court, the Court
requested approval of an automated bail bond system which had been
recommended in part to address these control issues. To date this system has not
yet been funded and implemented.
These problems related to the collection of summary judgments on bond
forfeitures have been responsible for, or contributed to the loss of monies resulting
from both the expiration of summary judgments and the non-collection of interest
charges. Since the function is primarily a collection function rather than a legal
one, it could be accomplished more efficiently and effectively by the Department of
Revenue which specializes in this area. The Department of Revenue (DOR)
should utilize the reports shown in Appendix VII or similar reports to monitor
the collection progress on outstanding summary judgments. Copies of these
reports should be sent to the Gounty Counsel monthly so that the County
Counsel's Office can exercise proper oversight over this responsibility. DOR
should also notify the Superior and Municipal Courts and the Sheriff when a
surety company has not paid a summary judgment within 20 days following the
date of the judginent so that these agencies can comply with Penal Code Section
1308 by discontinuing to honor bail bonds from such companies. When instances
arise where DOR requires legal assistance, the County Counsel could provide
such services. In order to comply with Penal Code Section 1306, the County
Counsel should retain responsibility for this function by contracting with the
Department of Revenue.
Corrective Actions bv the County Counsel
Upon advisement of this problem on September 30, 1988, the County
Counsel's Office took immediate action to collect the 97 outstanding summary
judgments. Due to continuous, forceful efforts, $199,812 has been collected since
that time. These collections include interest charges of $11,696.
-103-
()
- - - - -
-
0
. CONCLUSION:
The processing and collection procedures used to enforce summary
judgments on bail bond forfeitures are in need of improvement in order to
ensure the collection of all summary judgments in a timely manner, to
ensure the collection of interest charges and to minimize losses due to the
expiration of judgments.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is recommended that the Superior and Municipal Courts:
Develop and implement procedures to periodically audit their
bond forfeiture registers to ensure that County Counsel is notified
on a timely basis when 20 days have elapsed from the date
summary judgments are entered; In court facilities where
procedures exist, such procedures should be followed more
carefully and monitored by supervisory staff;
Develop and implement procedures to ensure that the County
Counsel is notified immediately upon receipt of payment on
outstanding summary judgments; In court facilities where
procedures exist, such procedures should be followed more
carefully and monitored by supervisory staff;
Comply with the Code of Civil Procedure sections 685.010 and
685.020 and charge interest at the rate of ten percent from the date
of entry of judgment on all summary judgments on bond
forfeitures;
Comply with Penal Code Section 1308 by discontinuing the
acceptance of bail bonds from companies with summary
judgments outstanding more than 20 days;
It is recommended that the County Counsel:
Contract with the Department of Revenue to assume the collection
and monitoring functions on summary judgments under the
direction of the County Counsel's Office and in accordance with
policies and procedures to be specified by the County Counsel.
Such policies and procedures should include the notification of the
courts and the Sheriff by DOR or the County Counsel when bail
bonds of surety companies should no longer be honored pursuant
to Penal Code Section 1308.
-104-
-
... --
-
o
o
SAVINGSIBENEFIT
The implementation of these recommendations would result in
increased and more timely collection of summary judgments, the collection
of interest charges on summary judgments, improved record keeping and
control over the summary judgment collection function and compliance
with State law. Increased collections are estimated to amount to
approximately $48,000 annually and about $560,000 on a one-time basis
($200,000 of these one-time revenues have already been collected). These
revenues would be distributed between the County and the corresponding
local agencies which made the original arrests. In addition, the
Department of Revenue would experience increased costs to process the
collection of these summary judgments while the County Counsel would
realize the benefit of additional legal secretary and attorney time previously
devoted to this activity.
-105-
-
-
-
-
r--.
~
o
Appendix I
Page I of II
PERMANENT STAFFING
Ratio 01
Total Support Business DIvision
Number 01 Attorneys Staff to Supervise
Permanent Paralegals Clerlcall Professional Legal
Countv Staff Law Clerks SUDDort Staff Established Secretaries
ALAMEDA 32 22 10 -0.45 no N/A
CONTRA COSTA 2if' 18 8 0.44 yes yes
FRESNO 24 16 8 0.50 yes yes
LOS ANGELES 238 127 111 0.87 yes no
(a)
ORANGE 69 39 30 0.77 yes yes
RIVERSIDE 44 26 18 0.69 yes no
-
SACRAMENTO 43 30 13 0.43 yes yes
SAN 40 22 18 0.82 no N/A
BERNARDINO
SAN
FRANCISCO 174 105 69 0.66 yes no
SAN MATEO 32 20 12 0.60 no N/A
SANTA CLARA 68 43 25 0.58 no N/A
(b)
VENTURA 32 17 15 0.88 no N/A
(a) Based on positions listed on the revised 3/21/88 organization chan
(b) Excludes 3 positions dedicated to zoning Investigation
N/A: Information was not provided, was unknown or did not apply 10 the responding County
,nc
o
()
Appendix I
Page L of !J
-
CONTRACT STAFFING
Use of Contract Annual Cost of Contracts
Professionals FY 1986-87 FY 1987-88
Countu Allorneus Paralenals Allorneus Paralenals Allornevs Paraleaals
ALAMEDA as needed N/A $800,000 N/A $1,000,000 N/A
CONTRA COSTA NfA N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
FRESNO yes yas N/A N/A $29,280 N/A
$5,943,650 $5,914,212
LOS ANGELES yes yes . outside ally. $754,229 outside atty. $801,734
$1,547,557 $2,465,357
in.house attv. in.house attv.
ORANGE yes N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
(a)
RIVERSIDE yes N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
SACRAMENTO yes no 2-4 million $0 2-4 million $0
(b) (b)
SAN yes N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
BERNARDINO
SAN
FRANCISCO yes N/A N/A N/A 2-3 million N/A
SAN MATEO yes yes $25,000 $15,000 $50,000 $25,000
SANTA CLARA yes no 1.2 million N/A 1.4 million N/A
.
VENTURA yes no $75,000 $0 $125,000 $0
(limited) (2 cases) (2 cases)
(a) Not all coordinaled or monitored by County Counsel
(b) Total annual cost for FY 1986-87 and FY 1987.88 were 2-4 million per year
these figures are skewed by 1 or 2 cases
N/A: Information was not provided, was unknown or did not apply to the responding County
-107-
o
o
~
",lj
o 0
, ,.
00
00
-'
o
o
- "'3
.00
, ,
~88
<
-'
..
on
%
"
o
o
..
"
<
0:
..
%
o
"
"
%
<
-'
..
on
%
"
o
"
>-
..
%
"
o
"
>-
m
"
w
"
;;:
o
0:
0.
'"
..
"
;;
0:
..
on
-'
<
"
..
-'
on
z
o
;::
<
-'
..
0:
0:
o
m
<
-'
on
z c: .
o. .
t='a;
~ :: .
~~w
"'1
o 0
, ,
o 0
"0
o
c ... (;
_0_
. e ~-;:
;: c o~e
~ 0 01
~o~
%
0:
o
..
< on
0: 0.
......
on ..
z::C
i ~
" 0
<.
" ~
:; :
me
" 0
0."
"'1
o c
, ,
o 0
00
. -
.~:
-: s ~
A:o~
. .!!
z~.
o-:~::
~~.~!i
S:!~~~8
...~O
:JoG:
.. .
~:;uCi
u"of!~
:!:~8
~uf()
<
,. .
:: ~~ ~l
0::1--:;:1
00 !' ~ -Q
IUUl:OU
,. ..
c
.0--
E = :: :
>-.;E!j
jo::<38
iO ...
<
:::;
x
.
.. a:...
;t e . ~.., r
a:.>Sii~
~o~o~;;
w 0
" 0
Z C
o . 0
t=e;:
<-~
on .-,
~o::
0. ...
'"
o
"
on . .
0: E .
..,-;
~~.
0:"0:
o
~
Us
~ 0
c,
o 0
UU
.
X Q
.!! Illl
0: li
'"
!.
c
,
o
U
"
-,
",.
c .
g 5
0<3
~:
" 0
0'
<3<3
is
" c
c'
00
UO
<
"
..
'"
<
...
<
<
..
on
o
"
<
0:
...
%
o
"
",lj
o 0
, ,
00
uu
",1
o 0
, ,
00
uu
<
z
",1
o c
, ,
.3<3
",1
c c
, ,
<3<3
",1
!i !i
<3<3
1::
"0
c'
o 0
UU
'U.
..
"!i
~8
1i:
" 0
o '
00
uU
~i
~~
.3u
Us
~ c
c,
~8
is
" 0
0'
<3<3
o
",lj
o 0
, ,
o 0
Uu
",lj
o 0
, ,
o 0
uu
"'.
~ ~
o 0
Uu
2:-:
00
, ,
o 0
uu
"'1
c c
, ,
00
Uu
<
z
"'1
c 0
, ,
o 0
Uu
:.--
c . u :
gg:!i
O.lf:io
o.EUO
u
"'1
o c
, ,
<3<3
-
s.u.
c ~ .. _
6~~5
~co8
'0-0
u
'"
~~~l
00-::1
O.lf:5Q
050U
u
"'1
o c
6 6
Uu
..
z
eu-
:21!=
~c~
o~o
i:
"c
c ~
o 0
UU
eue
J1 l! .
J!-!i
c3~<3
'UCi
. .
J:; 5
c 0
<3u
-3i:
:i~5
c3c3<3
"'1
c 0
~ ~
<3<3
'"
I.u.
~.:2!!.
os_C
O~~E
0000
u
~
.
~:
o 0
u ~
o
..u
,~
'i.v-
1:." . =:
g.. b c
o..c:t
oc5~8
u
::. C i
!i~Ci
:J .0.
o .05
~~:CS
o_~
oc5~
<
z
o
%
on
..
0:
...
..
..
...
..
"
%
<
l!l
...
",lj
00
, ,
00
uu
",1
o 0
, ,
00
uu
",1
c 0
, ,
<3<3
",1
c 0
, ,
<3<3
",1
!i !i
<3<3
2>1
!i !i
<3<3
..
z
..
z
<
z
uj
~!i
~8
2>1
00
, ,
<3<3
::1
" 0
0'
c3<3
~-
d
c ,
o 0
UU
..
"
z
..
0:
o
",lj
o 0
, ,
o 0
uu
<
z
",1
c 0
, ,
o 0
uu
..,
2;0~ i:
~~~~
o ::J 0 u
<3u
",1
cc
, ,
<3<3
",1
c c
~ ~
c3<3
is
" c
c~
<3<3
ul
~ !i
~8
ui
! 5
~{j
ul
~ !i
~8
:;;'1
" c
c'
.3<3
:::
" c
c ,
<3<3
~-
l! :
_ c
c ~
.3<3
..
"
Ui
0:
..
>
ii:
",.
o .
S 5
u8
<
z
"'1
c c
, ~
<3<3
"'1
!i !i
.3<3
"'1
!i !i
<3<3
~-
l! :
- !i
58
i:
" !i
~8
i:
b 5
~8
ii
::: 5
~8
il
" c
c'
.3<3
il
" 0
0'
<3<3
:;;:
" 0
c ,
c3<3
o
...
z
..
,.
..
0:
"
..
..
-
",lj
o 0
, ,
o 0
Uu
ii
:: 5
~8
il
J:; 5
:;<3
u
il
'::'5
:;<3
u
il
::5-
~8-
.
X Q
.!! .
0: li
,.
is
" 0
0'
<3<3
.
~::
0: li
'"
o
%
a
%0:
....
onz
0:
..
..
",lj
o 0
, ,
o 0
uo
~:
o 0
, ,
o 0
uu
",lj
00
, ,
<3<3
us
: 5
:;<3
u
",1
!i !i
<3<3
",1
00
, ~
<3<3
~
.
~o
- ~
o~
;;:
o
u
z!!l
..u
",z
..
0:
...
o
~
.
~=
o~
<
~
.
!:-o
02
;;:
",.
o ~
, ,
o 0
Uu
<
z
uj
~ 0
c'
<3<3
..
z
"'3
00
, ,
o 0
Uu
..
z
"'3
!i !i
o 0
Uu
..
z
",.
o .
6 5
,,<3
~
.
"'0
- ~
oS
;;:
.
,,~
- .
0_
. ~
a..
.u
,.
..
z
.
" ~
- .
0_
. ~
a..
.u
,.
..
z
.
o ~
; .
0_
. ~
a..
.u
'"
...
.
"'0
- ~
oS
;;:
"3
o 0
, ~
<3<3
..
z
!:-3
o 0
, ,
8<3
".
o .
5 ~
u<3
..
z
"3
o 0
, ,
<3<3
-
~
Appendix I
Page j ot 8
-
",lj
o 0
, ,
o 0
Uu
~.
- .
o 0
, ,
o 0
Uu
~.
- .
o 0
, ,
o 0
""
~.
- .
o c
, ,
o 0
"u
"0
>o:i'U.
c-~-
~ i c: ~
u~8u
u
..,
0_
>0-0.
- ..
c:... c:
~ ~ c ~
u~:;o
U
"0
>o:io.
c. ~ ~
~ : c ~
o~8o
"
..,
o
>0<<10.
C - ~ ~
, :
o c: c: g
og~o
u
o.
. <<I _
. ~ 0
g c ~
oOu
u"
.
o
~ ~
o ~
.
.!:
>0.0: u..
c .. ~ -
,. 0
~ ; :; ~
~oo
o
..
..
..
,.
%
..
{Il
c
o
.::
~ .
. .
x 0
~ .
. ..
~ E
.
u
.
0:
<
-'
"
.
...
z
.
on
G~
o .
oS
~ ;a
. 0.
0..(';
;;~
~ E
S"
:>> ~
0.."
;;~
~ E
S"
- ~
:.~
"'3
o 0
~ ,
o 0
Uu
"'3
o 0
~ ~
8<3
",.
o .
5 ~
u<3
U'j
~ 0
c,
<3<3
Z;;
. .
~ 5
~8
ZGi
. .
~ &
tJu
'Uo
. .
" !i
:;<3
u
~:
" 0
o ,
00
UU
~1
" 0
o ~
o 0
UU
~I
" 0
o ,
<3<3
.
0:
~
%
..
>
o
o
=
.
Q
~
o
o
o
;
8-
o
l5.
'"
o
,
o
U
Q
o
"
o
o
0.
.
!
.
~
s
...
a.
0.
.
;;
c
..,
"
<;
.
E
.
~
o
x
o
~
.
r
?;-
.
>
.
.
.
"
o
.
~
.,;
.
..,
.,
o
0.
;;
c
.
-= ~;
c: S c:
5~.g
u..~
"'o~
o . 0
~o:s
0%..
--~
..!.Bz
-
o
Appendix I
Page 4 of 8
COUNTY COUNSEL SERVICES RELATED
TO CONSTRUCTION OF COUNTY
FACILITIES
Contract Contract Construction
County Neaotlatlon DeveloDment LIU..aUon
~ County County County
ALAMEDA Counsal Counsel Counsel
la\
County
CONTRA COSTA N/A Counsel County
Counsel
County County Co. & Contract
I FRESNO Counsel Counsel Counsel
.
I LOS ANGELES County County County
I Counsel Counsel Counsel
..-
: ORANGE County County County
I Counsel Counsel Counsel
I RIVERSIDE N/A County County
Counsel Counsel
I SACRAMENTO County . .
County County Counsel and
Counsel Counsel Contract
Counsel
I County County County
SAN Counsel and Counsel and Counsel and
BERNARDINO Contract . Contract Contract
I Counsel Counsel Counsel
I SAN City City
FRANCISCO N/A Alto rn ey Attorney
--
I County County County
SAN MATEO Counsel Counsel Counsel
I SANTA County
CLARA County County Counsel and
Counsel Counsel Contract
I Counsel
r
VENTURA Public Public Public
I Works Works Works
(a) County Counsel handles routine Inigatlon, major Inlgatlon Is handled by contract Counsel
N/A: Information was not provided, was unknown or did not apply to the responding County
2...1n(L
-
-
I COUNTY COUNSEL SERVICES RELATED TO COUNTY CONTRACTS
o
o
Appendix I
Page ~ of-a
Departmental Contracts for Services Pre-Contract Monitor Insur.
Review for Review and and Bond
County Neaotlatlon Development Leaallty Development Re'lulremenls
Individual County County Individual Risk
ALAMEDA Depanments Counsel Counsel Depanments Manager
CONTRA COSTA NIA, County County County County
Counsel Counsel Counsel Counsel
County County County County County
FRESNO Counsel Counsel Counsel Counsel Counsel
Co. CounseV Co, Counsell Co. CounseV
LOS ANGELES In-house In-house In-house NIA NIA
Contract Contract Contract
Council Council Council
ORANGE County County County County County
Counsel Counsel Counsel Counsel Counsel
RIVERSIDE NIA County County County NIA
Counsel Counsel Counsel
SACRAMENTO County County County County NIA
Counsel Counsel Counsel Counsel
SAN County County County County County
BERNARDINO Counsel .Counsel Counsel Counsel Counsel
SAN City City City City
FRANCISCO NIA Attorney Attorney Attorney Attorney
(Bond only)
County County County County Risk
SAN MATEO Counsel Counsel Counsel Counsel Manager
SANTA CLARA Property Property County Individual Property
Mgmt. Mgmt. Counsel Departments Mgmt.
VENTURA Individual Individual Individual Individual Individual
Depanments Depanments Depanments Depanments Depanments
NIA: Information was not provided, was unknown or did not apply to the responding County
"n
-
Appendix I
page b of !J
MISC LLANEOUS SERVICES PROVIDED BY COUNTY COUNSEL
Building and Public
Nuisance Code
I Workers General L1a- Zoning Enforcement
Compo claims blllty claims Risk Notice to
County Processlno Processlno Momt. nvestloatlo Enforcement Violators Lltlaatlon
I Public Public
ALAMEDA no yes no Works DA Works DA
I CONTRA COSTA no, yes no no yes County County
Counsel Counsel
I
I yes County County
FRESNO no no no no (litigation Counsel Counsel
onlvl
J
LOS ANGELES no yes no no no N/A N/A
I
I County
ORANGE no no no no no Counsel and County
I Contract Counsel
Counsel
I RIVERSIDE no no no no no N/A N/A
<
I SACRAMENTO no no no no yes County County
Counsel Counsel
--
I SAN Risk Risk Risk no no DA DA
BERNARDINO Manager Manager Manager
I
I SAN City
FRANCISCO yes yes no no yes N/A Allorney
.
I County County
SAN MATEO no no no no no Counsel Counsel
!
. ,ANTA CLARA no no no yes yes County County
Counsel Counsel
VENTURA no no no no yes Public Public
Works Works
N/A: Inlormation was not provided. was unknown or did not apply to the responding County
-111-
-
I -- ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES '-'
Performance Policies and
Evaluation: Procedures:
Annual
T1mekeeplno System: Bllllno: Performance Current
Automated & County Reviews of Polley and
Integrated Developed or Rate for Attorneys Procedures
County with Bllllno Purchased Attornevs Conducted Manual
no
ALAMEDA billing '. N/A N/A no no
procedure
CONTRA COSTA yes purchased N/A yes yes
(a)
FRESNO no N/A $53/hr. yes no
LOS ANGELES no developed N/A' . yes yes
(limited)
ORANGE no N/A N/A yes yes
RIVERSIDE yes purchased $62/hr. yes yes
SACRAMENTO yes developed N/A no yes
(probationary (a)
attorneys onlvl
SAN yes purchased N/A yes yes
BERNARDINO
SAN
FRANCISCO yes developed (40 separate no no
rates) .-
SAN MATEO no N/A $75/hr. no no
SANTA CLARA no N/A $77/hr. yes no
VENTURA no N/A $80/hr. yes no
(a) Collection of Issued memoranda on policies and procedures
N/A: Information was not provided. was unknown or did not apply to the responding County
_ 11?~
Appendix I
Page I of.8
CRITERIA FOR REFERRING LEGAL MATTERS TO
M.~jJC:llUI^ .I.
Page lJ of lJ
Co. Counsel Co. Counsel Co. Counsel
I has a does not Is not
Client Conflict have Specific Adequately Other
I Countv Reauests of Interest Expertise Staffed Criteria
I
ALAMEDA 0% 0% 100% 0% N/A
.
I ;ONTRA COSTA 1'Y~ 5% 10% 84% N/A
I
I
FRESNO 5% 5% 450/0 45% N/A
,
, adherence 10
LOS ANGELES unknown yes _yes yes Board 01 Supv.
I conlracl
policv
ORANGE 10% 10% 40% 40% N/A
I
I RIVERSIDE 10% 20% 20% 50% N/A
I SACRAMENTO N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
,-
I SAN 00/0 2% 90% 8% N/A
I BERNARDINO
does not Include Iiabllllv and Worke(s Comnensation
I SAN
FRANCISCO yes yes yes yes N/A
I la\
I
SAN MATEO 0% yes very very N/A
. few few
I
SANTA CLARA 5% 10% 35% 50% N/A
I
VENTURA 1% 1% 97% 1% N/A
I
(a) Departments can go 10 outside counsel wllhout City Attorneys permission
N/A: Information was not provided, was unknown or did not apply to the responding County
_11"'l_
':Office ManuaQor Attorneys", County of RiverQe
Table of Contents
~
'-
- ~,
OFFICE MANUAL FOR ATTORNEYS
OFFICE OF COUNTY COUNSEL
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
GERALD J. GEERLINGS
County Counsel
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Unless otherwise indicated, all sections
were revised or rewritten July, 1986.
Revised: October 14, 1987
Appendix II
Page 1 of'8
..
Division I
Division II
-.--
o
o
Appendix 11
Page 2 of 8
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
SCOPE OF OFFICE
Office of the County Counsel
1
Description of Clients
1
County
1
Other Entities
2
Joint Powers
2
Non Profit Corporations
2
Airport Land Use Commission
3
County Committee on School
District Organization
3
Local Agency Formation Commission
Miscellaneous
3
3
Other Representations
3
COUNTY EMPLOYMENT 5
Rules of County Employment 5
New Employee Processing and Orientation 5
Pay Practices 6
Work Hours; Overtime 6
Recording of Overtime 7
Pay peroid 7
Probation 8
Performance Evaluations 8
Employee Benefits 8
i
-115-
Division II
Division III
-
o
o
Appendix II
Page 3 of 8
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Paqe
Administrative Management Benefits
9
9
9
Life Insurance
Dental Insurance
Long Term Disability Insurance
9
Payment of Bar Dues
9
9
Sick Leave
Bereavement Leave
10
Other Types of Leave
10
Vacation
10
Holidays
11
Affirmative Action
11
Work Injuries
12
United Way
13
Credit Union
13
Carpooling
13
Air Pollution Emergency
14
14
Energy Conservation
Travel and Expenses
14
Bar Association Membership
15
Tuition Reimbursement
16
OFFICE POLICIES
17
17
Staff Organization
Role of the Principals
17
ii
,,~
-
Division III
Division IV
o
:)
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Litigation
New Attorney Processing, Training and
Performance Evaluation
Promotion
Assignments
Assignment of Inquiries
Handling Requests of Legal Assistance
Acknowledgment of Request
Memoranda from the County Counsel
Responses for County Counsel
Priorities
Activity Outside Office
Conflict of Interest Code
Affidavit of Prejudice Against
a Trial Judge
Requests to Attorney General
Administrative procedure-Manual
OFFICE PROCEDURES
Office Appearance
Visitors
Office Security
Telephone
Personal Phone Calls
iii
Appendix II
Page 4 of 8
Page
18
19
21
21
22
22
22
23
23
23
24
25
25
25
26
27
27
28
28
29
Division IV
o
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Mail
Use of postage Meter
Staff Meetings
Minute Orders
Secretarial Help
Office Machines
Dictaphones
Copying
Duplicating
Office Supplies
Requests for County Counsel Paper
Advance Sheets
Library
Library Procedures
Acquisitions
Conference Room
Budget
Checks and Requests for Warrant
Cash Receipts
Service of Process
Notaries Public
Custodian of Records
iv
-
o
Appendix ;[1
Page 5 of 8
-
Page
29
31
32
32
33
33
33
34
34
34
35
35
35
36
36
37
37
38
38
39
39
39
Division IV
Division V
Division VI
o
.)
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Review and/or Copying of Public Records
Records Retention Program
Use of Pool Vehicles
Bulletin Boards
Refrigerators78
Coffee Machine
Personal Electric Appliances
Building and Equipment Maintenance
REVENUE-TIME SHEETS-BILLING PROCESS
Revenue to County Counsel's Office
General
Sources of Revenue
Clients Billed
Time Sheets
Inputting of Time Sheets Information
Billing Procedures
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Proceedings
Ordinances
Resolutions
Minute Orders
v
_110
Appendix II
Page 6 of 8
Page
39
40
40
40
41
41
42
43
43
43
43
43
44
46
47
48
51
51
51
52
Division VII
Division VIII
Division IX
o
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Clerk of the Board
Files
Organization
Index
Maintenance of Files
Agenda
Agenda Items
Agenda Deadline
Agenda Item Transmittal Form
Memoranda to the Board
CORRESPONDENCE
County Administrative Office
Auditor-Controller
Letterhead
Style
Copies
FILING
Files
New Files
Special Files
RESOLUTIONS
vi
o
.
Appendix 1'1:
Page 7 of 8
Page
52
52
53
53
53
55
55
56
56
57
57
57
58
58
59
60
60
61
- .
Division X
Division XL,
Division XII
Division XIII
o
:J
Appendix II
Page 8 of 8
Page
ORDINANCES
Description
62
Ordinance Summaries
63
Agenda Item Transmittal Form
64
AGREEMENTS AND CONTRACTS
synopsis
65
Copies
66
Special Provisions
66
OPINIONS
The Opinion Function
67
67
67
Numbering
Written Opinions
Oral Responses
Confidentiality
68
68
Release of Copies
68
Circulation of Copies
68
GUIDING PRINCIPLES OF THIS OFFICE
Accomplishment of Clients' Goals 69
Ethical Standard for a Government Attorney 69
Confidentiality 69
vii
, ."
o
o
.
Appendix "'
(;i
"-
- o:!
C c
- CD.UI <l:
E UI E
CD >- CD
Olea E
CD
ea c Cl
~< o:!
c
o:!
:E ~
C1) ~
~
~
>
.-
-
ca c
-=0
G,)UJ=
tn.C ca
C._ N
::s E'c
o "C ca
(,) <( C)
L.
~"CO
C C
::s ca C
o 0
(,) tn.-
tn.~
ca C1) >
II.. C.-
ca .- C
-tn
(,)::Stn
ca m C1)
- 0
C "C .-
ca C1) i::
Cl)tnC1)
&.CI)
o
II..
Q.
-
C
'0 CD
C E
ea CD
01
C ea
o C
-ea
~:E
...
--
UI CD
CC
C
E 0
'OUI
<:0
a.
CD
>
:0=
al
~
....
(J)
'c
'E
'0 ~
<~
al
'0 c.,
c al
al:E
(J) (J)
(J) CD
CD 0
c --
.- ~
(J) CD
~CI)
~
~
~
-
01 =~
C UI Gl
- CD Eo
- ()
C o:!
--
::J > c c
0 ... ::l ::l
() CD 88
() rn 00
< <l:<l:
~~
~~
~~
, -
I .. -- >.~~
It: --
(J) "-"-
CD CD '8. ~~ ~ ~ m~~
0 o:!o:! .. i --Gl
> -" I a. CDCD~
- ~ · .:"j .'j GlCD o <3 (J
~ ~
- fll CD ~ ~ o 0 Q) Q) Q) Q)
ea CD (J) o C 1_ 00 CDGl (J)(J)(J)Gl
CD CD
... "0 (I) ~ I ~ ~~- (J)(J) c
- () Gl --CO-(ij
fll- ~ ~Ciia.ICD (ij(ij t'Ocua_
ClClGll-
.. - > a; Ca.G:lI_ Cl Cl ClCl CDCD-,
C ... g!~~IO GlCD -' -'
CD ~ CD CD -' -'
(;i -' -' ~~~
Ern "0 a: I - N"C;) ~C\l~
C <: 10 ~~ ~~~
E ~ -. ~ "" <0 ~~
'0 ::!. ~ - ~~
< "0 ~Ia
<l: ,
EXAMPLES OF COUNTY COUNSEL TlMESHEETS USED IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS n~~~..u, ^ ..
.. Ylb~ ~RD DEPT.1Z2 . "L los~ndeftfs'l:ounty
K~Wo.fit,
."TTY:
~_ B
6aY
8>
Client No./Matter No,
PI I I. CGrt-;+"c.a.te~
onn,,.., rn...
"
/ 5t~-r h Co" 5
K .." ..00
Ir..d 221:'2-
No, 32. SUPV.
No
8ubjectIT asks
06 fvf '-k~ Hc..C.all ", ..-~: cc.'rf,'.{/CA
+es o~ COr"'"' I ;once for Jof-
I jr7~ c((;~. U 5+"""" e.n-tr;
.3 05 Ri ,-hard i="o;r=hurs+ r- . dro..f+
HouB
. I
o rOo :",o.t'"\c...e.
2-
<
ake Ho.--It:
.
r-e' f'GV,SI
05
o c.c. i- R ' s
Of"o:n6.l'lc,.e- 77 2.5 01 nousi., o.u.+.....or~+ CFR's and..
~ re.V;5~ oraf+ orcJ.:,.,a"c.
".
I'
PJD<'ln.,.,
p Il~J.rn
Co' Co.
W,/O
.,
3.5 20
. "f ol J. "'0.8- orcl:., o.YlC
'.0 22-
-
4 'C"'~ . I 05 Mike. Mc.Call . cc: ...t,'{'"c.a +c:5
I.D re. .
of Corn I iOnc.e -for I of ad . uS+-
me-,.,ft;
Co. Co, .' 'f!l./ .'1 2"2-
" Plon<'l:" S~Gphc..~ 03 orcJ:..,o." c.e ~ ; " re.,...; t>"\
0,,0 t 7.2. ,.....,
/5d/ (T'l ~+i 0. +-;0 n fe e..
01 ......rctI (J7 .....r 13 Memo l' TtIaIIHNring IS Holiday
IR newtl. . ..... M 0plI1Ion II) MMting 16 Siek Leave
)J Draft 01 AlfMlMnt " "n~ t'l DICIClIItIon ~ ComP. Worked
0- Dictate 10 Fonn " " HAl 12 GIn. ActivIties 18 Comp. Off
15 Phone Can ,.. IWolulIon 11 11I'''''ooatOries IS Office Admin.
DI Ca""'lCe U 0nSlMnce " AppeIr/AnlnCl Ie YIcation
. DO NOT BILL ,-With. From. To
_1?1:_
-
--::
......
o 0 J~)-
OFFICE OF TIfE COUNTY COUNSEL 0MIIi0n: J
DAILY TIME SHEET
"VtJt-':IIU IX J 1/
Page 2 of 2
Riyerside County'
Altomey Name To l"'"\ oS /VI IT /J
08te: Au (,
11'1'"
oJ
(Secy's
use only)
Oock.et No, AcliIIity Dept. Sub- No, of
or J No,. Case Name & twmber AlP/Code ket. No. Hours Unil(s"
_1.?_U3~__ _~€__~_[~Q_~~______C_~_QLl~______ __5.Q~'-O___ _L~:J...=_I:L 2
_n______ ___n-'___
----------- ----------------------------------- ----"---.--- ----------- --------- -------_.
~
. ,
, -'. .-
----------- ----------------------------------- -~\-.:---- ----------- --------- -------_.
. "
..., ,
--
-
----------- ----------------------------------- ---------- ----------- -------- -------_.
----------- ----------------------------------- ----------- ----------- --------- --------
,
----------- ----------------------------------- ----------- ----------- -------- --------
----------- ----------------------------------- ----------- ----------- --------- -------_.
I
----------- ----------------------------------- ---------- ----------- --------- -------_.
----------- ----------------------------------- ----------- ----------- --------- -------_.
----------- ----------------------------------- ----------- ---------- --------- --------
Regular Hours/Units I
Overtime Hours worked
]
Absence Codes:
A -Unauthorized Absence Without Pay
C -En.e.\p,,-y Leave (Death in Family)
E -o-time Taken
EX-cMl Service Exam
Fli-Flosling Holiday
H Ilalidl.y
I "'*'iurY on ..
. 01IldnIn'. SeMoea we only.
.. Pleae Cuo lb.ct the ~ .lIIl Office nllnllJltrtllllr1urieL
I~~ II
J -.klry Duty
L -AulhoriziId Tme w/o Pay
ML -Military l..eaIIe
PS PeIwon8IleaYe
S -Sick
V ......... Ation
X ~llIion
t~~~..,..~. ....'1l..1-._~_.
-#",:,~-.... - .... - ..
..'
~.lilJIlIll,nIlnIiIII :- -
,.: . _..'~ ...".. ~:... : !'""snc.. .... .
_T'......_...~:".~ ._. .'_
. ~ '"
o
Appendix V
--
\...)
Appendix V
Comparison of Rates Currently Charged By
Collntv C,oun.c;el With Averai!"e C,ost;s for LPS ~rvices
l>rrurrRmActivitv
Petition - Temporary Conservatorship
Petition --Reappointment of Conservator
Petition - Medical Treatment
Petition - Accounting
Petition - Others
Preparation for Evidentiary Hearing
Evidentiary Hearings
Evidentiary Hearings - Each Continuance
Writ of Habeas Corpus - Preparation
Writ of Habeas Corpus - Hearing
Jury Trial- Preparation
Current Chllrl!:e
Averat:!e C,ost
$150.00
150.00
150.00
150.00
a
b
b
b
$48.03
45.51
83.82
93.33
45.89
53.12
110.49
18.36
19.32
134.34
1,178.08
c
c
d
a Other petition charges vary with the activity. For example, the current
charge for the termination of a conservatorship is $75.00. Other
uncontested petitions are charged at $150.00.
b The current charge for all aspects of evidentiary hearings, including
preparation, hearings and continuances, is $225.00. For purposes of
this analysis. we have broken the cost for evidentiary hearings into
separate components. This is more representative of the cost to
individual clients since not all calendared evidentiary hearings reach
the hearing stage, and since others are continued repeatedly.
c Presently, a separate charge for processing writs has not been
developed.
d Charge represents the average cost for jury trial preparation. Costs for
the trial itself should be determined separately based on actual attorney
and paralegal involvement.
_1?~_
-
c
o
Appendix 'VI
Page 1 of 4
Appendix VI
ProposedMetbodology for
DetenninilU!' Ch:u"l!"es for Profession,,) services
Steol
Determine number of FTE attorneys and paralegals and the
associated salary and benefit cost:
FY 1988-89 FI'E Salary Benefits! Total
Attorney 33 $2,164,384 $485,407 $2,649,791
Paralegal 8 203,466 45,631 249.097
Total $2,898,888
Steo2
Determine total Departmental expenditures including overhead and
excluding zoning investigator unit.
County Counsel, Expenditures
Add Indirect Cost2
Less Zoning Investigator Personnel Cost
Less Zoning Investigator Overhead
Less Public Guardian Support Staff Costs
$4,300,659
300,616
(172,986)
(86.493)
(100.790)
County Counsel Expenditures
Net of Zoning Investigator and Public Guardian
M,241,006
Steo3
Calculate the Indirect Cost Factor by dividing total Departmental
operating and capital expenditures intO the salary and benefit cost of
attorneys and paralegals. This calculation is illustrated below:
Total Professional Indirect
Departmental Salary and Cost
Expenditures / Benefit Cost = Factor
(Step 1) (Step 2)
$4,241,006 $2,898,888 1.46
1 Calculated as Departmental average expenditure for benefits.
2 Provided by the Finance Department.
,.,C
o
~,
J
Appendix VI
Page 2 of 4
Steo4
Calculate the estimated number of hours per attorney and per paralegal.
The estimated number of hours per attorney is calculated as the average of
the past four years of the ratio of productive attorney hours less administrative
hours, multiplied by maximum professional hours available.
This ra,te should be calculated separately for both attorneys and paralegals,
since their ratio of billable hours are significantly different. The below table acts
as an example:
Analysis of the Rati.o of Actual Hours Provided to
Total Attornev Hours
Fiscal Year 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 1987-88
(3rd Qtr YTD)
Total Attorney Hours 58,511 67,333 64,975 51,259
Less
Non-Productive Hours (8,374) (9,688) (9,648) (8,557)
Equals
Productive Hours: 50,137 57,645 55,327 42,702
Less
Administrative Hours: (5,232) (5,762) (5,510) (4,696)
Equals Actual Hours
Provided to Clients 44,906 51,883 49,817 38,006
Ratio of Actual Hours Provided
to Clients to Total Attorney
Hours. 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.74
FY 1984-85 to FY 1987-88
Average Ratio of Actual Hours
Provided to Clients to Total
Attorney Hours 0.76
_, ?7_
o
o
Appendix ,VI
Page 3 of 4
The fraction derived from this series of calculations is multiplied by the
maximum FTE hours of 2088 to determine the maximum professional hours. In
our example this calculation is performed below:
Estimated Number of Billable Hours per Professional:
Billable
Ratio
Maximum
X Hours
=
Billable
Hours
Attorney
Paralegal
.76
.86
2088
2088
1,587
1,796
SteD5
Calculate the total billable hours for attorneys and paralegals
This is equivalent to the Number of FTE employed during the fiscal year
times the billable hours per professional derived in Step 4.
Number
ofFl'E
X
Billable
Hours
Total
= Billable Hours
Attorney
Paralegal
33
8
1,587
1,796
52,367
14,365
SteD6
Calculate the direct cost per professional hour.
This is equivalent to the Total Billable Hours divided by the total
expenditures for salaries and benefits determined in Step 1
Salary and
Benefits
Total
/ . J3illable Hours =
Direct Cost
Per Hour
Attorney
Paralegal
$2,649,791
249,097
52,367
14,365
$51
17
,.,0
o
:;
Appendix VI
Page 4 of 4
Steo7
Multiply the direct cost per professional hour by the ratio of Departmental
expenditures to salary and benefit expenditures to determine the hourly rate per
professional
Direct Cost
Per Hour X
Indirect
Cost Factor =
Hourly
Rate
Attorney
Paralegal
$51
17
1.4U
1.4U
$74
25
By following the above steps the Department will provide its clients with more
accurate cost data on legal services rendered.
-129-
-
..
'" .c.CO
a "'co
.. ""
.. 00
.. ... M
... .c......
..
- 1-(7)
c
-
..
~ ~
.. ..
-a
. .=
- ..
..
.. ...
c ..
-
'" ...
... 0 ..
0 u...
.. ",....
- - ..
.. c ..
Q '" e
0
u ..
Q
... c
c 0
~ 'c .-
...
",.- o '"
.. .. ..
ell e -.~
.. )(
'" ...
c ",....
0 .. c
.-
... .. ..
'" ... ej
... 0
.- e...
'" " '"
X Ill..,
...
... ",.-
.. c
0 .. ..
.. ei
...
'" e...
a .. '"
Ill..,
- ...
c c
'" 0
o ell
e...
-< 0
..
.. ..
.. ..:l
'" e
u '"
z
:; ~
c
.. ;
!; e
III 0
.su
z
52
I-
-<
!!!:
a..
)C
...
o
I-
<:l
!i
!i
-<
~
...
'"
III
)-
-<
ell
)-
ell
III
I-
Z
...
~
<:l
ell
::l
..,
)-
'"
-<
~
~
::l
III
...
o
!e
III
)-
...
-<
Z
-<
CD
0:0
CI'
.
o
M
..
..
..:l
E
..
.-
'"
..
III
..
-
'"
Q
...
..
o
...
..
'"
..~t-'t-'-.;.u............... 'LL
::o~ Pa~e 1 o~8
,., OJ .,.. OJ <>> - 0 ,., 0 0 ,., '" '" en r- o-.~<>> en OJ .... o:JI r-v {'\f '"
..., r- '" "': '" ": C> III " ~ ~ (7. O'! ~ ~ ~. r--: O'! C> ~ "! 00(\.,1"""010 "!
N '" 0 ..., 00 - 00"", " Co r- ,- a ,.-, a (J'o '" r- N '" - '" O? '" '" ~MONO-:~Q)
I{) '" In r- I{) ..., a '" (J'oa N r- a 0 m '" '" I{) ,- ,- (7. '" I{) wO\w\'o-(\.I\.lII\.lIIoo""".,o
If) l{) N r- oO) r- '" I{) r- I{) <I> r- '" l;:~ <h {h "".... (T\ .,.. 004:hMtQVM_vtQN~
-<'> tff~~ ... ...~~ ...~ <'> ... ... -"'" <'> "'" ... o(ff iff, ~ 4h ~ ~ ~ _...~
l....~ C\l ....-
<'> "" '" <h "" ...
N (7. 0 00 '" If) .,.. N .,.. <D '" .,.. O)r- I{) 0) ,- r- ~- '<j N 0) ... .", .,.. 0 ... I{) '" I'-
0 I'- v '" 00 '" '" m '" III .... .... ... r- '" III I'- I'- III l{) ... a m 00 I'- '0 '" .,.. 0) '" 0 a a
.... to '" to ... '" a <7. <T. .,.. .,.. (J'o (J'o ." Q) ." 001'- ~- I'- ,-- r- r- '" '" '" '" '" '" .~ III I{) I{) I{) 10
"" ." ."
..
-~ E ..
c .. C
.. :;; 4.
." ..,
... ... ..
.. .. ..
a. a. a.
a. a. a.
... ... ..
It)
Q)
.....
....
III Ill.., III 10\0\0\0 "'''' ~..o\D'D\D '" 'ltD\D\O\D\D "'''' \D""",...,...r-r-mr-r- * *
OJ. ())(X) 0) <DOOQ)Q)Q)Q)(DQ)Q)(OQ) (DO)Q)O)Q)O)Q)Q)Q)OOOOQ)OOQ)Q)Q)
......................, ......................"..............,................... ..............................".......,...........................................,
........1().... -VV_.""'....,...".,,.., 00 10 0 0 I() N OJ N 00 '0 \0 r- \D ...... N V
........ ...... ...............--........<'4.....................,...... .................. ...... '---......NN-N"-_'
--. "'--'00 ......N...............'4)........NIO"'O'4) ....................... ....... -....................... ..............................,........0)
M ." Nv ....- 0\0'000 NNN NNt'-to 00
- --
--.
M
..........----..............................................-........,.......-..-........
N~O-O)~~-~N~~~~OO~~m~~R
~.-O~O~~MN-_~.MNQ)vVNN~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
OQ)(I\If)f-M(1\O'\
(I) N (I) I() .^ __ to "It" \D N N (\I
.......... ~,- NNN
."."I'-~r-r-~(I)(I)(I)(I)CO(l)(I)(I)(I)(I)CO(l)(I)(I)(I)(I)O)(I)Q)Q)CO(7>~.,...,..~~~
(I) (I) 0) co (I) CO O)Q) (1)(1) (I)(I)Q)(I) (1)(1) (1)0) 0) CO (00) (I)." (1)0)0)0) Q)O) (1)0) (I)." 0)
~~~~~~~"'~,~,~,~""'~"'~"~"~"
OO-""I'-...MOMV-VI'-(I)VI()<Dr-MVMMr-O) r-OO~"'<DN"'_r-r-
NNN'N--N'NNN_'_N'~_"'N -NM'N_N__
"~N""N""n"~"~~O""'N""'"
N ~~N NNNM ~~ 0000 0 --NNMn~~
VVl()nnl()l()"''''''''''~''''''''''''''''''''''''~'''''''''''''''~<Dr-r-r-r-r-~~
(l)Q) (I) (I)(I)Q) (l)Q)(I)(I) (I) Q)(I)(I) (l)Q) (1)(1)(1)(1) (1)(1) (1)0) (1)(1)(1)(1)0)(1)(1)(1) (I) CO 00
""""""""""""""""'"
m-~~NMOM~_~~~~~~~"It"~..OO~Nm__O~~M~Nmoo
NNN'N--N'NNN-'_N'__"'N__N'_N_N____
"'N""N""~"~"~~O""N""""
N M~N NNN~ ~~ 0000 0 N-NNM~~~
- - --
OOOOOOOOOOOOOO'\OOOOOVQOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
ooo~noooooooo-~oooo~~oo~~ooooooaooo
Ol()nr--oo~OOOOOVMI()OOOtotoOoo~~OOl{)ooooon
M~~-N~O-M~NMN*.~M~;~~N~~;~NNNN~MON~
~~~ ~-- --..- ---- ~~~~ ~-~-~--~
<;> (h.
l"'-\DtQtQ
'" N."
......1'-
""M~..o
NOOO
MM-O
())Q)"'OO
Q)(.J(.JQ)
~~~~.,..~~~~~8M~S~*~~0~
~~~o~omN~~~~~NMm~~ voo
(\1-0 ~N~~\D- N.O~_~~~
tor-(I)No-""vvO~S(l)v"''''r-N_to
VvvVOMI()~v ~_"'~OvvI()OI()
moooo~ mmmmoo~ ~moommoo 00
ouo~ OOQU~<-uouuou 00
NOCDtt)(J\I()If)VONv
Ol()to-NO)OO""_vl/)
OJ V,..,N-V):'\DV')U'JM
v..oVl()l()oO\o_r-o
VI()(J\MMvv\Dlf)v~
\Ov t()\Dc..olf>'\O\D\,(I V' V
(DfD 0')00 Q)m Q)(O 0')(0 00
UUUUWQlUOOOU
<<. Q.
<> "-
c: <>
~(.J
il ..
oS g
...
"-
"
..
oS
..
a.a.<>
... "- c
<> <> ...
<JuS
. .. ..
ggs
... .. ..
... ... ...
" " .
....'"
s~~
..,...en
.. ..
~;;::~
"t;i;~o
"'~L
... .. ..
ooE
<
Q..
... <>
<> c:
(.J~
"
..
oS
Q.
...
<>
(.J
.. ..
<> 0
c: c
... ..
... ...
" "
.. ..
E~
""..,..,
- . ... .
"'1;:;;::;;
.lA'~~
):"'Vt\A
E .. .. ..
<000
Q.
...
<>
u
Co. Q. c..
... ... ...
o 0 0
(.JU(.J
.. .. .
00<>
c: c: c
.. ... ...
... ... ...
" " '"
.. .. ..
EEE
........,
.. .. ..
~~;;:
"Vt";i""
.. .. ..
.. .. ..
uuu
..
o 0 0 g
UOU..,
...
40 .. Goo :J
() 0 0 1A
~~~E
L So.. '- CA
:;, :J :;, \.
\4 '" '" ...
J;;oSJ;;",
c
. . ... ..
~A4m
'" .. " C
~~"O..
...~.$!
~~Q.t...
<I.' . . .
aaaE
<
a.
...
o
(.J
a.
...
o
(.J
a. Q. c..
S a ~
(.J(.J(.J
. . .
000
c c c:
... - ..
... ... ...
" " "
.. .. ..
E.E~
.....,...
_ . Goo ..
.,.;;:~;;:
."lAM
): CA '" .,.
E .. ,. ..
<000
o 0 0 ~
UUOc
...
...
"
..
oS
00000
uU(.J(.)(.J
<>'0
~(.J
(.J .. ..
<> <>
c c
... ...
... ...
" "
.. ..
S;oS
00<>
U(.Ju
.. .. ..
<> <> <>
c c c
'" .. ..
... ... ...
=' :J :;,
.. .. ..
J;;oS.l;
. .. ..
:0:0:0
.. ... ..
..,.....,
c: c: c
. .. ..
c.. c.. a.
. .. ..
aaa
.. .. . .. 41
<) () 0 0 () .
C C C ceo
." ." .. ~ fIIlII C
~ ~ ~ 55"
'" '" Yt .,. ~ 3-
.l:oSoSoS.l:..
.........,S
~:o~~:o"O
.. ~ "9 . .. ..
'0'0'0"'0"'0;::
C:CCCClA
.. .. · · ,. VI
f"2-2":-2-~
aaaaau
.. ..
<> <>
c c
... ..
... ...
" "
.. ..
S;J;;
. . ..
000
c c c
.. .. ..
... ... ...
'" " "
~~~
..,.., ...
.. . .
~~;;::
"~,,
.. .. ..
.. .. ..
000
'"
..
..
...
"
(I)
""
..
.
...
"
(I)
'"
..
..
...
lilt ... .. . ~
:o:a:Q:OOO
.. .. '9 .... _
"0"0-0'0'"
C C C C .
"'" ... . .. ):
~:-f'2"E
aaaa<
_, ,n_
-
..
:: .J:.0l
0 .,.Cll
.... "...
~ .0
../<)
.. .J:....
~ 1-(1)
....
.=
....
'"
.. ~
.. ..
:0
c
- '"
~ ..
'" ..
C ..
:0 ....
... 0 ..
0 <.l...
.. "'....
.... .... c
.. c ..
0 :0 e
o ..
<.lQ
... C
c 0
~ ~
"'C ...
:r-- 0 ..
.... ..
o e ... '1i
.. )(
~ ...
c :::II'"
0 .. C
,~
... .. ..
..... ej
.. 0
.~ e....
Co :0 :>
)( (j)"')
...
... ",-
.. C
0 .. ..
.. ej
...
.. e....
0 :0 :0
(j)"')
.... ....
C C
:0 0
0 Q:l
e ...
< 0
..
.. ..
'" .J:>
.. e
<.l :0
Z
t ~
= ;
l; e
'" 0
.E<.l
~N~~V~Oct~v~-~-~m~N~vnCi~~~-~W~~L~~
~n~~~vo ~OO~OvOONoa-MMOO -Mm~o~m~oa~
6.~~~ooo ~~M~Mn~~OO~~OO~M .~oori~M~M~MOO~
N~w~wffiOO_N_v~NO~v~vwvN~OOMO~~OO_ffl~ffl~.
~NNN~--MNNO~-N_N~_t1>~~~M_Nv~_N~~~~__
~~~~~~~~~~ N~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~ ~~
... ...
~~MMOO ID~ rooo~ ~MMMMMMN ~~~~~~ ~
OomOOOOOOMN ~m~~~~~~nIDn~nIDMO~IDvVVV~Vv_
n~v~vvv~vM~MMMMMMMMMMMMMMNNNNNNNN~N
z
!2
I-
<
!!!:
0..
X
...
e
l-
e
~
~
<
z:
...
~
(j)
>-
<
o
>-
m
(j)
I-
Z
...
z:
c:l
Cl
:;)
"')
>-
a:
<
z:
z:
:;)
(j)
\l-
e
!a
(j)
>-
...
<
z
<
CD
co
t1'o
* * * *
..~
em
0.......
CoJ)
N
,
oJ)
* ,...... r- *
mm
"
vlo)
.... ...
~
."
~
..
..
Q.
Q.
..
r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-moomoomoommmoo*m
oo~oommoooomoommmmmmmoooooommmm m
""""""""""'" ,
NoJ)lo)oJ)lo)lo)~~~t1>t1>t1>(1)vvoJ)~vvvvv_ ~
N-'-""""'--'NNNNNN'
~,-, NNNNNNN"~""".'
00 0-----______ NNNNNN r-
~~~~r-r-M~~.~NN~~~Mr-r-r-~r-r-m~~r_MvvVV~O~
NN~vvv~O-Mvn~~~~~~~~~~~~NM~OOOOOO~OOOO~_
NNNNNNNlo)lo)fflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffllo)ffllo)lo)lo)lo)Vvvvvvvvvv~
(1)t1>t1>t1>t1>t1>t1>t1>t1>t1>t1>t1>~t1>t1>t1>t1>t1>~t1'ot1>t1>(1>t1>~t1>OOOOOOOOO
mmoommoomm~moommmmmmmmmmmmmmm~~~~~~~~~
"~"'~"~~,~""~"""""""'"
~~NNVVO~-O~~~O~~~NNNNNNNlo)fflOoJ)~~~~_N~
--""N'-~---N"'------"-NNNNNN"N
"~~~~'m"""ooo""" N"""'NN'
~~ ~ moo~~~~---oooooo N----- N
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~oomoommmm~m
mmmmmCDmmCD~mmm~~CDm~mmmmmmCDmoommmmmoo~~
""""""""""""""""'"
mmMM~nO~N-n~oo_~n~MMMMMMM~.O~~~~~NNm
--""N'-M---N"'------"-NNNNNN"N
"~~~~'m"""OOO"""-N"""'NN'
~~ ~ mm~~~~___OOOOOO-_N----__ N
OOOOOOOOOOO~OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
noooooo~ooo~ooooooooo~ooooooo~ooooo
-OOOO~~~OOO~~OO~O~O~~fflO~~OO~ON~O~O~
* ... ... ... ... .. .. ... ... .. ...... .. .... .... ... ... ... .... ... ... ... .... ... .. .. ...~.. ... .. ...
NNNn--NNNO ONNNO_O ~ v-NoJ)O_/<) _ fflN
~~~~~~~~~- N~~~_*_ * ~*~~_~~ ~ ~~
~ ~ ~ * ~
~
e
,.,
..
..
.J:>
e
..
....
...
..
(j)
ll)t1>ON
~NNO
-0'\ tf) I'
0) (D (1'. 00
NvOv
ll)oJ)ll)-
CD Q) Q) Q)
0000
~OoJ)no~oJ)~ooJ) -,....OO(l)lOv-v 1o)1o)0~ Io)~ ~vlO 0 V ~
Nvlo)~IOIO-Io)~~ 1/)-~t1>~vIo)Wl 10)0000 OM ~~N~ N N
1.I)o(J\OO 10\0 \O\OI'QO'\ ..,.000\0\0\0\0 mNv "-ffl r-r-N,.... N ffl ~
-O..............In-OJMNtQ M..o..mNnNNO..oIOO ~v O'tf) 0) 0' /<) n v
~v>I/)~m~vlo)$lQ om~oJ)moJ)O~~-t1>~NII)ll)oJ)~~ moo ~
oJ) v oJ) oJ) oJ) oJ) v l/)oJ)oJ)NNNfflvv>v~oJ)ll)oJ)~oJ)oJ)oJ) NoJ) ~
m~mQ)Q)Q)Q)Q)mQ) WQ)Q)Q)Q)Q)Q)Q)Q)Q)Q)Q)Q)Q)Q)00 Q)Q) m m m
U OUUUCDUOO oumuuuuuu~uauuuuuu 00 <D
..
....
"
o
...
..
o
...
..
a:
00<>-
<.lOa
o
~
()
c
..
...
:>
..
.=
:!!. .
~~'O
.. .. ~
"O'T3\;:
ffV;
<>-.....
... ~ ..
000
~ ..
() ()
c c
.. ..
... ...
:> :>
.. ..
Si.=
.. ..
o 00. 0 goo g
uuogu..uu..
. . . 4 ... ~ . .. 5
000 ~ 0 ~ g 0 ~
~~!i.~..s..i.!i:
5 ~ ~ ..s ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~~~~~~~.2i
.....4~.4
:o:o:o~~m..o~Q)
4,...........C,....c
~'O'Q"'Q~~~"04
.~f~._.~.S!:
:- Q,a.:= Q,~ ~:-~
O~~-<~EooE
-< -<
~. 44~.7;~ o' ~ ~
o 0 coo ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - c c
oo..oo-;~:;:;:;~o....
S~.LLLLLE~S5
~ ~ ~.:.~.:.~.~.~ ~~~
~ ~ ~ . ... . ... ... . ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ E E E E E E .. . ..
"'-"-""'''''''''''' "'-""'c'"
c.'" . . . . C
..-.....0.0..0..0..0.0..."..
:o:om:o:oEEEEEE:omm
~ 4 .. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 4
"o,oi'Q"U-1..................."o~~
ceo c ~ .. .. .. .. .. .. c ~ 0
~:-"5 i-2"~-'~~-'j i~"5
ooEoo......,......,......,oEE
-< SSSSS..5.ce-<
..
()
C
..
'-
"O~"O"O
C .,. C C
oSoo
m mOl
'"
"'-
- ..
... '"
~ "
g.<n
...-
"- ::
)
E
-<
~ ..
() ()
C C
.. ..
'- ...
:> .., :>
.. C ..
sos
<D
'" '"
~~::JIlo~_ ::Po_
'tt:t:t:f:t:t:
....:;,.~
g.g-g.-g.U) g-U)
L \... .... \... .., ~ .....
o..CL.Q..C&..:C&..:
) ~
E E
-< -<
." ....
C C
o 0
<D <D
~ ~
() ()
c c
.. ..
5 ~
~ ~
-"Si
-131-
z
!2
I-
<
~
e-
x
...
Q
I-
C!l
!i
!i
<
1:
...
a:
CIl
)-
<
co
)-
m
CIl
...
Z
...
1:
c
Q
=
")
)-
a:
<
1:
1:
=
CIl
""
Q
Ie
CIl
)-
-'
<
Z
<
CIl
CIl
GO>
..
" .J:.CIl
0 ",0;1
- ".....
.. 00
.. Lt4
... .J:......
.. 1-0'0
-
<:
-
-
..
.. ..
~ il
-0
.s
- ..
.. I.
.. ..
<: -
::> -
... 0 ..
0 ~ ...
.. ::JI'"
-...e
" c: "
o ::> e
o ..
~o
'" c:
c: 0
",- -
...
::JI.s "
" " o I.
Q e ...-
.. .~
a: ...
c: ::JI'"
0 L c:
.~
- " ..
" ... e e
I. 0 e.g
-
Co OJ ::>
)( CIl")
...
... ::JI-
I. c:
0 " ..
.. e~
-
.. e...
Q ::> OJ
CIl")
... ...
c: e
::> 0
0 m
e ...
< 0
I.
.. ..
.. 1
"
~ ::>
Z
t :
c:
" ;
~ E
.. 0
.s~
-'.
o~n_~m~OM-_~~OOV~N~OM-:O-M~~
M~~~~~a ~O~M~V~N~VMM~. ~~ON
~~~~~~M ~M~OO~~N~~OO~ID~V.~~~M
ro~~~N~~VM~NOOMOO_v_OO~~~~M~_N
~OONN~~-~~~~~_VN~~~~ _~_~
~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~
VVV~V~~NID~~~av ~
NN~~~OO~~MNNNO~~~IDJ~~~M~~NN~
Q)mQ)ooQ)
oo,(DOO())(Q
,.............................
o,O-NNN
......................... ..-
v.........................
vvv
.. .. .. "'00000) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
c c c CO)(DQ) c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
0 0 0 0.................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
c c c CIl)IOIO c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
- --
.......... .....
1'-1'-1'-
~~~~~ Moon- O~~(Q~~~~V~~~~~M
--NNN~~~~OOOM~~~~oomm~~oooa_
~~~~~~~~~0,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,01'-1'-1'-1'-1'-
000000000000000000000000000
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
......."...........................,...................,......................................................................,.......,.......
OOo;lOOO~o,O-OOVVVNOOOOO'oOo,j)o,Oo,O~Oo,j)o,OO'oO'o~
NN---N'--NNNN__"-____NM............'......_
......,..................,v,..................'...................m.....................................~~~~......
NNMMMM v~~~~~~~ ~(Qm~mm ~
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
..............................,..................,..............................................................................,......,......
~~ooon~-mv~vNmm~O~~~~O~~~~M
NN---N'--NNNN__'____NM'-"'_
"""v,"""'oo,""'~~~~,
NN~MMM .~~~~~~~ m~m~m~ ~
oaooooooooOOOOOOOOONOO~OOOO
OOOOOO-OOOO~OOOOOOOOM~o~ooao
oOO~~OOOO~I'-~ooooo~oVo,j)~~oooo
... ... ... ...~ ... ... ... ... ...~ ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ..._--* ... ... ... ...
O~~~ -v_o_ NnOO_M_~ ooo~
--~~ _~*N_ ~*~-*___ N-N*
~~ ~ *~ *~~
Page 3 of 8
~-
C'!'":
ItlM
-0
1-1'-
O'oM
MN
......
OIl
-
<:
..
e
'"
..,
::>
.....
...
..
L
.~
...
)(
..
'"
c:
.~
...
::>
-
0
)(
II
..
::>
..,
-
.. -
..0>
loG)
.. I
_0
eM
- I
'"
....
0
..
..
c
,l!
-
0
:It.
"0
0
"-
~
..
..
c
"
0
U
~
-
c
0;1 "
0
... u
I- o.
. ..c
.. -
t1'o 0
M -
... ."
~
-
.. 'E
::>I_
I. c: ..
.. .. c
e e ..
...
E ...-
...-
::> ::> 0
II) ") c
..
"-
..
)0
..
-
c
..
E
'"
."
-' "
< ...,
... '"
...
Q ..
... E
E
"
..
..
..
..
..c
I-
*
-
~
~
00
,.-
o
M~ l.ll ~MO'oO ~ ~NO NOOOOo,j)~Nooo,OM
~oo MNMO'oo,OOO ~OOVOO 0'0 """"-~V"~Q)<'I"'N~
.- 0 .... 0......'0..,010 ~v,.,('C M ""'..."Ot'-f'"f'lQ-'DII'lID'-OIt)
V'l ....0> ~o - 00 -..00...,. N IOIl.O..-m-VNMIO""'Q)o I-
VO N-VVJ:M 0,0 v ~NNItl V ~ltlo,j)O'o~Vl'!O'oONOO GO>
1'-1'- 1'-~0,01'- M - 0,0 o,j)~1'- 0 I'-VlOvl'- ~I'- -
0000 (DOOQ)CDQ) - CD 0> CD 00 m(DmQ)(Dmmmm -
....u uuomu 00 Ql"'U .....oooooouo
.
Q
M
I.
..
...
e
II
...
...
II
CIl
-;v.t.:J'..... ""~:;,Io.t:-;v
~ooo2o~=gggg oE~=gc~
SOUU~~L~44.4 o~~~~~~
~~~~ES~=~~5~~~L~=a~L
o..ccc~~~u~~~~cc~uo~~~
c ~~cS CEC04C -c
~~~~. ~~M- -m~.o~~~.
~ ~ ~ ~ E ~ ~ c ~ ~ ~.:J' ~ E eeL ~ E
~!.!~~~i:~~~~~~~j:~~L
~.~.~S4~~~~~~~~O~C~~
~~4~Ewm<moooooo~~€mc~~mE
.4~4~~C C~~-L4- CC~
~~~~~~444::~~~~~444~
~~~i4t~C~~~t ~4~C004
~~~~C~L~L~~_ dC.$LLC
4...~E.e~~EEE .~~~..~
UCCOc< zc<<< C~<~EE_c
- < < -<<
..
-
"
o
...
I.
o
Co
..
a:
-132-
.... .......
.. () 0 .., 0 () 0
o ceO c c c
c: ... ". C 4 .. ..
.. ~ "- ., L "- L
'- ~ ~ \... ~ J ::J
~ '" VI ::J CA CA fA
~~~~.!:.=.E
~ ~ ~ 1A fA
:IIIL\..:JIl\.."-~
-..-....
~~i~i~~
CIlQlQl(l)QlQlOO
-;;~i-:;5i~C
.. 0 0 . 0 () ~
~1:1:):1:1:1:
5E..E..E.....
~ <EEE
<-< <<<
z
52
I-
<
2:
II..
X
'"
Q
I-
el
!:
!:
<
I:
'"
0:
II)
)-
<
o
)-
CD
II)
I-
Z
'"
I:
el
o
:)
"':l
)-
0:
<
~I:
I:
:)
II)
II..
Q
~
II)
)-
....
<
z
<
CD
0)
CI\
.. ,
" .&:0)
0 ",,,,
... ".....
OIl 00
.. ..",
.. .&:.....
.. ....CI\
...
c:
...
OIl
:': ~
.. ..
"'0
.E
- OIl
.. ..
OIl
c: ..
...
:0 ...
.... 0 ..
0(,)..1
.. :0-'"
......c:
.. c ..
o :0 e
o ..
(,)0
'" C
C 0
III.. -
...
~.... 0 It
..4......
Oe ~
.. )(
IX '"
c: :0-'"
0 .. C
...
... .. ..
.. .... e~
.. 0
- e...
... '" :0
Ie 1I)"':l
III
... :l''''
.. C
0 .. ..
.. ej
...
.. e...
0 " "
1I)"':l
... ...
C C
:0 0
Oal
e...
< 0
..
.. ..
OIl ...
.. e
(,) :0
Z
t a
c
.. :
$ e
III 0
.E(,)
-
.
Q
I<)
..
..
...
e
..
..
...
..
II)
..
...
..
o
...
..
o
...
..
CII:
o
.,:)
1..1-"1-"......~............ . ~~
Page 4 of 8
)-
0:
<
I:
I:
:)
II)
It)N\OCJ'l.N I<)
+ ..... O-.onN OC
III C 'lit.. <'I... CIt v... 10... .,.
.. "
... ... 0 toltl(J\"IIt"- .
c :. e .....N4&.....1/) .,.
0 4&~ ~N I<)
CD .E< ... .,.
.
NN~Oq) If)
.... -O~-N -
III I: O. O. 10. CI!. n. ,..
.. :0
... 0 .0.,.-.....0 ,
:. e -....- CI\
~ ~ I<)
.E< .
t')-OO""~ 0)
... 0\_0..0\ .,. .
... I: ..,Nn.oCl\ ,..
" .... .. ... ... ...
I: ,....._(O~o . Q
0 0 nN4&.ov .,. Clol
al e 4& ... 4&N CI\
< ... ..,.
."
:l': .. ..
... :J III
0 ... c: 0 ...
... .. .. ... ..
e e ,.. .. ..
.. r-- .,......'" ... ..
... e '" N -v CI\ ) ..
e ,,'" ....
:0 II) :0 OIl ...
Z "':l ...
I: I:
.. ..
e e
go..
III ...0
.. :J
I: "':l ...
.. c: ..
e:E .. .. .. III
I:
",.. "'~ir~ :J
...... '0 :7<';'U':: 0
:0 ) ...
.. .. .. (,)
"':l '" ,"-'VQOCf\ ...
:0-1: Ci.o"'18~ 0 :l'
~ cr.. · I I- ..
...- g
..~ 0-0;-
e .. CI\ ..0 0
e )( -.., (,)
:J ..
II)
_1'1'1_
..
..
"
o
..
..
;
..
ClI:
c r"'.
<> '-"
.. c ";;;
<>
.. :;:; -;;; -;;; -;;; ,~ -;;; -;;; -;;;
c '" '" '" '" l:: '" '" ..
.. "0 c.. a. c.. a. c.. a.
E '5 a. Q. a. .a a. a. a.
'" '" '" => '" '" '"
E ,:e ..
c c c c c c
0 <> <> <> '- <> <> <>
0 ,~ '"
"0
C
=>
c c
.~ 0
VI "li\
.. ..
"ff
.a .D
=> =>
.. ..
'- '-
'" '"
"0 "0
C C
=> "
o
Appendix VII
Page 5 of' 8
..
'"
Q.
a.
'"
C
<>
O~MM~~~~~ -o~~O~~~M 00 DvOO ~VVO~OOM~ID
.qq~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .~~~q~~qq~~~~~~~~~~M~~~
~O~~~MvM~m~~~N~~~mvNM~~MO -~m~ ~OVMMO
om-~MNO~N ~~m~~No~-~~~VMN~~oM~m~~m~MMN~
~-o~o~_oo~ ~OV~N~VO-~~~~~ffiO~_~~~~~N~VOO
4~aOO~~.~~N~~MMNN~~.~~N~NN~~O~NM~O~~~~N
~~N-N~ ~ ~~ ~~~~~~__$ ~ _$~_N *~*_* $~
o *~~ * *
I-
)-
Z
<
II.
1:
o
u
)-
I-
III
ClI:
::I
ell
)-
CD
ell
....
Z
III
1:
C!l
o
::I"
.., ~
)- ..
ClI::J
<,s
1:
1:
ill... C'~
... 0 " ..
o .. e e
-'1;e.3
:::~:7:7
ell-en..,
O~MM~~~~~_-OV~O~~~M--m-ovm___~.vo~mM~m
qq~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~q~~qq~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
; on~~MvM~m~M~N~~~mVNM~~MO_ --~m~-~OvMMa
..m-~MN~~~-~*m~~No~-~nNvMN~~oM*m~~m~Mm~~
L~--*~- -*~- *v~NNV*_~*__~M*__ *~~n~-_N~
., o"~ * * * ****.. ... .. ** ** ..*.. _...... ~*
.. ~ ~
,s
)-
...
<
Z
<
CD
Ol
f1>
-
10 ~
~o
.. ..
.. ..
'sll.
-mvm~VO--~~NNN~OO.~N__oo.~~~_mmmN~.~.O__
..~VM--Nv~-~mm~~~Nm.N~_~nNvv_~m~~o__Nv
ci~N~~ci~cicicici~cicicici~cicicicicicicicicicincicici~NNcicicici
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
OOl
..Ol
co""
:1\0
"M
0....
f1>
m..- If) __ ..- ,..... Q) 10 .^ ~ 10 M 10 10
M -M'-~~~_~~I_~__o~
..,.NN_ '" M~M"~lOm""MN
NgO\O\""-o\OO\r-
It)vNN-"".~Q).'"
_..--NN(J\'\D_N
V~~$S!tl03~M~
NM_O\r-NmO\mMM
r-mmmmmmr-mr-mmr-"'r-r-r-m..,.mmmm"''''mmmmm~'''m'''''''''101O
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmoo
"""""""""""""""""""
OO\O\ooMo",m"'IO",,,,r-mN..,...,.O\m""""O\(\l..,.OIOr-"'I/)..,...,.O\O\r-M,,,r-O\
N"-_~'--"--'-'-'NNNN'N-NN'NN'NNNN_'N
'(J\(J\"'v"O(J\"~'N'Q).""N""~"N""'N'
~ If)(J\m ~oo- ~M m-N nnN NNM_ mn ONIf)-1f)
00000000\00..,.000000000000000000000000000
0000000""00"'000000000100000000100000001/)100
ii~~~~~It)~~.~~n~~~~~~~~~~~n~~~~~~~~~~~If)M"""~
om N-N N
e...
< 0
o
M
..
..
..:l
e
..
..
::
en
..;:g(\lM
..00\01tl
CO..:lr-m..,.
"elOo'"
U:78;
Zo
~ i
c
" ~
ti e
co 0
,SU
oo(J\~m-~~v~OOIf)N"""If)~~OMMM
\01tl(J\MM-lf)m'\D(J\Nlf)mO~'\DmIf)N_M_N
olf)-~\OO""~"""~NIf)N"'''' It)V~NNM~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
of"-f"-VVIt)If)If)~\O\O~\O'\DM\O~,.....NIf)\o\o
oommoooooooooooooommmoomoooomoomm
-umuuuoouuuuowmmmmoouo
I'MiNN OOIf)tC)M
MNvm(J\OIf)~NO\ON
...........--O~IO ..or---^-I
~lO~~_.Q)r-o_:.Dr-:
IOO..,.",O-r-gNNoo
...of"-f"-tnooo v....o_
oommoo--..--Q)OOOOM
UUULtJ -~~mu
~ . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . -
o 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . ~
. c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 L
o 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 . 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 ~ C C C C C C C C C C C c
~~~~335~5555335~5E~~~~~~~~~~~~8
L ~ ~ ~ M M ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ M M ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ J J J J J J J J J J .
~s~~~s~~S~~S~E~~~u~~~~~~~~~~~~o
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~SSSSSE~SEEEEi
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL.S~~~~'~~~~~~~L
~&...................~~~~--~------~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~c~~~~~~~~~~~~~
i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~cccccccccccccccc~____________~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~$:::==:=:=:=:~
=L~LLLLLTTLLLLLLLL~~)))~))~)))~
< · · ... ... ... ... ... .. ... ... ... . ... ... ... ... E E E E E E E E E E E E E 4
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<<<<<<<<<<<<<u
1~'
a. Q. Q.
\.. \.. \..
0<>0
uou
... ... ...
000
<= c C
444
\.. \.. ...
:> :> :>
.. .. ..
.sEE
"0"0"0
... ... ...
;::;::;,;:
-;W;W;
.. .. ..
444
uuo
a.. a.. a. a..
L L L ~
000 0
uooo
.. ... ... ...
000 0
c c c c
.,., .. .. 4
L L L L
J ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
.sESE
-o'V~-o
. ... ... .
;;::;,;:;,;:;;:
-; " ";; "in
'^ '" ~ VI'
f'QI .. 4 4
UOOU
-
...
'"
...
c
..
E
E
0
u
..
"
C
-
"
...
)- 0
Z I-
<
Cl.
J:
CI ...
U 1Il
)- .. ..
~ "
l- . C
w ...
0: ,s
::l
CII
)- ~ =
III
CII .C
I- ~
Z . ~
W ... .
J: ,sCl.
ell
C ... 0=
::l
"') 1Il ...=
. lIl'
)- ~ ...CI
.
0: ... "IQ
< CO c'
J: - Q\
J:
::l ......
CII ... ~ CO
l&. 0 " .
CI . ej
...
!e III e."
C " "
CII CII",)
)-
oJ
<
Z ... ."
< CO CO
" 0
olll
= e...
Q\ < 0
-
CI ~
IQ . .
~ '" .If>
. " e
u "
e z
..
~
..
.
...
"
... t i
~ CO
;. " ;
. ~ e
0: .. 0
,su
f"".
---
.-,
'-1
Appendix VII
Page 6 of 8
'"
..
a.
a.
'"
c
o
ooomN~MOOOOOVVOO ~N_~M~~~~OO IDN~v~~~ID-~vm
~-~~~~~~~~~~~q~~~q~~~~~~~q~~~~~~~~~-q~
~vm~ OOID~~IDM~~m_~Vffl-mNm~a~MOOVO ~~~~_M~~
~OOOfflO~~ O_Nv~~~~~~~N~~~~N ~~~_~v~n-mo
ON~~OOON~~VOMo~mNNIDv~V~M-ffl~~N-~NO~N~NfflN
N~NNOONNM~O~N~O;NN~~~*~N~NN~N~~NMN~.~~N
~~*~~_~* N~~--~~* ** *N__**__****-*
tA' - ** * ..
_ooomNIDMomooVvm-~N ~M~~~~m_~N~V~~~n-IDvm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~q~~~q~~~~~~~q~~~~~~~~~~q~
~vm~_m~~O~MMMm_IDVM~mNOO~O~Mmvo-~~~~-M~~
~onOfflO~~OO~NV~~~~~~~~~~N~N~~~~--.~n-mo
~1Q~~OmN~_V~IQO~mNN~*~~-IQ~IQ-mN-~NIQNNNNIQN
*~*~NN*.-***~--*- ** ~N*-.**.._..~.
~ ** $ . -
_~~~VV~N-m~~vvo~~VOVO-~V~N~~~~~~m~IQ~V~
VIQ~~~~~m-VIQ~~~-~~----V~O~~N~NIQ~~~IQNN~~
ci~cici~Ncicici~~ciNN~ciciciciciciciciciciri~cici~cicici~~ciNci
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*~~*~~~~~~~~~*~~~~~~
(J\NQ)'\O\01GIf')\OO'IoVO)
:;;~~~~e~~~~~m
~~~_~~_~MM O'IoOON ~M~__~Vm~~
m~~mo~~o~mNo~~momm~N~OO~O~
IQM~V~~~~~v~~~IQ~~~vlQvIQNN~~1Q
V~~~~~~~~m~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~mm~~~
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmwmmmmmmmm
"""""""""""""""""""
__N~~OM~~mN~~O'Io~Mm-Vm~~,mm-mmmM~-~nOO.N-
NNN___'N'____'_'_N'_''_'___N'M"----N
"""~,~"',o'~"~'~~O'N""~'mo"'"
NNfflM~N N ~_NO'Io_~ ~ n _n_O'Io_nN m _MMm~~
-
OOOOOOOO~ooooooooovoooooooooooooo8gogo
Oo~OOOOo-o~OOOOOOo~o~Oo~Oo~OOOo~o 0 0
~O-OOOOOVOOOOOOOO~IQ~M~O-O~~OOOO~~ ~OOO
~~NN~ONM.O~NOO~NN ~N NO~N~nNNNc~~ON
N N
=
.If>
~~~~IQ-OV~ m~~mIQNNO~VN lQ~mON~~~~~~~mNO~
_1Q~N~IQNVlQmmm-m~ov~~~~~~~IQ~ONmN~~-mmo-~
~~~~~b~~~~~O~~~~~~~~~O~m~~~~~~~~O~vlQ~~
o IQv~mOVO~IQVV~IQVV~~~~gNN~VVV~~~~~o~~n~
MIQVVVV~~--~~~~O-VVVVVm~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~ mm~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
C
Q.Q.a. a. Q.a.Q.a.Q. . 0 0 0 0 0 00000000000000000000000
~aa~~~ss~8ouooouooouuuuouuuuuuuuuuuouu
u u u u u u u u u . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . · · · · · · · ·
~ ~ t ~ ~ ~ ~ t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g g g g ~ g g g g 8 g g g g ~ g ~ g ~ g g g g g g
c c c c c c c c c ~ ~ 4 ~ ~ ~ 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 ~ ~ ~ 4 4 ~ 4 4 - 4 ~ ~ 4 ~ 4 4
~ ~ ~ ~ " ~ ~ " 4 L L L L L L L L L L ~ L L L ~ L ~ ~ ~ ~ L ~ L ~ ~ L L L ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ S ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~SEEEEE~~SS~~~~~~~~SE~EE~~~
---------..~....~.~...................
~~~~~~~~~--~----~-~-------------------
.........~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~AAA
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~;~~~~~;~~~~~~~~~~~~;;;
_._______ccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc
= : = = : = = = . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
~=~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
UUUUUUOUOQQQCQQQQQQQQQCCCCCQQQQQCQQQQQ
CII
,~c
f1".
'-
'"
.,
c
..
E
E
o
u
)-
z
-<
a.
x:
o
u
)-
I-
III
CIC
::I
(4
)-
m
(4
I-
Z
III
x:
Cll
m~~~~~N.M~~~NN~OO_NV~~
~~~~q ~~~~~ ~~qq~~~~
=~~~NOOn~n~M~~~_~OOM~M~~
Q ~MOVv~NMmNmvv~~O~M~M
~OO~N~~~NvM~MOO~_NN~O_
.N~~O~~OOO***~~MOMM~~~~
-*-*- *-* ***-** **
0** * 0(4
I-
mIDVV~~NvMIDnIDNN~OO_NV~~
~~~~MO-MMm~OO-~moo~m~~
- ~~~Nmn~~nM~~~~nm~~M~~
=.-~MOVV~N.MNmVV~~o_M~ro
~~Voo-N~_~~ ~~~~~~-N~~~_
-0**.. ... . 0.. *
.,
,s
'l:i
"c
~
.. ~
... ..
'sa.
m--vv-vnNovO~NvNN~V~~
~-V~-V~O----Noo~ooooO_N~
ci~ciNciciNNcicici~ciciNcicicicici~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
c Q)
i'l:.:!Q)
... ....
)-~"'o
CIC .. :I' IQ
C~'"
x:_CCl'l
x:
::I
NVNVMMMM~MVMN V-~~~~O
--M~~IDn~VnOn~~nvvvVVO
~N~ ~~~~ ~N~_ NNNNNN
~oo~oo~~~~oo~oo~oooooooooooooooooo
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
"""""""""'"
~~~oo~~~M~~O~-OON~~~~N
NN'-----------N'NNNNN
"-""""""N"'"
-N-~OOOOOOOMOvm_ ____~
Q)
Q)
Cl'I
...'"
C C
~ 0
Om
e...
-< 0
OOOOOOOONOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOO~~OOOOOOO~OOO
~o~onnon~MnOOOOOON~OO
' , " '" , , , , , , , ,
N~ 0 O~ V-~O~M _~
-
o
IQ
~
..
...
e
..
...
~
(4
~MM vmn-nVMMomfflv ~v~o
~N~O~V~~MV~MM~~ONn~N~V
..N~mM~o~~~~o_nVVM~~N~M
"''''~-~N~ooNN-NooOO~~~~~OO~O
~e~V-V~~OOO~~-~~nNOO~~~~N
~~~~VONNNMvvnnM~~~~~~~~
ZOOOOOO 0000000000000000000000000000000000
~~~ uuoouuoouoouououo
~";i4444444~="
OOO:J:J:J~:J:J::J~:J-_
uuu---------44
:J :J ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ :J ~ :J ~
~t~~;;~;;;;;j5~~~~~~~
~~~ccccccccc aaa~gg~
~LL.........~~mmmmmmm
~~~EEEEEEEEE~~~~~~~~~
~ss~~~~~~~~~OOLLLLLLL
...~~~~~~~~~~~.......
~~~EEEEFEEEE<-<-o~~o~o~o~~o~
4 4 4 ~ J ~ ~ 5 ~ ~ ~ ~ L L L L ~ L ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~44aaaaaa~
c c ~ . . 4 . . . . . . c c
~~Q.i~iii~ii'i~~
...-----------
OOO~~~"g~~~~~~~
..
...
~
C
...
~
;
.
CIC
: ;
c
~ 2
l; e
III 0
,su
()
Appendix VlI
Page 7 of 8
~
C'!
IQ
~
...
.
...
IQ
...
..
In
C'!
In
-
,..
.
f3\
I'll
..
In
-
.
Q)
o
-
..
Q)
...
,..
.
...
f3\
IQ
..
:1'...
~ C
,.. ~ ..
Cl'I e e
e ...
~...
(4~
..J
-<
I-
o
I-
.
..
..
c
..
e
e
0
u
..
..
Q
-
..
..
,.. 0
Z l-
e
A.
I:
0 ..
u ..
,.. .. ..
~ ..
I- :Q
'"
ClI: .s
;:)
en
,.. 't'i 1:
lD
en "Q
I- ~
Z .. ~
'" .. ..
I: .sA.
ell
Q "olD
;:)
., ....CIl
.. ...
,.. ~..O
ClI: .. ::01')
e .......
I: .sQ~
I:
;:) ::0"
en o. ~ c:
... 0 .. ..
0 ..ej
!e 'l;E""
Q .. ..
en en.,
,..
..J
e
z ..""
e c: c:
.. 0
olD
CIl Eo.
CIl eo
~
~
.. ..
~ ...a
.. .. E
e u ..
z
..
;:
..
..
..
..
Q t i
~ c:
; .. ;
.. Ii E
.. 0
.su
-
o
I')
.a
..
en
..
ClI:
o
OVUlvMVlOvO
ONN\ONQ)~OV
cilli~N~~~a\N
mr-__r-tQ1,DNO>O
1,D... tQ, 0.... 11)... ~ to... ffl... 0.. -...
---0 v (J'Io""'''''''''
~a....v....I/lI<I...N
*' -Ellt*-* ~
...
0'" 1/)...1<I1/l0VO
q~~~C'!cq~q~
ONvNmtQNO\N
CD'O_....'Ol<lvCDI/)
_1/)...'ONOI/)...1<I
-,.,; N.........II)...N -...
~ .--$ ..
... ...
-..or-mN"",,"tQOto
,,=qt'!~'.I!IqIq--:t'!
o..oo..oCJ\O\_ItD
...N...__I<I.........
... ... ... ...
OMOOa-...,.NOO
O-OO.oI<lCDOto
10.. ell Cl (7\... ..0... tQ... 1'-... 0... r-..
-....-....Ov""""N
",CD...I<I.o...I<I...N
.. _*-<M- ..
...
-~-~!:~O\N......
,..
ClI:
<
I:
I:
;:)
en
~:Jo...4,.
"cioe-~~=
g~Q.Sio :J!!
4:JEl..O.1:;:;
~ '" 0:).. oc_~...~"'Qc
...EO~o.. --
c"O_cL,c ~
-\.,c 4:J1.-o.....
:JI'.-.a"L",eC"
~~"Qc.~cL"-
~c LC-.OL
...&:11-..0....
J!m c:n"O:oF~g.
l.&..(:c__..5 L
"o..~"'~"o....I-;;.o...
.,o_."iji;C4c
;!:~L):",.Co
-.-S42-.:!:;:;
<1:1:<00"'''
..cc< ..5Z
..:,.
Appendix VII
Page 8 of 8
In
l"!
I')
.0
""
.
""
I')
""
*
In
l"!
In
-
....
.
~
III
*
In
-
.
CIl
o
-
*
GI
""
....
.
""
~
I')
*
....
~
..J
<
I-
o
I-
ro-,
-
o
Office of the County "Counsel t
County Government Center, East Wing
70 West Hedding Street
San Jose, California 95110
299-2111 Area Code 408
County of Santa Clara
California
Donald L. Clark, County Counsel
MEMORANDUM
December 26, 1966
TO:
ROGER MlALOCQ
Harvey Rose Accou~tancy corp.)~ ~ ~
DONALD L. CLARK 9fit~ f~
County Counsel
STEVEN M. WOODSIDE
Chief Assistant County Counsel
FROM:
RE:
Response to the Management Audit of the
Operations of the County Counsel's Office
Attached is our response to your report to the Board of
Supervisors on your review of the operations of the County
Counsel's Office.
We appreciate the thoroughness and' attention you have given
to this proJect. We look forward to discussing your report with
you and with the Board of Supervisors.
DLC: smw
Attachment(s).
s
An Equal OpPC!,!unity Employer
-
o
J
RESPONSE BY COUNTY COUNSEL'S OFFICE
TO THE MANAGEMENT AUDIT OF THE OPERATIONS
OF THE COUNTY COUNSELS OFFICE
.,>n
-
o
o
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
Paqe
INTRODUCTION
1
I. ADMINISTRATIVE AND MANAGEMENT ISSUES
1.1 Administrative Policies and Procedures
1.2 Management Information System
1.3 Support Staff Organization
1.4 Support Staff Utilization
1.5 Timekeeping Function
1.6 Billing Functions
1.7 Charges for Professional Services
1.8 Zoning Investigation Cost Recovery
3
5
7
9
11
12
13
14
15
1.9 Organizational Development
II. HUMAN SERVICES DIVISION ISSUES
11.1 Conservatorship accountings
11.2 Decedent Estates
II. 3 DSS-SSI Advocacy Program
11.4 DSS Child Dependency Services
19
21
23
24
III. GENERAL GOVERNMENT AND LITIGATION DIVISION ISSUES
111.1 Tort Defense Litigation 26
IV. LAND USE AND TRANSIT DIVISION
IV.l Bail Bond Forfeitures
27
-
w
-
-
o
:)
RESPONSE BY COUNTY COUNSEL'S OFFICE
TO THE MANAGEMENT AUDIT OF THE OPERATIONS
OF THE COUNTY COUNSELS OFFICE
INTRODUCTION
'"
We are grateful that the Board of Supervisors directed the
Harvey M. Rose Management Audit Staff to review the operations of
the County Counsel's Office. To the best of our knowledge, this
,,'
is the first time that the operations of our office have been
thoroughly analyzed by a team of public accountants. Their
analysis was carefully done and their recommendations are very
specific as to how to improve our operations. We agree with most
of their recommendations and look forward to working with the
Board of Supervisors,. the County Executive; and our' many clients,
to implement many of the recommendations. We believe that
services to our clients and to the public can be improved if the
reforms suggested by the auditors can be implemented.
One of the most significant recommendations is that the
business management capabilities_of the office be improved: The
audit report itself provides much needed management analysis of
the various operations of our office, and illustrates well how an
ongoing and thorough business management review of our operations
can result in cost savings, greater efficiencies, and improved
quality of legal services. We strongly endorse the recommenda-
tions which will allow management analysis of our operations to
continue.
, .,
- -
-
-
-
o
o
-
Not-withstanding the need for better management analysis, the
auditors found that Santa Clara County Counsel's Office ranks very
high in terms of the percentage of costs recovered through fees
for services. (Audit Report page 4.) During the last four years,
the percent of costs recovered by our office has increased
-~
dramatically from under one quarter to almost one half of our cost
of operation. While this is good news from the point of view of
increasing revenues, it does have some potential adverse
consequences. For example, clients who have a limited revenues of
their own, may not be able to purchase legal services even though
such services are sorely needed. Our responsiveness to non-paying
clients is adversely affected.
It is important to view this audit report as a whole: The
auditor's comprehensive message is clear: Greater efficiencies
-
can be achieved, but there are also great needs which are not now
being met. The challenge for our office will be to achieve the
efficiencies and distribute the savings in areas which currently
need moreservice~
We, like the auditors, view this report as an opportunity
to improve our responsiveness to the needs of our clients and to
improve the quality of services we provide. We are grateful to
Roger Mialocq, Steve Foti, John Johns, and Nicole Dennis for their
analysis and recommendations. As can be seen from our response to
the detailed recommendations, these recommendations provide a
sound basis for substantially improving our operations:
-
o
o
I . I
ADMINISTRATIVE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
Recommendation by the Auditors:
1. Utilize policies and procedures from other county counsel
offices as a basis for developing comprehensive policies and
procedures for Santa Clara County;
2. Assign responsibility for developing comprehensive
policies and procedures to administrative management and analytical
staff recommended in Section 1.3.
Response:
We agree. It would be extremely useful to have a centralized
manual of policies and procedures to guide the activities of all
employees in the office. The auditors correctly point out that
although written policies do exist in several areas, some important
procedures have not been written and maintained:
The auditors recommend that we use policies and procedures
from other counties as a basis for developing our own set of
written comprehensive procedures. We agree that written policies
from other counties may provide useful guidance for us. We note,
however, that there are a number of other county counsel offices
which, like us, do not have formal centralized policies and
procedures manuals. We also note that there are some procedures
which have been reviewed by the auditors here which are not the
subject of formal policies and procedures in those counties which
have procedures manuals.
The auditors also recommend that the responsibility for
developing comprehensive policies and procedures should be assigned
_'4~_
- ~
-
-
-
o
o
-
to the .dministrative management and analytical staff which the
auditors recommend be added to our office. With respect to
administrative policies, this is a good suggestion. Lawyers are
probably less well-equipped than business managers to develop
procedures for timekeeping, budget, and other administrative
procedures.
The auditors recommendation, therefore, cannot be fully
implemented unless the appropriate business management staff is
available to strengthen our office policies and procedures:
Some attorney time will also need to be devoted to the
development of policies and procedures. Many of the procedures
discussed by the auditors will require review by the attorney
staff. Moreover, there are many procedures which have not been
addressed by the auditors which are predominantly legal in nature:
For example, procedures for bringing matters to the Board of
Supervisors attention in closed session, and the related
constraints of the Brown Act, are promulgated by the County
Counsel's Office. It would be useful to develop comprehensive
written procedures on this subject to guide the work of the
attorneys and to assure that there is consistency and legality in
this sensitive area.
In view of the foregoing, it will not be enough to assign to
administrative staff the responsibility for developing comprehensive
policies and procedures. Significant lawyer time will also be
required. Some additional lawyer time can be devoted to this
subject if the recommendations in Section 1.4 (relating to support
staff utilization) are also implemented.
...
-
o
~
I . 2
MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM
Recommendation:
The auditors recommend that the County Counsel's Office:
1. Analyze its programmatic responsibilities and identify
and develop a series of management reports by which the office's
performance in these areas can be monitored;
2. Implement quarterly or semi-annually reporting by each of
the Chief Deputies regarding the general status of services and any
specific issues currently noteworthy within each division of the
County Counsel's Office.
Response:
We agree that the flow of information necessary to operate or
monitor operations throughout the office needs to be made much more
systematic. Heretofore, the flow of management information has
been primarily verbal, with frequent meetings designed to exchange
information on cases, client projects, and day-to-day office
administration. . Some written financial reports are prepared on a
systematic basis~
We concur with the auditors recommendation that programmatic
reports be generated by staff in the following areas: Revenues and
expenditures, personnel status reports, summary judgment status
report in bail forfeiture cases, public administrator accountings
status reports, Department of Social Services dependency case
status reports, and personal injury case workload statistics and
costs. In addition, we would find it useful to maintain
comprehensive litigation reports on all litigation, particularly
cases with high exposure.
.or
-
-
-
o
o
-
Th~ foregoing programmatic reports would not be a substitute
for regular staff meetings, but rather, would supplement and
enhance the flow of information necessary to properly manage the
office and avoid unpleasant surprises.
To properly implement these recommendations, however, some
expenditure of attorney time will be necessary. In some assignment
areas, significant time will be devoted to preparing the recommended
reports. We are hopeful that if the recommendations in Section 1:4
(relating to support staff utilization) are implemented, some of
the savings of attorney time generated there could be used to
enhance the flow of management information.
The auditors cite a number of problems which they contend
could have been avoided if better management information had been
made available. We agree better management information would have
helped us to address each of these problems. However, a few of the
examples cited were indeed known to the office and would require
additional expenditures or budget augmentations to avoid the
results described in the auditors report. For example, the
substantial backlog in the child dependency area is well known.
Better information concerning the scope of the backlog would have
enhanced our ability to describe the problem, but the solution
still requires additional staff. Similarly, our office has
suggested for a number of years that a greater number of the
personal injury cases be handled by the County Counsel's Office
rather than by outside counsel. Better management information
helps to quantify the cost savings associated with this proposal,
but the fact that there are cost savings is not a total surprise.
-
.
o
:)
The benefits of better management information are thus twofold:
First, as the auditors point out, better information will help us
avoid problems growing without management's knowledge. There is
also an ancillary benefit in that we could advise clients as to
where backlogs and problems are developing so that each of us can
better address whether and what kind of resources need to be
devoted to resolving the problems.
1.3
SUPPORT STAFF ORGANIZATION
Recommendations:
1. The Board of Supervisors authorize positions and funding
for one (1) Business Administrative Services Manager, one (1)
Management Analyst and one (1) Accountant;
2. Delete one (1) Administrative Support Officer position;
3. The County Counsel establish a Business Services Division;
4. All accounting functions within the Business Services
Division be centralized;
S. Designate the Business and Administrative Services
Manager as the manager of all administrative matters with primary
responsibility for personnel management, budget, and accounting
functions;
6. Establish comprehensive accounting procedures:
Response:
We agree. These recommendations are at the heart of the
auditors recommendations. Implementation of these recommendations
would do the most to make our office operate more efficiently:
The organization of the County Counsel's Office has long
_1J17_
-
o
o
-
.
emphasized the functions performed directly by the lawyers. The
assignment of lawyers to clients, projects and cases, review of the
lawyers' work, continuing education of lawyers, providing
preventive law services, and other matters directly related to the
lawyers staff has been the focus of the office organization:
~ - ~
Support staff organization has historically mirrored the
structure of the lawyers. The auditors recommend, and we strongly
agree, that the various functions supportive of the lawyers staff
be centrally organized under a strong manager and others who have
strong business analytical abilities. Support staff functions have
grown well beyond providing direct secretarial services to
lawyers. Today, especially as the office relies upon billing
systems, case tracking systems, and officewide word processing and
document systems, strong officewide organization of these support
functions is necessary. We can no longer rely exclusively upon the
individual lawyers to direct the processing of their own work
product_
The auditors state that there are three "essential elements"
missing from the County Counsel's support staff: (1) a Business
and Administrative Services Manager, (2) a Management Analyst, and
(3) an Accountant II. Are all three positions necessary? We
agree with the auditors that they are.
A Manager is clearly needed to supervise legal secretaries and
other support staff and to create and update all administrative
policies and procedures.
A Management Analyst can continuously review the financial
impact of the activities of the office, establish procedures on
_11l1L
-
'-
o
J
forfeitures, collections, and other financial transactions handled
in part by the office, design and produce management information
reports which can make the office more efficient and responsive,
and perform a number of analyses which are mentioned in the
auditors report.
An Accountant II is necessary to assist with timekeeping and
"-
billing functions, processing invoices from numerous vendors,
produce bills for payment by clients and third parties and perform
in a centralized fashion the various functions outlined by the
auditors.
The auditors are recommending a net increase of one (1)
administrative position over fiscal year 1987-88 level. By
increasing the administrative support staff, and utilizing that
staff as recommended by the auditors, we believe that significant
efficiencies can be achieved in the operations of the office,
particularly with respect to financial aspects of our operation.
We agree that the amount of attorney involvement in administrative
matters would be reduced, and the ability of management to channel
the activities of lawyers in an efficient manner would be enhanced.
1.4
SUPPORT STAFF UTILIZATION
Recommendations:
1. Add two (2) Clerk Typist positions and delete one (1)
Secretary I;
2. Add one (1) Paralegal position;
3. Expend $5,500 for additional Wang printing equipment;
4. Streamline the word processing by implementing policies
-149-
,
-
o
o
~-
as recommended by the auditors.
Response:
We agree that a Clerk Typist and a Paralegal position should
be added. We disagree, however, that an additional Clerk Typist
should replace an existing Legal Secretary. Additionally, while we
agree that substantial increases in attorney productivity could be
achieved by adding two (2) support staff positions, we are
skeptical that these two additions would result in the equivalent
of three attorney positions.
Discussion:
The auditors have carefully surveyed and observed the
operation of most of the County Counsel's staff and discovered that
there are a number of clerical services which are being performed
by legal secretaries, a number of legal secretarial functions
performed by paralegals, and some paralegal tasks which are
performed by lawyers. We agree with the auditors recommendation
that we maximize the performance of functions appropriate to to
support staff.
For example, an added Clerk Typist could perform "court run"
functions, photocopying, clerical functions in the library, and
other activities which are now performed by legal secretaries:
This would free time for legal secretaries to perform some tasks
now performed by paralegals, resulting in paralegals performing
some tasks now being performed by lawyers. The increase of
productivity for lawyers could be applied to some of the tasks or
to many of the tasks which the auditors recommend be performed by
lawyers. (For example, decedent estates, Recommendation 11.2;
,c::n
-
o
o
increased client contact in areas of tort litigation, Transit, etc.)
We agree that it is realistic to conclude that there will be
substantial savings in professional staff time by adding clerical
support. As the auditors point out, Santa Clara County is among
the lowest counties in terms of the ratio of support staff to
professional staff. We do not agree, however, that adding one (1)
clerical and one (1) paralegal position will result in the savings
of equivalent to three (3) lawyers. At most, we would expect that
adding these two positions would result in at most a savings
equivalent to two (2) lawyers.
We also disagree that one Clerk Typist should be substituted
for one Legal Secretary. Although legal secretaries may identify
some tasks, such as photocopying, which can be performed by clerk
typists, there are often circumstances when legal secretaries,
paralegals, and even occasionally lawyers, will find it most
efficient to go directly to the photocopying machine to make
copies. Because legal secretaries are able to perform a wider
range of functions than a clerk typist, we would urge the Board not
to replace one of the legal secretaries with a clerk typist:
1.5
TIMEKEEPING FUNCTION
Recommendation:
1. Improve design and expand the number of service codes on
internal timesheets;
2. Require timesheets to be submitted on a weekly basis,
rather than a bi-weekly basis;
3. Eliminate the current timesheet audit process;
-151-
-
o
o
-
4. Institute the DataEase software program.
Response:
We agree. The existing internal audit process for timeshe~ts
is more extensive than it needs to be to insure accuracy of report-
ing and billing. The auditors have recommended that we eliminate a
number of the verification procedures, and make the time reporting
system uniform throughout the professional staff in the office~
The system the auditors recommend will be relatively simple
for the attorney staff to use, for the accountants to process, and
will meet the needs of all clients for appropriate billing
statements. We are grateful to the auditors for taking the time to
thoroughly investigate this area and for making specific recommenda-
tions which we intend to implement. We believe that full
implementation will depend, in part, upon successful implementation
of the recommendations in paragraph 1.3 relating to organization of
the administrative staff.
1.6
BILLING FUNCTIONS
Recommendations:
1. Implement the DataEase computer program;
2. Modify GSA and school district billings as described in
the report;
3. Integrate the timekeeping and billing functions within
the Department.
Response:
We agree with these recommendations. Although the office
generates bills for services and has increased the proportion of
'C?
o
'.)
professional time billed during the past five years, there is not a
single standard billing procedure to be utilized throughout the
office. We agree with the auditors that uniformity and consistency
in billing practices will be more efficient and will b; iair to all
of our clients.
Presently the two major methods of billing are either
(1) hourly billings, or (2) a fixed retainer. The auditors
recommend that all of our clients be placed on an hourly billing
basis. This will provide accurate bills to the cli~nts, correctly
assess clients for the actual services provided, and, in certain
cases, will increase revenues from clients currently on a low
retainer (e.g., Valley Medical Center).
1.7
CHARGES FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
Recommendations:
1. Directly bill the Planning Department and County
Executive's Toxics and Hazardous Waste Division;
2. Continually attempt to identify other clients which
receive funding from external agencies which may provide
reimbursement for services;-
3. Adopt the methodology recommended by the auditors for the
establishment of the hourly rate.
Response:
We agree with these recommendations.
Directly billing the Planning Department will have significant
policy implications. It could result in the passing on of County
Counsel costs associated with land development, resulting in
increased permit fees.
,..,
~.-
o
-
Directly billing for toxics and hazardous waste issues should
increase revenue to the County's general fund from federal and
state sources which may be available to pay for these services.
Similarly, as the auditors suggest, our office, as well as the
County Executive's Office, needs to continuously review general
fund clients which could receive funding from external sources for
the legal services provided by our office.
The billing methodology recommended by the auditors will more
accurately reflect the actual costs of services provided: For
example, separately billing for paralegal time, rather than
including paralegals in the overall costs of operating the office,
will more accurately distribute the costs of the services:
Similarly, the recommendations concerning accounting for billable
hours will result in bills which accurately reflect both the hours
expended and the rate of reimbursement. ,Interestingly, the
attorneys' hourly rate would actually be lower under the auditors
recommendation than it is currently. The number of hours
separately billed to various clients will increase, however: The
result will be an estimated $100,000 increase in revenues to the
general fund, according to the auditors. We agree that this
estimate is accurate, assuming the policy of billing for planning
services and toxics and hazardous waste is approved.
1.8
ZONING INVESTIGATION COST RECOVERY
Recommendation:
1. The Planning Department and the Zoning Investigation Unit
develop a method to recover at least seventy (70%) percent of the
,r.
ro
o
o
operating costs of the Zoning Investigation Unit.
Response:
We agree that recovery of the high costs of zoning enforcement
is desirable. The auditors are recommending one of two
alternatives: First, charge the costs to the Planning Department
~
and adjust the Planning Department's fee schedule to recover these
costs from land developers. Alternatively, recover these costs by
adding a penalty to the permit application fee for a zoning
violator. Either of these two policies would result in increased
revenues. Spreading the cost of zoning enforcement to all permit
applicants would probably achieve greater revenues, but may be
unfair to law-abiding applicants. Conversely, charging a penalty
fee to violators may discourage violators from seeking approval
through the permit application process.
1.9
ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Recommendations:
1. Assign" Zoning Investigation Unit to the Planning
Department.
2. Change two (2) Attorney positions to Lead Attorney
positions to coordinate work for the Transit District and the
Department of Social Services.
3. Develop and implement procedures for client departments
to become more directly involved in the process for estimating the
scope and cost of County Counsel services.
4. Establish appropriate office space for County Counsel
staff to work within the Transit District and within the Superior
Court - Juvenile Division.
-
,",-'
o
.
,....,
S.. Design 9th floor office space to provide for its most
efficient use.
6. Reassign staff in a manner consistent with the
organization as proposed by the auditors.
Response:
We agree with these recommendations.
Removing the Zoning Investigation function from the County
Counsel's Office is an issue which has surfaced previously: The
_unit was first established within the County Counsel's Office
several years ago, but later was transferred to the Planning
Department. In the wake of Proposition 13, the function was
transferred back to the County Counsel's Office partially as a
means to protect the unit from massive layoffs which were occurring
within the Planning Department. Although the Zoning Investigation
Unit works closely with our office, there is minimal supervision of
their field investigation work. The Zoning Unit works very closely
with the Planning Department to determine whether buildings are in
compliance with planning procedures and the zoning ordinance: The
natural alignment of the planning function and zoning investigation
would be enhanced if the Zoning Unit were placed under the admi"ni-
strative of the Planning Department. Moreover, the Zoning
Enforcement Coordinator, who currently tries to coordinate zoning,
health, and building investigation cases, would have greater
flexibility to direct the activities of the zoning investigators
were they assigned to her department. The County Counsel's Office
would continue to work closely with the zoning investigators on
cases which are headed to trial. However, our supervision of their
o
o
daily investigative activity is presently weak. Greater super-
vision and coordination of their investigations may be useful.
Establishing Lead Attorney positions to service the Department
of Social Services (child dependency cases) and the complex legal
matters relating to the Transit District is a good idea. Child
dependency-'cases, which the auditors believe cannot be handled
appropriately without additional staff, also need greater
coordination. If the attorneys and support staff who work on these
cases were located in the juvenile fac~ities, and an on-site
attorney were available to coordinate their very demanding
caseload, some efficiencies could be achieved. Moreover, our
responsiveness, which needs greater attention in the dependency
caseload, would be improved if a coordinating attorney were
available to consult periodically with clients.
The workload of the Transit District is also in need of
greater coordination and closer contact with the attorney staff:
The suggestion that a resident attorney be assigned physically to
the Transit District offices for several hours each week would
improve our office's capability to respond in a systematic way to
demands by the district administration. Our office handles a great
deal of labor cases -for the Transit District, assists with
transactional work, and is handling a large number of construction
and other cases relating to light rail. The District appears to be
willing to pay the added cost of having an attorney directly
accessible to them on a scheduled basis.
The auditors recommendation that procedures be developed to
involve County departments more directly in the process for
,C7
-
I"'"'l
,,~
o
estimating the scope of County Counsel services is a good one. We
do not provide legal services in a vacuum, yet sometimes we feel
that our estimates for the amount of services which will be
required for a given project or case are not clearly understood by
the client or the County Executive's Office. We believe that
greater involvement by our clients in the process of developing
"budgets" for cases and projects would help our clients develop a
realistic approach to the case or project and provide our office
with the resources which the client decides it can afford to spend
on the issue.
Construction issues provide a good example of the need to work
together to determine the amount of legal resources needed: The
auditors believed that there is insufficient historical data which
they could analyze whether or not it is efficient to assign complex
construction cases to outside counsel. Al~hough the auditors have
not been able to analyze the trends in construction, they suggest
that it would be appropriate for our office to express our views
concerning this ~izable and growing caseload.
We are currently anticipating that more than one million
dollars will be spent on construction litigation during 1989: Much
of these expenditures will be for outside counsel. Just as in tort
defense and other areas where our office handles a substantial
caseload, it is cost effective for County Counsel's Office to
handle cases where it has or can acquire expertise. We believe
that these cases should be closely monitored by our office and the
County Executive's Office and that our analytical staffs be
assigned to monitor the expenditures and effectiveness of outside
counsel in this area.
1 rn
-
o
o
The" auditors also recommend that our 9th floor office space be
designed to make it as efficient as possible, and that a number of
functions currently housed on the 9th floor be removed to other
locations. Specifically, the extensive child dependency function
and the zoning investigation function, if removed to other"
locations would provide the office with some sorely needed space.
The bottom line is that our present configuration is overcrowded,
at times noisy, and not conducive to producing a good quality work
product. Confidential interviews with clients and witnesses are
all but impossible. The auditors quit~ properly note that the
efficiency of the office could be increased if appropriate space
were provided.
The final organizational recommendation is that the office be
organized along functional lines similar to those at present, but
that certain or satellite offices be maintained (for Transit
District and child dependency cases). Another significant
recommendation is that all the business administration functions be
organized in a separate functional unit in the office under the
supervision of an Administrative Services Manager. We agree with
this recommendation; and for the reasons set forth previously in
the report, we believe that some added staff in this area will
result in greater efficiencies and savings for the office and for
the clients we serve.
11.1
CONSERVATORSHIP ACCOUNTINGS
Recommendations:
Board of Supervisors:
~
'-
Q
.
1. Authorize the funding for pro-tern jUdicial positions and
temporary staffing.
2. Direct the Public-Administrator-Guardian. County Counsel
and PUblic Defender to attempt to administratively resolve any
disagreement regarding appropriate LPS fee amounts.
County Counsel:
1. On an interim basis, utilize paralegal staff proposed for
tort defense to process backlogged conservatorship accountings.
2. Work with the Public Administrator - Guardian to rectify
differences in records regarding the number and status of
conservatorship accountings.
3. Develop a comprehensive system for logging accounting
petitions and tracking them through the hearing process.
Response:
We agree with the recommendation that the backlog be addressed
through the use of pro-tem jUdicial positions, temporary staffing
in the courts and through the use of one of the new paralegal
positions in the Office of the County Counsel on an interim basis.
The recommendation that disagreements relating to fees in LPS
proceedings be addressed administratively may prove difficult to
implement unless the Board of Supervisors determines as a matter of
pOlicy that fees of the PUblic Guardian and County Counsel should
be limited to actual costs of providing services in an individual
case.
Under the Probate Code,both the County Counsel and Public
Guardian are entitled to an award of a reasonable fee for services,
as is the Public Defender. The position of the PUblic Defender is
_,~n
o
o
that County Counsel and the Public Guardian should be limited to
their actual costs in each case. This would preclude the County
Counsel and Public Guardian from recovering much of their ~verhead,
including uncollectable fees in other conservatorship matters. We
have asserted our right to collect reasonable fees and we would
anticipate continuing to do so absent Board direction to the
contrary.
Revenue projections in this Section are based on figures
provided by the Public Guardian. Based on past experience, the
estimate of $300,000 in collections from addressing the backlog
appears to be optimistic; however, the backlog must be addressed
irrespective of whether the full amount of projected revenues is
realized. Under the Probate Code, accountings must occur
eitherannually or biannually. and we are not currently meeting this
requirement. Failure to address the backlog ultimately will result
in the court disallowing fees, with a further loss of revenue to
the County.
11.2
DECEDENT ESTATES
Recommendations.
County Counsel:
1. Continue accepting full probate decedent estate case load
from the Public Administrator.
2. Utilize existing staff made available from implementing
recommendations relating to support staff utilization. In the
interim, utilize staff which are recommended for tort defense.
_1~1_
a
o
-
Response.
Assuming eithec that the cecommendation foe additional
attocneys in the acea of toct defense is followed 0[, that an
additional attocney position is included foe this acea. we agcee
with the cecommendation that we should cesume cepcesentation of the
Public Administcatoc in full pcobate cases. It is impoctant to note
that implementation of the cecommendation to make intecim use of
staff cecommended foe toct defense to cepcesent the PUblic
Administcator will delay implementation of the cecommendation in
the area of tort defense. Reassignment of an attocney from his or
her current duties on the basis of savings to be realized from
enhanced support staff will cequire that all of the cecommendations
in the report are implemented and that the projected savings in
time are realized.
We believe that the revenue projections in this area are
conservative. It is not uncommon for estates handled by the PUblic
Administrator to include residential ceal property. Given the
significant increase in pcopecty values in the County. historical
collections probably are not the best indicatoc of potential fees.
Based on an estimate of 3 new decedent estates pee month. the
addition of an attorney to provide services to the PUblic
Administrator in decedent estates should result in revenues
exceeding the costs of the position. In addition. it would allow
for improved services and additional fees in probate
conservatorships by freeing a portion of an attorney's time
currently devoted to decedent estates opened prior to August. 1988.
at which time we stopped accepting new cases.
..
o
o
11.3
DSS-SSI ADVOCACY UNIT
Recommendations:
1. Prepare a comprehensive list monthly of all DSS clients
approved for SSI including their names. date of birth and social
security n~mbers.
2. Compile a retroactive list of SSI approvals between 1986
and 1988.
3. Prepare a supplemental appropriation request to fund an
expansion of the SSI-advocacy program.
4. Submit annual reports to the Board of Supervisors
including revenues. expenditures. and other data to allow for the
ongoing monitoring of the SSI-advocacy program.
Department of Social Services - VMC Unit:
1. Prepare a supplemental appropriation request to fund
additional eligibility worker staffing to process retroactive
Medi-Cal claims.
VMC and Mental Health Bureau:
1. Review and prepare retroactive Medi-Cal bills for cases
referred fro~the Department of Social Services - SSI Advocacy
Program as appropriate.
2. Prepare a supplemental appropriation request to fund the
costs of processing retroactive Medi-Cal bills.
Response:
We agree with these recommendations and concur with the
response submitted by the Department of Social Services.
,c~
a
o
-
11.4
DSS CHILD DEPENDENCY SERVICES
Recommendations:
County Counsel should:
1. Request an additional attorney position to staff the
DSS-Child Dependency Unit. If approved. consider staffing a legal
office at the Department of Social Services one day per week.
2. Enhance the computerized DSS-case traCking system to
generate management reports. to monitor cases and workload and to
prepare court and trial calendars.
Superior Court should:
1. Allocate sufficient space for the County Counsel's
DSS-Child Dependency Unit attorneys. support staff. records and
equipment in the new family courts facility
Response:
Although we agree with the text of the report. the one
additional attorney position which is recommended in this area is
insufficient to provide representation to the Juvenile Probation
Department and the Department of Social Services in child
dependency matters.
As noted in the body of the report. the addition of one
attorney would bring this County's staffing up to level of the
county with the least staffinq among those counties surveyed in the
course of the audit. In addition. the staffing level which would
result from the addition of only one attorney would require that
attorneys spend 75% of their time in court. This would leave
inadequate time for case preparation. and essentially no time for
o
o
either appellate work or advice to the Department of Social
services in ongoing dependency matters.
Four additional attorneys are required to provide legal
services in child dependency matters. The minimum staffing
required is 2 attorneys per courtroom plus one full-time equivalent
-
to do appellate work and one full-time equivalent to provide
departmental representation and coordination and relief for
attorneys on vacation or sick leave. There are three courtrooms
currently operating in the Juvenile facility; in addition.
dependency matters requirinq more than one day for trial routinely
are referred to the superior Court calendar. which results in the
addition of the equivalent of a fourth court.
There are several siqnificant problems which relate to
inadequate staffinq: an inability to effectively deal with an
extensive backloq in petitions to free children from the custody
and control of their parents for purposes of adoption. with
children waitinq in foster care and receivinq pUblic benefits until
their cases have been completed; strained relations with the
Department of Social Services because staff is unable to reach
attorneys who are continually in court; strained relations with the
Court because of lack of preparation time and the inability to
respond in a timely fashion to Court orders to file petitions
either for freedom from parental custody and control or for
quardianship; stress and lowered morale amonq attorneys who
continuously are required to work niqhts and weekends to prepare
for court appearances and who work in an emotionally charqed
settinq throuqhout the court day. We believe that it is essential
-165-
(""'\
o
that these peoblems be dealt with theough the additon of adequate
staff.
One of the additional cleek typists eecommended elsewheee in
the eepoet would be assigned to the child dependency aeea. It is
necessaey to peocess between 90 and 120 files per day, and the need
for this clerical position is critical.
Finally, we agree that attorney and clerical staff should be
located in the building where court is conducted. When such a move
takes pla~e, it will be necessary to assign an attorney lead
responsibilities to coordinate the work of a unit located outside
of the office.
111.1
TORT DEFENSE LITIGATION
Recommendations:
1. Add three (3LAttorneys, one (1) Paralegal. two (2)
Secretaries and one-half (1/2) of one Clerk Typist to handle
in-house a major portion of the tort defense litigation involving
the County or the Transit District as defendants.
2. Develop formal policies foe case monitoring program which
incorporates the reporting standards described by the auditors.
Response:
We agree that the County would save a substantial amount of
money if most of the tort defense work were performed by County
Counsel attorneys in lieu of outside counsel. The auditors make a
persuasive case that our office can handle most of this work
efficiently and that the quality of services provided would be
comparable to that on the outside. The savings is achieved in two
-
o
o
ways: First. the County Counsel's billing rate is at least ten
(10%) percent below the rate charged by contract law firms.
Secondly. the amount of hours billed by case by County Counsel
lawyers tends to be less than the amounts billed by outside
attorneys for comparable cases. The $140.000 in savings estimated
by the auditors appears to us to be a realistic potential savings.
IV.l
BAIL BOND FORFEITURES
Recommendations:
1. Bail bond forfeitures should be periodically audited:
2. County Counsel needs to be notified immediately by the
court when payment is received on outstanding Summary Bail
Judgments:
3. Interest at the statutory rate should b~ charged from the
date of entry of judgment on all summary judgments:
4. Bail bonds should not be accepted from companies with
summary judgments on bail forfeitures outstanding more than twenty
(20) days:
5. The Department of Revenue should assume the collection
and monitoring function.
Response:
We agree with these recommendations. We note that once the
extent of the problem was uncovered by the auditors on September 30.
1988. more than $200.000 has been collected since that time. The
procedures recommended by the auditors should prevent the accumula-
tion of uncollected summary judgments.
The auditors suggest that the Department of Revenue should
_167_
(j
~-
(')
-
monitor all bail forfeitures inasmuch as there is a significant
general fund revenue continuously flowing to the County. The
Department of Revenue and the County Counsel's Office work closely
on the collection of other outstanding debts owed to the County and
to VMC. Our record jointly with the Department of Revenue is
quite good; both in terms of the amount of money successfully
collected. and the percentage of debts received. For example. our
goal has been to collect more than $300.000 in the 1988-89 fiscal
year. At mid-year. our office and the Department of Revenue has
already met the annual goal.
SMW:smw/TL3/99
-
.
o
o
ffimrla ([lara ([ourrl~
400" .. al ([aurt
C"'.mnctp .
200 West Hedding Street
San Jose. California 95110.1774
(408) 299.4974
James H. Dempsey
Clerk/ ^dministralive Officer
December 27, 1988
Mr. Roger Mialockq
Harvey Rose Accountancy Corporation
70 West Hedding street
San Jose, CA 95110
Dear Mr. Mialockq:
This correspondence is written to serve as a companion
letter to the "Review of the Operations of the County Counsel's
Office" prepared by the Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation.
Our response to the findings and recommendations relating to the
Municipal Court's bail bond and summary judgment procedures are
provided below.
Summary Judqment Procedures
The Review states that thirteen unprocessed summary
judgments were identified in the San Jose Municipal Court
Facility during the course of the audit. Additionally, the
County Counsel's Office was not promptly notified of summary
judgment payments.
The Review recommends that the Court develop, implement,
and/or enforce procedures for processing summary judgments.
Extensive procedures for summary judgments were developed and
implemented by the Court during 1987. We believe that the
exceptions stated above occurred as the result of a supervisory
transition. A supervisor was newly assigned to the bail
-169-
Page
2
o
a
-
.
bond/summary judgment unit and was not completely familiar with
summary judgment processing requirements. It should be noted,
however; that when the auditor identified the unprocessed
summary judgments, the supervisor processed them immediately.
The Court has also taken steps to enforce the notification to
County Counsel of paid summary judgments.
During the past two
processed in excess of
judgments are now processed
years, the San Jose Facility has
200 summary judgments. All summary
in an accurate and current fashion.
~ -~
Acceptance of Bail Bonds
The Review mentions that the court accepts
companies that have summary judgments outstanding
twenty days. This occurs because the court
notified by the collection entity that certain
technically suspended due to their summary judgment
bail bonds from
in excess of
has not been
companies are
status.
Additionally, the court receives bail bonds from the
releasing agent after the bond has been posted and the defendant
is released. We believe that the point of origin (or the
releasing agent) is the most appropriate entity to monitor and
enforce Penal Code section 1306. This practice should ensure
that the court would not receive bail bonds from the releasing
agent when bonding companies have summary judgments in arrears
in excess of twenty days.
Interest Collected on Summary Judqments
The Review also states that the court does not compute nor
charge interest on summary judgments. It should be noted,
however, that the vast majority of summary judgments are not
collected by the Municipal Court.
Occasionally, the Municipal Court will collect on a
summary judgment. In these few instances we have not computed
nor collected interest. The proposal to assign summary judgment
collection responsibilities to DOR should rectify this
situation. During the interim, however, the court will review
its practices and take corrective action where necessary.
Overall Assessment
Upon analyzing the Review, it appears that the fundamental
problem affecting summary judgment processing among the
interacting organizations (The Courts, County Counsel, and
Sheriff's Office) results from a lack of coordination and
automation. We support the recommendation which assigns the
collection responsibilities to DOR under the direction of the
County Counsel's Office. This proposal should consolidate and
provide uniform collection procedures and practices, increasing
operational effectiveness and enhancing service levels to the
public.
_17n_
-
Page
3
o
::)
Additionally, automation will strengthen internal controls
and streamline and modernize summary judgment procedures. The
Cervantes Consulting Group prepared the external design for the
Municipal court Bail System during 1986. The Court submitted
proposals to the ISPPC during 1987 and 1988 for programming and
development. This programming need will also be presented to
Touche/Ross during its review and search for a CJIC replacement.
We appreciate the opportunity to analyze and respond to
the findings and recommendations of the Review. If you have any
questions o~ require additional information, please contact me.
Sincerely,
JHD/rh
OFFICER
cc: Rene Navarro, Presiding Judge
Sally Reed, County Executive
Mary K. Montoya, Ass't. Clerk/Admin. Officer
Jacqueline Gamaza, Division Manager
Don Clark, County Counsel
Bob McGrath, DOR
,."
C
County of Santa Clara
o
.
I)CI)clrtrllclll of S()cial Services
[i,;. Wt"SI YOllnger ;\\'cnue
San.l(IS(~.(::';lli((mli.I~J;)II(J
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Roger Mialocg, Cons t
Harvey M. Rose Acc un
FROM:
Richard R. O'Neil,
Department of Soci
DATE:
December 28, 1988
SUBJECT:
REVIEW OF THE OPERATIONS OF THE COUNTY COUNSEL'S OFFICE _
~IADVOCACYPROGRAM
CHll.D DEPENDENCY PROGRAM
The following are my comments to the original draft of your report. It is my understanding that
you are in the process of revising the original draft and that some of my concerns identified in
this memorandum are being addressed. . ,
Response to Recommendations
In regards to your Recommendation for the Department of Social Services to prepare
supplemental appropriation requests, the Department acknowledges that an expanded ~I
Advocacy program will have a significant impact on the lives of some General Assistance
recipients. The decision to allocate additional county funds for this program must be
considered inlight of the competing and equally pressing needs of other county services.
I concur with the other recommendations with the following minor modificiations:
The responsibility for compiling a list of all GA clients approved for ~I, and notifying Valley
Medical Center and Mental Health should be centrally located with Social Servicses. An
augmentation of staff specifically assigned to this function will be necessary. (NOTE: In the
past, significant problems with colleciton occurred when already over-burdened staff in all the
departments were not given specific responsibility for recovery, resulting in collections
receiving a low priority.)
The recommendation does not augment County Counsel's Office wit.h additional attorney and
para-legal staff. This would be necessary in order to implement the expanded program services
level called for in the cost benefit analysis section of the document..
Board of Supervisors: Susanne..." WitSOIl. Zoc Lofgren. Thomas L Ll.'WJn. Bod Ilindon.Dianne McKcnf\C;l
COunty Execurivc: Sally R Bex.-d
5!
-,
o
o
Page Two
Since 1973, when the Federal government took over the Aid to Disabled (ATD) Program from
the States, and prior to the inception of the SSI Advocacy Program, the County's General
Assistance recipients were approved for SSI with the assistance of private attorneys, or through
their own efforts or those of family or friends. Occasionally, Adult Protective Social Workers
working with the GA clients would assist them in applying for SS1.
During this entire period, 1973-1985, each department (Social Service, Mental Health, and
Valley Medical Center) would respectively recover back General Assistance and MediCal for
clients/patients al>~roved for SS1. Each department was responsible for its own recovery.
When the SSI Advocacy Program had been operational for one year, Advocacy Program staff
attempted to determine the cost effectiveness of the program. As a part of the process, Valley
Medical Center and Mental Health staff were contacted to detennine the increased dollar
savings and recovery as a result of the SSI Advocacy Unit's SSI approvals. It was at this time
that it was discovered that these two departments, VMC and Mental Health, had no procedures
in place to collect on the SSI Advocacy Unit's approvals, and no staff assigned to this task. As a
result, little recovery was occurring.
SSI Advocacy Program staff promptly passed this infonnation on through the Social Service and
County Counsel chain of command, and requested to meet with Hospital staff in the fall of 1987
as a first step in resolving the collection system inadequacy. A number of subsequent meetings
have been held between Hospital and Social Services staff.
In several places, the document reports that there was inadequate coordination or lack of
communication on the part of Social Services staff with Hospital and Mental Health staff. The
document inaccurately implies that poor recovery was a result of inadequate coordination and
lack of communication on the part of Social Services and the County Counsel's Office. It also
implies that Social Services and/or County Counsel's Office was responsible for developing
inter-departmental policies and procedures necessary to obt8In reimbursements for the County's
medical and mental health costs expended on G!\. recipients approved for SSI.
The report fails to report that the Advocacy Unit staff repeatedly communicated verbally and
in writing with VMC, and to a leser extent with Mental Health staff on SSI Advocacy Unit
approvals. Mental Health never acknowledged receipt of the list of approvals sent for the first
18 months of progarn operation. VMC did not take action on the approvals that were sent. Both
VMC and Mental Health staff were advised by Advocacy Program staff how to access the list of
all GA approvals for SSI each month. Neither VMC nor Mental Health staff followed through to
secure this information. The lack of follow through for medical reimbursements was not due to
lack of coordination and communication as much as to the lack of staff to carry out the task,
and lack of a clear assignment of the task.
An issue, not discussed in the document, but related to communication and coordination
between County Counsel, Social Service, Mental Health and Valley Medical Center, is that of
the documentation of disability.
'''"7
o
o
-
, '
Page Three
This is the single most significant element for SSI Advocacy success and SSI approvals. The
capability to document GA recipients' disabilities exist primarily within the Santa Clara County
services delivery system. The lack of cooperation and willingness on the part of the medical
and mental health professionals within the County system to review the clients' medical/mental
health reports is the most important factor that has been, and continues to be missing in the
efforts to successfully remove these persons from the GA roles.
It is not the lack of communication or coordination between the SSI Advocacy staff and the
County's medical/mental health professionals that has caused the failure to develop these
critically necessary reports. In fact, SSI Advocacy program staff have repeatedly approached
medical and mental health professionals at the 'service delivery and administrative levels
explaining the necessity, and requesting these reports.
In early 1987, the Department of Social Services transferred funds to the Mental Health Bureau
to acquire the services of a half-time psychiatrist for use by the SSI Advocacy Program. (The
other half of the position would be funded with anticipated increased MediCal.'
reimbursements.) However, this position remains unfilled and the Advocacy Program is left
without the mental health professional support it needs to review the mental health records and
write the reports.
As a consequence of the latest meeting in September 1988 between VMC, County Counsel, and
Social Service staff, a promise was secured from VMC to assign a doctor or a para-professional
to coordinate and review the records, and write the reports as requested/required by the
Advocacy Unit. This offer was made in attempt to resolve the problem of County doctors not
providing the critically needed medical reports. To date, no action has been taken, and no one
has been assigned this task.
County doctors have bluntly refused to write reports documenting clients' disabilities, stating,
that they were hired to practice medicine, not to assist people getting on SSI.
As a result, Social Service staff has t>een forced to spend general revenues to secure these
critically needed and otherwise available reports from private medical and mental health
professionals.
SUMMARY
Although the report identifies some shortcomings in the SSI Program and recommends specific
actions to address those shortcomings, the Department of Social Services is very pleased that
the basic value of the program is validated and continues to be committed to interdepartmental
solutions to our mutual concerns.
n^
-
~
o
o
Page Four
D.S.S. CHILD DEPENDENCY SERVICES
The Department of Social Services supports the finding that adequate County Counsel
representation is essential to the proper functioning of Child Welfare Court Dependency
Services.
Adequate counsel support must include an opportunity for consultation between social worker
and attorney to properly prepare a case for court and the availability at the social worker's
work site of an attorney to respond to general legal questions related to child dependency cases
including legal notification requirements.
The Department will work with the County Executive and the County Counsel to determine the
best way to achieve the appropriate level of County Counsel Services to support the child
dependency case load.
o
~anht OHara QIountl;!
~uperior QIourt
Office of tile
County Clerk - Court Executive Officer
o
~ -
1 H I Norlh Firsl 'sIK"t.."
Snn J<n;c. California 9':' I I:i
(408120H-2074
December 27, 1988
TO:
Board of Supervisors
FROM:
Grace K. Yamakawa ~~ /~~~
County Clerk-Courtl'E;ecutive 01ficer
t!.
----
SUBJECT:
Review of Operations of the County Counsel's Office
I have reviewed Section 11.1 (Conservatorship
Accountings) and Section IV.l (Bail Bond Forfeitures) and have met
with Roger Mialocq and Steve Foti regarding their findings as it
relates to the Superior Court.
With reference to the the Conservatorship accountings,
the backlogged accountings which will be filed by County Counsel
will be processed in a timely manner provided that the department
is authorized additional funds to hire staff to meet this added
workload.
The department is in concurrence wi th the recommendations
made by the auditors under the section on Bail Bond Forefeitures
and will be pleased to transfer the collection and monitoring of
summary jUdgments to the Department of Revenue. It is noted that
of the 111 summary judgments cited in this report, only, 8..were from
the Superior Court. .
cc: Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corp.
-
..... .
o
~
.
SANTA CLARA
VALlEY
MEOlCAlCBITER
"'"\
--.I
Santa Clara VaUey Medical Centef
751 South Bascom Avenue
San Jose. California 95128
(4081299-5100
- ~
Oecember 20, 1988
10: Roger Mailof
Management Auditor
FROM: Frank Barrett (1/rJ91!J~
Associate Oirector/F1nance
subject: Review of the Operations of the
County counsel's Office
lhis le"tter is confirmation "that 1 have reviewed the above
mentioned report and concur with the findings.
please con"tact me at ext. 5291 if you need any
information.
fur"ther
FB:mdh
-171-
SCVMC is an EEO/AA EmpIoyef
Owned and opef3ted by the County of Santa Clara. Affiliated wilt Stanford University School of Medicine.
.
, .
o
::)
MANAGEMENT AUDlTREPORT
OF THE INVESl'IGATIONDIVISION
OF'.IHELAW OFFICES OFTHE
WSANGF.T.'F..S COUNTY
PUBLIC DEFENDER
PREPAREDFORTHE
AUDITORrCQNl'ROT.T F.R.
OFWSANGF.TRS COUNTY
Prepared by:
Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation
Certified Public Accountanls
September, 1989
85
,
o
o
,
arvey
".
ose A<C<C(Q)1lllm\fc2.\ml<cW <C(Q)lljFJ(Q)wii(Q)m\
MEMBER
Certified Public Accountants
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF
CERTIFIED PUBl.1C ACCOUNTANTS
CALIFORNIA. SOCIETY OF
CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
1390 Market Street, Su~e 1025, San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 552-9292
September 11, 1989
Mr. J. Tyler McCauley
Chief, Audit Division
Auditor-Controller
320 West Temple Street, Room 380
Los Angeles, California 90012
Dear Mr. McCauley:
We are pleased to submit this final management audit report on the Investigation
Division of the Law Offices of the Los Angeles County Public Defender's Office. The
report contains numerous findings and recommendations that will help improve the
efficiency and effectiveness of the division, particularly when combined with some of the
new controls over the division already put into place by department management.
The total combined affect of all recommendations included in this report result in net
increased revenues and decreased expenditures of $36,305, and provide the Investigation
Division with significant additional resources to provide services for attorneys,
including a modified and strengthened mAnAgement structure, more efficient provision
of investigative services, controls on the quality and quantity of work performed by staff
through automation and analytical processes, and increased ability to claim State
reimbursement for the cost of some services. A written response from the department is
included as Attachment 11 to this report.
We have greatly appreciated this opportunity to serve the County of Los Angeles.
Respectfully submitted,
1/.:,," 7:!. 7:-
President
(
o
()
Section
TABLE OF CON'l'F:N'ffi
~
Pal!"e
Executive Summary... ............................................. ...........i
Introduction .................................. ................ ............ ...... 1
Section I Organization and Management .......... ...............................8
Section IT DecentraIization of Juvenile Staff ......................................22
Section III Quality Assurance.......................... ............... ..................25
Section IV Investigator Qualifications and Hiring
J>rllctices ........................................................................41
Section V Investigator J>erformance Evalulltions And
Appraisals of J>romotability ... ....... ........ ....... ....... ..............48
Section VI Workload Analysis ..........................................................fJl
Section vn Investiglltor Aides ................................................. ..... .....68
Section VIII Policies, J>rocedures and Guidelines.................................. 76
Section IX Automated Timekeeping ........................................ .... ......83
Section X Compton Investiglltion Contract........................................88
Section XI State Reimbursement for Certain Murder
Cases................ ................................... ..........................94
Attachments
Attachment 1 Summllry of Cost Savings and Additional
Revenues from Implementation of
Management Audit Recommendations............................ 100
Attachment 2 Bureau of Investigation - Case Time Sheet........................ 102
Attachment 3 Los Angeles County Public Defender
Investigation Daily Work Sheet .......................................103
Attachment 4 Sample - Investigation Statistical Records..............,......... 104
Attachment 5 Investigator's Division Policy Manual of the
Cook County Public Defender's Office - Table of
Contents............... ..................... .... ........................"..... 105
o
o
TABLE OF CONTENrS (('A>ntinuedl
Pa!!e
Attachment 6 Riverside County Public Defender's Office
Investigations Bureau - Policy for the Use of
Firearms on Duty ..........................................................111
Attachment 7 State Regulations - Reimbursement for Court-
Ordered Expenses of Indigent Defendants in
Capital Cases Under Penal Code Section 987.9 ..................113
Attachment 8 Survey Instrument and Quantitative Results
of Other Jurisdiction Survey........................................... 115
Attachment 9 Survey Instrument and Quantitative Results
of Investigator Survey.................................................... 122
Attachment 10 Survey Instrument and Quantitative Results
of Attorney Survey......................................................... 129
Attachment 11 Written Response of the Public Defender's
Office to the Management Audit of the
Investigation Division...... ........ ................... ................... 135
I.im:ofTabl~
Budgeted and Actual Staffing of the
Investigation Division of the Law Offices of the
Los Angeles County Public Defender May 15,
1989 ................. ....... ..... .......... ..... ............ .......................... 8
Table 1.1
Table 111.1
Table 111.2
Table VI.l
Table XI.I
Results of Attorney Survey Ranking
Characteristics of Investigations According to
Tl1eir ImJlortance to Attorneys...........................................28
Sample Investigator Performance Standards.......................31
Percent of Hours Worked But Not Logged to
Cases - By Work Unit - Los Angeles County
Public Defender Investigation Division CY
1988.............................................. _....... _......................... .61
Analysis of Fringe Benefit Costs By Employee
Classification. ................................................................. 96
o
o
I..i~ofExhibits
Exhibit 1.1 Law Offices of the Los Angeles County Public
Defender - Investigation Division May 15, 1989.....................ID
Exhibit 12 Law Offices of the Los Angeles County Public
Defender - Investigation Services Section
Proposed Organization................ ....... ...... ................... ..... .21
Exhibit ill.l Investigator Performance Standards ..................................38
Exhibit IV.l Minimum Requirements for Investigator
Classifications.. ........... ........... ....... ..................................42
Exhibit V.l Sample Investigator Evaluation Form to be
Completed by Attorneys for Each Investigation ....................49
o
o
EXEClJTIVF: SUMMARY
At the request of the Public Defender and the Auditor-Controller of Los
Angeles County, the Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation has conducted
this management audit of the Investigation Division of the Law Offices of the
County Public Defender. The audit was requested to determine: - .",'_
· If the Division is achieving the purposes for which it is authorized and
funded;
· If Public Defender attorneys are provided with accurate and timely
investigations;
. If the Division is operating efficiently and effectively and, if not, the
causes for inefficient or ineffective practices;
· If the Division has considered alternative methods of operations that will
yield the desired results at lower cost, such as assigning investigators
directly to deputy attorneys, contracting for investigator services and
reviewing the operations of oth~r public defender offices.
This audit was requested by the Public Defender after the Auditor-
Controller had conducted a limited review of the Investigation Division in
conjunction with the investigation of a personnel matter, and found a need to
improve management practices within the Division. The lack of effective
m''"t'gement controls which had existed prior .to the Auditor-Controller's limited
review had permitted certain employees to abuse the trust of the Department and
performing in other ways not consistent with Department or County policy, The'
Department's own investigation, and the review by the Auditor-Controller,
indicated that some Division employees had a substantial history of such abuse.
As a result of the Department becoming aware of problems in the Division,
management control has been increased and there has been an apparent
reduction in inappropriate activities by staff. The purpose of this report is to
provide the Department with suggestions for an enhanced organizational and
management structure and more suitable investigator qualifications and
performance standards, and the development of mechanisms to monitor report
quality and workload. ,. .-
This report includes a number of recommendations related to the
organization and management of the Investigation Division. Although sections of
this report have been organized as individual topics, it should be noted that many
are closely related to one another. We have made recommendations which
significantly affect the classifications and number of staff, and thus the cost of
operating the Division.
1
o
o
The total combined affect of all recommendations included' in this report
result in net increased revenues and decreased expenditures of $36,305, and
provide the Division with significant additional resources to provide services for
attorneys, including a modified and strengthened management structure, more
efficient provision of investigative services, controls on the quality and quantity of
work performed by staff through automation and analytical processes, and
increased ability to claim State reimbursement for the cost of some services. The
following summary briefly discusses each of these findings and associated
recommendations.
Secuon I: Orgmnzauon and Management
In FY 1988-89, the Department has reallocated investigation staff to
management and supervisory positions in an attempt to increase direct
supervision. Although these actions were appropriate when implemented,
approximately 27 percent of the Division's resources are now committed to the
m"n"gement and supervision of investigators. This is excessive.
With the implementation of recommendations contained in other sections
of this report. the m"n"gement and supervisory capabilities of the Division could
be strengthened. It would also be appropriate to modify the org"n''T.ation and
m~nagement structure to align Investigation more closely with attorney work
units and the attorney l1J"n"gement structure, to more clearly delineate
supervisory functions, and to reduce the amount.of upper management staffing
while m"In"g the mid-level m"'1agement structure more effective.
The Public Defender should:
1.1 Develop specific job specifications for the new positions of Investigative
Services Section Head, Manager and Assistant Manager, and re-detine the
role of the Investigator ill class, as discussed in this report;
1.2 Submit the proposed job specifications to the County Office of Human
Resources for evaluation and development of appropriate classification and
salary levels;
1.3 Request that the Board of Supervisors modify the Salary Ordinance and
Budget to reflect the addition of the new positions and the elimination of the
positions of Chief Investigator, Assistant Chief Investigator and
Lieutenant;
1.4 Formally adopt a revised organization chart for the Department,
deSignating Investigation Services as a Section rather than a Division, and
aligning the Section more closely with attorney work units, as described in
this report and illustrated in Exhibit 1.2;
1.5 Formally adopt the revised job specifications for the proposed new positions
and Investigator Ill's;
ii
o
':)
1.6 Implement the proposed organization structure' and recruit individuals for
the recommended upper and middle management positions;
1. 7 Explore the feasibility of developing a Technical Support Services Unit
which would consolidate investigation, paralegal and other appropriate
services under the responsibility of the Assistant Public Defender, Special
Services Bureau. .
By implementing these recommendations, the Department would have a
more effective Investigation managemlmt structure, while increasing the
number of investigator staff available for assisting attorneys. Costs to implement
the recommendations would be approximately $18,400 per year. However,
combined with the implementation of recommendations contained in Section VII,
the proposed restructuring of the Division would occur at an estimated annual
savings of $25,232.
Section II: Deoenu.>li-tion of Juvenile Staff
Investigation and secretarial services for the Public Defender Juvenile
Services Division are located downtown because of the lack of available space at
the outlying facilities. This situation, while relieving space constraints, has
created numerous operational difficulties related to investigator services.
Specifically, investigators can be required to travel long distances, reducing the
amount of productive time spent performing investigations. In addition, because
the investigators are physically remote from the attorneys there can be delays in
initiating investigation requests and receiving the investigation reports;
communications with investigators are hampered because of the reduced .amount
of personal contact which occurs, as compared with other areas of the Office; and,
because of the increase in travel time required of investigators, they are
. encouraged to conduct investigations over the telephone rather than in person.
The Public Defender should:
11.1 Fully explore the capability of secretarial staff to absorb additional typing
resulting from the decentralization of juvenile investigation services
described in this section. Report on alternatives to provide the needed
se!:retarial support;
11.2 Decentralize juvenile investigation services, as described in this section;
II.3 Formally establish a policy regarding juvenile investigation priority, and
communicate it to all staff;
11.4 Direct the Investigation Division managers to designate a juvenile
investigation specialist at each location.
iii
~
-
o
Implementation of these recommendations would not result in additional
costs to the Department. Travel time spent by juvenile investigators will be
reduced, potential delays transmitting investigation requests and Supporting
material will be eliminated, personal contact with juvenile attorneys will be
increased and investigators will be more capable of performing witness
interviews in person. The results of these efficiencies will be more timely
investigation service delivery and an improved work product.
Section III: Quality Assurance
The quality of investigation work has received less attention from
Department or Investigation Division m""agement than they would prefer due to
an emphasis on monitoring Investigator accountability. The existing
Investigator Performance Standards are not specific enough to provide clear
guidanCe to the investigators. Division supervisors allocate most of their time to
reviewing time logs, mileage reports and overtime reports for aCCuracy and
consistency instead of reviewing reports for quality and advising staff on how to
improve their work. as imposed by IQ"nagement in an effort to increase
investigator accountability. Finally, the Department's attorneys, the users.ofthe
investigators'services, play no formal role in setting standards for investigative
work or reviewing the investigators' output to ensure that it meets min;mum
standards of quality. Investigation requests prepared by attorneys are incomplete
and inconsistent in many cases, which. has a negative effect on investigator
efficiency and effectiveness.
The Public Defender should:
ID.1 Direct the Assistant Public Defender for Special SerVices, the Personnel
Officer, the Acting Chief of the Investigation Division and a representative
of attorney staff to:
1) revise the Investigator Performance Standards to make them more
explicit, such as the examples presented above; and,
2) develop investigation request standards to be followed by attorneys when
they request investigation services.
Input on these standads should be solicited from Department attorneys
and investigators. These standards should be added to the performance
evaluation forms for investigators and attorneys, respectively;
III.2 Direct Investigation Division management to include the revised
investigation standards in the Division's policies and procedures manual
as a working reference document for use by the investigators;
II1.3 Direct the Personnel Officer and Investigation Division management to
incorporate the revised investigation standards into the evaluation forms
used in the annual ratings of investigator performance;
IV
o
o
IlIA "Direct Investigation Division m"nllgement to present the revised standards
to newly hired investigators as part of a standardized orientation session.
The revised standards should also be used as topics covered in ongoing
trsoini"g sessions provided to existing investigator staff;
IlL5 Direct Investigation Division management to develop methods for
acknowledging high quality investigation work such as commendations
from Department attorneys in front of all Investigation Division staff,
regular posting of letters of commendation and otherwise setting a tone that
encourages high quality performance.
Ill.6 Direct staff to add the new investigation request performance standards in
the Department's policies and procedures manual and to include
presentation of them in orientation sessions for new attorneys.
IlI.7 Direct staff to develop and implement a tT"ini"g program for attorneys in.
performing evaluations of investigators.
Implementation of these recommendations would not result in any direct
new costs to the department. The recommended actions could be taken by existing
staff. Development and implementation of the recommended standards and
procedures would insure a higher quality investigation. work product.
SecUon IV: Investigator QualificaUODS and HirlDg Practices
The job requirements and recruiting and hiring policies . of the
Investigation Division restricts the hiring of qualified individuals by not attracting
persons with backgrounds other than law enforcement. College education,
experience as a crimin"l defense investigator and supervisory/m"nllgement work
experience are examples of backgrounds that would benefit the Department but
are not acceptable under the current minimum job requirements. The Division's
recruitment efforts are limited and do not seek to attract a broad base of applicants
for investigator position openings. Screening and ~terviewing for position
openings are conducted by Investigation Division management without
involvement by attorney staff or the Department's own personnel m"n"ger.
The Public Defender should direct the Department Personnel Officer to
revise the classification specifications for the investigator positions to:
IV.1 Allow applicants to have experience other than only law enforcement, as
defined in Section 830.1 of the California Penal Code.
IV.2 Allow for other related work experience such as experience as a probation
officer, parole agent, corner investigator or psychiatric social worker (for
mental health conservatorship investigations);
IV.3 Allow for college education to be substituted for experience for Investigator
lIs and above;
v
o
o
IVA Include specific abilities required to perform the jobs.
The Public Defender should direct the Personnel Officer and Investigation
Division management to:
IV.5 Prepare an investigator recruitment plan to include sending notices of
openings in the Division to colleges with police science and other related
programs, other public defender offices and other relevant Los Angeles
County departments such as Probation and the Coroner's Office;
IV.6 Establish procedures to assemble a panel comprised of Investigation
Division managers, representatives of the Department's attorneys and the
Department's Personnel Officer to screen applications for and interview
applicants for investigator positions.
Implementation of these recommendations would not result in any direct
new costs to the Department. The actions recommended could be taken by
existing staff. A more highly qualified and more diverse pool of investigator
applicants could be recruited by the Department.
Section V: Investigator Performance Evaluations and Appraisals of
PromotabiJif;y
Investigator performance evaluations are deficient because they do not
always include input from the Department's attorneys, the users of the
investigators' work, unless requested to provide such input by the Acting Chief.
Assessments of Promotability conducted. for Investigator ills are needlessly
subjective due to the absence of clear performance standards exclusive to that
classification. The promotion process is either not understood or not trusted by
most of the Investigation Division statL
The Public Defender should:
V.1 Direct attorney staff to complete evaluations of each investigation completed
for them on a simple, short evaluation form to be prepared by the
Investigation Division with input from attorney management;
V.2 Direct Investigation Division staff to tabulate the results of the attomey
evaluations and include the results in each investigator's annual
Performance Evaluation;
V.3 Direct the Department's personnel officer to assist the Investigation
Division in revising the classification specifications for Investigator In and
above to include more specific examples of the knowledge, skills and
abilities required of the job and to develop performance standards for each
of these;
VI
o
o
VA . Direct the Department's personnel officer to assist the Investigation
Division in revising the Appraisal of Promotability rating factors so they are
directly linked to the new performance standards for each of the
classifications;
V.5 Direct Investigation Division management to disseminate and explain the
new rating factors to all Division staff. The factors should also be included
in the Division's policies and procedures manual; .
V.6 Direct Investigation Division maqagement to reestablish an oral interview
as part of the Appraisal of Promotability process and to establish a panel to
conduct these interviews consisting of Division management,
representatives of the Department's attorneys and the Department's
personnel officer. .
Implementation of the recommendations above would not result in any new
direct costs to the Department. The benefits of the recommendations would
include a more comprehensive and useful Performance Evaluation process.
Attorney involvement. in the process would result in investigation work that is
more responsive to the needs of the Department's attorneys and establiAhment of a
much needed ongoing dialogue between attorneys and investigators regarding
investigations.
The Appraisal of Promotability process would also be improved through the
establi8hment of more objective rating factors directly tied to the knowledge, skills
and abilities required for each of the- target classifications. A better connection
would be developed between the Performance Evaluation and Appraisal of
Promotability processes and staff understanding and trust of the entire process
would be improved.
Secuon VI: Workload Analysis
The Public Defender's Investigation Division maintains several records of
investigator work hours and case activity. These records are kept for the dual
purposes of providing m"n~gement with a measurement of Division workload, as
well as a means of monitoring investigator productivity. However, because of the
methods used to record work hours, the categories established for collecting case
information and the lack of an effective methodology for analyzing the data which
is collected, the Division does not have the capability to systematically evaluate
workload and productivity.
The Division determines necessary staffing and its allocation between work
units based on incomplete information and an intuitive sense of locational
requirements. Further, the procedures established for measuring investigator
productivity require a costly and unnecessary level of line supervision.
The Public Defender should:
vii
o
o
VL1 Continue to improve and refine the quality of the data collected on
investigator work hours through the implementation of recommendations
contained in Section IX, and the development of statistical measurements
described in this section;
VL2 Develop a process to monitor the quality of the investigator work product, as
discussed in. Section III;
VL3 Establish case weighting criteria and procedures, as described in this
section;
VIA Develop an analytical process which assesses investigator productivity
based on statistical measurements of productive work hours and case
weighting, as described in this section;
VL5 Modify the practice of regularly auditing investigation Case Time Sheets
and Daily Work Sheets for consistency iii entries. Use this method only
when the results of analysis recommended above indicate that a particular
employee or employees are not performing appropriately. Continue to
monitor mileage claim forms for accuracy and to insure they conform to
County policy.
No new costs would be incurred from implementing the above
recommendations. The Department would be better able to gauge the productivity
and performance of investigators. Determining appropriate staffing levels, the
assignment of staff to investigation units and the assignment of cases to
individual investigators would be based on a rational process of analysis.
Supervision responsibilities of Investigator ill staff would be reduced.
Section Vll: Investigator Aides
There are a number of investigator tasks which do not require the skill level
or the trsoini"g of investigators but require greater skill than those required for the
Witness Coordinator I. Primary among these tasks is the serving of subpoenas to
witnesses, or to institutions for copies of official documents. Other tasks
performed by investigators which would be suitable for a lower classification
include: researching._Department of Motor Vehicle (DMV) records for
information regarding a defendant or witness; contacting Los Angeles County
utility companies or departments for information regarding a witness address;
copying official records such as birth and death certificates; and researching
address information from the various indices and directories available to the
Division.
Dictating equipment is underutilized, and limited word processing and
information resource systems exist for use by investigator staff. Certain
abbreviated investigation request and reporting forms could be better used by the
Department.
viii
o
o
The Public Defender should:
VII.1 Develop proposed job specifications and salary levels for a position of
Investigator Aide, as described in this section, and submit them to the
Office of Hnman Resources for review and approval. The proposed
position should be established at an apprentice investigator level with
significant requirements for promotion;
VII.2 Request that the Board of Supervisors approve five Investigator Aide
positions and funding, and eliminate four Investigator II and one
Witness Coordinator 1 positions based on the Office of Hnm"l' Resources
review and approval of job specifications and salary;
VII.3 Assign three Investigator Aide positions to the Central Office, one to the
Norwalk Branch Office and one to the Torrance Branch Office, as
described in this section;
VIlA Encourage the use of dictating equipment by investigators whenever
possible;
VII.5 Provide training in the use of dictating equipment for investigators
through the newly established position of Investigator ill, Trsoining;
VII.6 Incorporate the Investigation Division into the Department's plans for
inCTe"m"g word processing capability;
VII.7 Explore the possibility of contracting for automated information resource
services and establish a competitive bid process for selecting a vendor;
VII.8 Conduct a complete review of all forms and documents which could be
used to prepare an investigation request and report. Standardize and
snmm,,>Ue investigation requests and reports whenever possible. Utilize
standard glossary functions on word processing equipment when
available to the Investigation Division.
The cost of the proposed five Investigator Aide positions would be
approximately $190,575 per year, offset by approximately $234,199 in savings from
eliminating four Investigator II and one Witness Coordinator I positions.
Therefore, the net saving to the Department would be $43,624 annually which
could be used to offset the net additional cost of $18,400 for positions recommended
in Section 1. Remaining Investigator II staff would appropriately be assigned
more complex investigations. The cost for the automated information resource
system could not be determined based on information available from the Public
Defender. However, if purchased, tasks such as researching DMV records could
be conducted more efficiently by investigator staff. Staff time would be saved
through utilization of dictation and word processing equipment.
ix
~
-
o
Section VIU: Policies, procedures and guidelines
There are several improvements which could be made to the existing
Investigation Policies and Procedures Manual, and the process for revising,
updating and distributing it to staft: The organization and format of the material
contained in the Manual could be improved. The content of the Policies and
Procedures Manual could also be expanded.
The Public Defender should:
VIII. 1
VIII. 2
VIlLa
VIllA
VIII. 5
VIII. 6
VIII. 7
Reorganize the Investigation Policies and Procedures Manual, as
described in this Section, utilizing formats developed in other
jurisdictions and departments within the County;
Incorporate mission statements, goals and objectives into the Policies
and Procedures Manual to establish a foundation for policies supporting
investigation activity;
Implement a policy prohibiting posters of nude women, obscene cartoons
and other inappropriate wall decorations which are prominently
displayed in investigator offices;
Provide procedures for all forms utilized by the Division, so that staff
understands when it is appropriate to use the forms and how they should
be filled out. Sim.l"..ly, formally adopt or prohibit any other forms or
documents not specifically approved by m"n"gement and included in the
Policies and Procedures Manual;
Address' policy and procedure issues which could potentially have
serious financial or criminal consequences for the Department or
investiga~rs. Specifically, adopt a firearm policy and strictly enforce it
with investigators;
Utilize policies and procedures documents from other jurisdictions to
help identify issues of substance which should be addressed by Los
Angeles County;
Consider producing a manual of manageable size, which includes
standards and guidelines, as well as policies and procedures, so that it
can easily be referenced by investigators in the field;
ViII.S Immediately distribute the Policies and Procedures Manual to staff;
VIIL9 At a minimum, immediately provide office copies of the Policies and
Procedures Manual at the Central Office and each of the Branch Offices;
VIII. 10 Maintain a central library, which includes a current policies and
procedures manual, as well as resource docwnents, literature and other
material related to investigation services;
x
o
o
VIII.'ll Assign a specific m"n~gement staff person the responsibility to collect,
organize and control the Policies and Procedures Manual, as well as
other resource documents identified by the Department.
No new costs would be incurred from implementing the above
recommendations. The Division would operate with a comprehensive manual of
policies, procedures and directives. Resource material would be readily
accessible to all staff.
Section IX: Automated Timekeeping
The Investigation Division expends a considerable amount of its
investigator, supervisor and m"n'lgement resources recording, compiling and
analyzing time and mileage information. The data is not recorded or compiled in
a m"nner that allows for mE".JIningful analyses. As a result, the validity of the
data and any analysis of the data currently conducted by the Department is
suspect. The Department's new mainframe computer system, DMS, which will
be operational in 1990, will provide certain investigation case-time information
processing capability but will not !lOlve the problems associated 'with.gathering
and compiling time and mileage data.
New technology is available which could automate the gathering of the
Investigators' case-time and auto-mileage data, compile the data into reports and
transfer the data into the DMS system for additional compilation and reference to
individual case files, and provide a record of activity for all Division activities.
This technology involves barcodes and the devices to read or scan them,
E'Hmin~ting the need for a clerical staff person to manually enter the case-time
information into the computer system. .
The Public Defender should:
IX.1 Direct Department Data Systems staff to conduct a detailed evaluation of
S('.JInning devices, recharger-readers and computer software to determine
the configuration which would be most suitable for the compilation and
analysis of case, time and mileage information by the In:vestigation
Division;
IX.2 Request that the Board of Supervisors authorize funding for the purchase of
the recommended scanning system;
IX.3 Direct Administrative Services staff to develop and circulate a Request for
Proposals to receive competitive bids for the purchase of the proposed
system, or utilize other approved County procedures for soliciting
estimates and negotiating purchase agreements with vendors identified by
the Data Systems staff;
IXA Direct the Assistant Public Defender, Special Services to coordinate the
selection and purchase of the recommended equipment, and to develop
procedures on utilization of the devices and analysis of collected data.
Xl
o
o
The cost of the recommended scanner system, recharger-readers and
associated software would cost between $20,000 and $50,000 depending on the
specific configuration chosen by the Department. Ongoing costs for replacement
and maintenance of the equipment was not determined. However, if such costs
approximate ten percent annually, such costs should not exceed $2,000 to $5,000
per year. The case, time and mileage records maintained by the Division would
be improved. The Division would reduce the amount of clerical staff time
necessary to enter information into the DMS system, and would reduce
management and supervisory staff time currently exp~nded compiling and
analyzing inf!lrmation collected by the Investigators. The analytical capability of
the Division would be enhanced.
Secti.onX: Compton Inyestigation Comract
The Department should contract for services if it results in a cost savings or
an improved level of service. Based on the information available, it cannot be
determined whether the contract investigation services at the Department's
Compton branch office is producing either of these results. According to most of
the attorneys at the Branch, services are not acceptable at this time. However,
without reliable data on the comparability of caseload or other factors affecting the
productivity of the contractor compared to in-house staff, a valid analysis of the
costs and benefits of the contract cannot be made.
The Public Defender should:
Xl Develop specifications to tighten controls on contract activities and costs,
and to permit me...ningful analysis of contractor performance;
X2 Develop a process, with the Auditor-Controller, for evaluating the contract
by incorporating it into the workload and performance measurement
mer.h"nisms discussed in Sections ill and VI of this report;
X3. Develop and implement an attorney investigation rating mechanism at.
Compton for the contractor;
X4 Utilize an investigation weighting process to collect data on contractor case
characteristics; .
X5 Charge an Investigation Section Assistant Manager position, discussed in
Section I, with direct responsibility for monitoring contractor activities and
compliance with the weighting procedures implemented by the
Department;
X.6 Once six months of reliable data has been collected, request that me
Auditor-Controller conduct a complete assessment of contractor
performance;
xii
o
::)
X. 7. Based on the results of this assessment, develop recommendations to either
discontinue services, continue services at their present level or expand the
contract to include additional service units;
X.8 Immediately begin negotiations with the contractor to modify the contract,
establishing a contract limit for the current contract year;
X.9 Send the amended contract to the Board of Supervisors for approval once the
contract limit and amended specifications have been agreed upon.
No additional costs would result from implementing these
recommendations. A clear understanding of the costs and benefits from
contracting for investigation services would be obtained. A contract limit would
be established for the current contract year, potentially limiting costs to the
County.
Secti.onXl: State Reimbursementfor CertainMurderCases
The Public Defender has in place a comprehensive set of procedures to
collect, report and submit cost information to the State relative to the provisions of
Penal Code Section 987.9 pertaining to the defense of indigent clients. However,
the Department has not m.....'mior.ed its reimbursements due to the methodology it
has used to calculate certain costs and its inability to fully capture all eligible
costs. The alleviation of these problems would result in increased revenues
estimated to amount to at least $61;073 annually.
The Public Defender should:
XI.1 Change the methodology used to compute employee hourly rates from 2,088
annual paid hours to 1,788 annual productive hoUrs, or as otherwise is
appropriate based on periodic computations by the Auditor-Controller;
XI.2 Change the methodology used to compute employee fringe benefits from the
single average employee benefit rate method to average employee benefit
rate by classification for the three classifications of employees which can be
claimed to the State for reimbursement;
XI.3 Develop operating procedures to ensure that all secretarial, paralegal and
overtime hours are identified and claimed at the appropriate hourly rates.
No additional costs would be incurred from implementing these
recommendations. Implementation would result in increased revenues
estimated to amount to at least $61,073 annually.
xiii
o
o
lNTRODUCTJON
Pmnnc:..
At the request of the Public Defender and the Auditor-Controller of Los
Angeles County, the Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation has conducted
this . management audit of the Investigation Division of the Law Offices of the
County Public Defender. The audit was requested to determine:
· If the Division is achieving the purposes for which it is authorized and
funded;
· If Public Defender attorneys are provided with accurate and timely
investigations;
· If the Division is operating efficiently and effectively and, if not, the causes
for inefficient or ineffective practices;
. If the Division has considered alternative methods of operations that will
yield the desired results at lower cost, such as assigning investigators
directly to deputy. attorneys, contracting for investigator services and
reviewing the operations. of other public defender offices.
This audit was requested by the Public Defender after the Auditor-
Controller had conducted a limited review of the Investigation Division in
conjunction with the investigation of a personnel matter, and found a need to
improve management practices within the Division. The lack of effective
m"n"gement controls which had existed prior to the Auditor-Controller's limited
review had permitted certain employees to abuse the trust of the Department and
perform in other ways not consistent with Department or County policy. The
Department's own investigation, and the review by the Auditor-Controller,
indicated that some Division employees had a substantial history of such abuse.
As a result of the Department becoming aware of problems in the Division,
management control has been increased and there has been an apparent
reduction in inappropriate activities by staff. The purpose of this report, is to
provide the Department with suggestions for an enhanced organizational and
management structure and more suitable investigator qualifications and
performance standards, and the development of mechanisms to monitor report
quality and workload.
- 1 -
o
:)
Scone of the Audit
The scope of the audit included review and analysis of the Division's goals
and objectives, operational strategies, organization structure, staff qualifications,
planning, standards of performance, managerial monitoring and control
systems, policies and procedures manuals, investigator time accountability, the
merits of centralized versus decentralized staffing, a determination of the reasons
for and extent of Deputy public defenders performing their own investigations, an
evaluation of supervisory methods and quality control techniques and an
evaluation of m"n9gerial controls over workload.
ProiectMeftwdolOl!V
Tasks performed in conducting this management audit included the
following:
· Interviews with Department managers and key administrators;
· Interviews with all Investigation Division m'lnllgers;
· Interviews with selected Investigation Division supervisors and staff;
· Interviews with selected attorney and paralegal staff;
. Ride-alongs with randomly selected investigators;
. Reviews of relevant laws, Department regulations and policies and
procedures manuals;
· Review of the' assignment and utilization of Investigators;
· Development and compilation of results of a survey of other public
defender offices throughout the State and country;
· Development and compilation of results of a questionnaire circulated to
all investigators;
· Development and compilation of results of a questionnaire circulated to
approximately 20 percent of the Department's attorneys;
· Review and analysis of approximately 300 investigation case files;
. Review and evaluation of Investigator Performance Standards and the
performance evaluation process;
. Review and evaluation of classification specifications for all non-clerical
classes in the Investigation Division;
. Assessment of Appraisal of Promotability forms, procedures and related
documents;
-2-
c
o
. Review and analysis of reimbursement claiming practices of the
Department for State funds for special circumstances cases; .
. Interviews with representatives of other County departments inclUding
the District Attorney and Sheriff;
· Interviews with representatives of the private investigation firm
providing investigation services under contract for the Public Defender's
branch office in Compton;
· Interviews with representatives from the Los Angeles County Alternate
Defense Counsel;
· Review and analysis of workload statistics for calendar year 1988 and
1989, through April;
· Evaluation of the Division's current organization structure;
· Review and analysis of the Department's current and planned data
processing, word processing and other automated improvements for the
Investigation Division;
. Survey of state of the art technology for improving data collection by the
Division;
· Review of the agreement between the investigators' labor union and the
County.
Field work was conducted over a 9 week period between March 27 and May 26,
1989. Progress meetings were conducted bi-weekly with staff of the Auditor-
Controller's Office and representatives of the Public Defender's Office to discuss
issues under review. A tentative list of audit findings were presented to both
departments at the conclusion of the project field work and a draft copy of the
findings and recommendations were presented for review prior to transmittal of
the final report to the Auditor-Controller.
Tabulations of responses to questionnaires sent to public defender offices in
other jUrisdictions, a sample of Department attorneys and all Division
investigators, have been included as Attachments 8 through 10 respectively.
Qualitative responses to these questionnaires were reviewed and have been
included, where considered appropriate, throughout the report. A complete
record of qualitative responses are part of the project working papers.
- 3-
o
.~
Ov(>..rview of the Investil!alion Divi<;ion
The Investigation Division is comprised of 73 budgeted positions and has
been authorized approximately $3.6 million in expenditures for FY 1988-89, which
includes 5 clerical positions assigned to the Division. The purpose of the Division
is to provide criminal investigation services for the attorneys of the Public
Defender's Office to support the defense of individuals represented by the Office.
The Division is dispersed among 11 locations throughout Los Angeles County
including a downtown central office and 10 branch locations (a twelfth
Investigation Unit is provided through contract at the Public Defender's Compton
office). Present st.affing" includes five m"nagers, including a Chief!, Assistant
Chief and three Lieutenants2. Line supervision and training are provided by 15
supervising Investigator m staff who are responsible for 47 Investigator lIs and
1 Witness Coordinator. Clerical support is provided by 5 clerical positions and to
some extent by Public Defender clerical pools at the branch offices.
Investigation services are initiated by attorneys through written requests to
the Investigation Division. Cases are assigned by supervisors to either
themselves or Investigator IIs. The services provided by investigators range from
very aimple tasks such as researching a Department of Motor Vehicle (DMV)
record, to highly complex assignments such as locating and interviewing hostile
witnesses in homicide and special circumstances cases. Most frequently,
investigators are asked to locate and interview witnesses to corroborate
statements made by defendants. Other frequently requested. services include
serving subpoenas, photographing or diagramming the scene of a crime and
obtsoini"g medical records. Investigators operate fairly independently and spend
a good deal of their time away from the office attempting to locate witnesses and
performing other tasks.
Observation.c; about file Investimttion Division
At the time that this management audit was conducted, the Investigation
Division was undergoing considerable change. A number of personnel problems,
including serious abuses by m"n"gers and investigators of time reported spent in
the field, had been discovered in a review conducted by the Auditor-Controller's
Office. A number of employees, including the Chief, were absent on medical
leave, and the Department's Bureau Chief for Branch and Area Offices had been
made Acting Chief during the Chiefs leave. The appointment of the ,Bureau
Chief as Acting Chief was intended by the Department to provide high level
attorney management involvement for the purpose of modifying practices which
led to the employee abuses identified by the Auditor-Controller, and to stress the
high priority given by the Department for correcting procedural weaknesses
which existed. A number of new rules and regulations, such as the use of
1 The Chief position is presently vacant. The duties of the Chief have been assumed by the
Bureau Chief for Branch and Area offices on an acting basis.
2 One Lieutenant is permanently filled. The other two positions are filled on an temporary basis
by Investigator Ill's (being paid at the Investigator III salary level).
- 4-
c
o
beepers, spot checks and time logs, had been imposed to increase the
accountability of employees.
As a result of the actions taken by management, morale of many line
supervisors and investigators became fairly low. Resistance was high to many of
the neW-procedures established by m"n"lgement, as could be expected based on the
severity 'of the new rules imposed. Investigator opinion of m"nagement can be
presently characterized as very low in response to the actions taken by
m"n"gement. Yet, many of the new regulations which have been implemented
are commendable and have been long overdue. Now, the challenge for
m"nagement is maintaining and expanding those controls while focusing more
attention on improved management systems for monitoring investigator
performance and productivity, allocating workload and producing high quality
work.
The management audit project team observed that a great deal of time is
being spent by investigation staff and supervisors preparing and checking time,
case and mileage logs. This is an increase in supervisory staff time from that
which had existed prior to the Auditor-Controller review, but is considered
necessary by the DePartment in order to insure that employees are performing
appropriately. While time accountability is important, particularly given the
events of recent months in the Division, much of the time spent on these time-
keeping tasks could be better spent conducting investigations. A number of
findings and recommendations in this report deal with ways to maintain the
accountability which has been established in recent months, while making better
use of investigator time in providing high quality, responsive and timely services
to the Department attorneys.
The management audit project team observed some randomly selected
investigators in the field and found them highly professional and the level of the
service provided of high caliber. Many attorneys who were interviewed spoke
highly of the overall level of service provided by the Division and, in certain branch
offices, the level of attorney satisfaction was high. However, many attorneys
spoke of the inconsistent quality of service provided by the investigators and the
great variation in quality between employees. This variation was also found in the
review of case files conducted by the management auditors.
The management auditors also found that many of the Investigator In
supervisors observed and interviewed in the Division were dedicated and hard
working, and were facing a particularly difficult challenge maintaining a
caseload and performing the new administrative tasks associated with the time
accountability regulations imposed by the Acting Chief.
-5-
o
::)
, In general, the level of concern and interest in the Investigation Division
which has been expressed by the Department's upper management during this
m"nagement audit is commendable. At the direction of the Public Defender, all
staff made themselves very accessible for interviews and provided requested
information on a timely basis. Upper management reviewed and commented on
the survey instruments sent to public defender offices in other jurisdictions, the
Department's attorneys and the investigators. They also assisted in increasing
the response rate to these surveys by sending cover letters to the respondents
asking for their assistance in completing the questionnaires, and making
personal contacts with associates in the other jurisdictions requesting that they
respond to the survey. Finally, these Department managers were always willing
to take time to meet with the auditors and discuss project issues.
M'ITI"l1'ement Audit RP-cmltfi
This report includes a number of recommendations related to the
organization and management of the Investigation Division. Although sections of
this report have been organized as individual topics, it should be noted that many
are closely related to one another. As an.example, we separately discuss the need
to develop investigative standards and a process for ensuring the quality of the
investigators' work product in one section, and the need to develop a systematic
process for evaluating the productivity and performance of investigators in others.
Although these issues are presented separately, we consider each to be critical in
developing a system which provides high quality and efficient services for
attorneys.
Similarly, we have made recommendations which significantly affect the
classifications and number of staff, and thus the cost of operating the Division.
For instance, Section I of this report recommends creating five new mid-
management positions and eliminating certain other existing management
pOsitions, resulting in an increased net cost to the County of $18,390. However,
Section vn recommends creating five new lower level classifications, replacing
four Investigator IIs and the Witness Coordinator I, resulting in a net savings to
the County of $43,624. The net result of these two organizational sblffing findings,
therefore, result in a savings of approximately $25,232. In fact, the total combined
affect of all recommendations included in this report result in net increased
revenues and decreased expenditures of $36,305, and provide the Division with
significant additional resources to provide services for attorneys, including a
modified and strengthened management structure, more efficient provision of
investigative services, controls on the quality and quantity of work performed by
staff through automation and analytical processes, and increased ability to claim
State reimbursement for the cost of some services. Attachment 1 summarizes the
recommended costs, increased revenues and reduced expenditures resulting
from each of these findings.
-6-
o
o
.
Acknowledl!lllents
The entire staff of the Public Defender's Office and other County agencies
who were contacted were extremely helpful throughout this m"n"gement audit.
Staff time, background documents, case files and work space were all made
readily available for our purposes. The level of interest and commitment to the
m"nagement audit process by the Public Defender and his staff is exemplary.
Whatever the decisions of the County regarding the implementation of our
recommendations, we believe management of the Public Defender's Office is
committed to improving the quality of its Investigation Division.
-7-
o
o
SECTION I: ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT
ALTHOUGH INVESTIGATION SHOULD
CONTINUE TO BE OPERATED AS A
SEPARATE UNIT, IT SHOULD BE ALIGNED
MORE CLOSEL Y WITH THE ATTORNEY
ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE. IN ADDITION,
THE DIVISION SHOULD BE DESIGNATED A
SECTION AND BE MODIFIED TO
ACCOMPLISH MORE EFFECTIVE
MANAGEMENT. CERTAIN UPPER LEVEL
MANAGEMENT POSITIONS SHOULD BE
ELIMINATED AND ADDITIONAL MIDDLE
MANAGEMENT CLASSIFICATIONS
CREATED TO PROVIDE DIRECT
SUPERVISION. FURTHER, THE
ORGANIZATIONAL ROLE OF INVESTIGATOR
III POSITIONS SHOULD BE MODIFIED.
The Los Angeles County Public Defender's Office currently operates with 68
budgeted investigator positions, which are generally organized into units
according to Superior and Municipal court geographical and functional
catchment areas. Actual st.soffing varies from that which has been authorized by
the Board of Supervisors due to extended .medicalleave by six employees, and an
attempt by the Department to increase' direct supervision of investigator staff in
FY 1988-89. The following table illustrates budgeted and actual staffing of the
Division as of May 15, 1989:
Table L1
BudgetedandActualSmffingoftbe
Investigation Division oftbe Law Offices of the
Los Angeles County Public Defender
Mav 15. 1989
Budgeted. .Actual Over
Position 0""" Positions Positions (Under)
Chief Investigator 1 oa (1)
Assistant Chief Investigator 1 1 0
Lieutenant 2 3bb Ib
Investigator III 13 15 2
Investigator II 51 43 (8)
Investigator I .Jl. .Jl. .Jl.
Total (Xl 62 {ill
a The Chief Investigator is presently on extended medical leave. The Bureau Chief, Branch and
Area Offices, has been assigned as the Acting Chief Investigator during the Chief
Investigator's absence.
b One permanent position and three temporary at Investigator III salaries.
-8-
o
o
Exhibit 1.1 illustrates the current organization and allocation of staff by
Investigation Unit.
Cun-.:.nt Investilmtor Rtaffin... RtrP.ncrfl.
In addition to modifying the staffing in the Division to accommodate the
reduction in personnel due to medical leaves and to provide for an increased
number of supervisors, the Department has implemented various procedures
which increase record keeping and monitoring of investigator work hoUrs and
mileage records by supervisors (Section Vl). Although the m"n"gers intended for
the Investigator ill supervisors to allocate apprn-rim~te1y 50 percent of their time
to these supervision tasks and 50 percent of their time to case work, a significant
number of Investigator III staff have indicated that supervision tasks actually
take approximately 75 percent of their time. According to those who were
supervising prior to the implementation of the revised procedures, this represents
an increase amounting to 50 percent of their time (from an estimated 25 percent to
the reported 75 percent) - a 200 percent increase in supervision activity.
Although records do not exist in the Department to verify these estimates,
we .believe the estimates are reasonable based on our understanding of the
supervision process and the fact that these estimates were obtained independently
during separate interviews with Investigator ill statt Assuming these esfimates
are correct, the result of promotions and procedure modifications by the Division
have had the effect of reducing investigative strength by approximately 8.75 Full
Time Equivalent (FTE) positions, as follows:
· One FTE Investigator ill supervisor position promoted to a Lieutenant,
resulting in a .75 FTE reduction in investigative strength;
· Two FTE Investigator II positions promoted to Investigator III
positions, resulting in a 1.5 FTE reduction in investigative strength;
· 13 FTE Investigator ill positions increasing supervision activity by 200
percent, resulting in a 6.5 FTE reduction in investigative strength.
In addition to the loss in investigative staffing strength due to changes in
supervision policy, Investigator II staff report that they now spend much more of
their time maintaining and reconciling time and mileage records. Any increase
in record keeping tasks by Investigator II staff further reduces the investigative
staffing strength of the Division.
-9-
o
o
The estimated reduction in investigator staffing strength of 8.75 FTE
positions is significant, representing 17 percent of the overall investigator work
force authorized by the Board of Supervisors for FY 1988-89. Combined with the
level of m"n"gement and supervision which existed prior to organizational and
procedural modifications implemented this year, we estimate the Division spends
approximately 27 percent of its total non-clerical work force m"naging and
supervising the Division.l Unless it results in increases in staff productivity and
the quality of the investigator work product, such a high level of m"n"gement and
supervision is inappropriate.
Based on discussions with Public Defender lU"n9gement staff, we believe
many of the actions taken during FY 1988-89 to increase supervision were
appropriate. However, the Department now needs to establish procedures to
systematically evaluate workload, discussed in Section Vll; and assess the quality
of the investigator work product, discussed in Section ill. By modifying
procedures, as recommended in these other sections, the Department would be
able to reduce its level of direct supervision while insuring that the unit operates
more efficiently than in the past.
In order to effectively accomplish these objectives, modifications to the
organi'T.ation structure which align investigators more closely with attorneys for
whom they prepare reports are appropriate. In addition, certain upper
.",,,n'lgement positions should be ..1i.",in"ted and additional middle m"nagement
classifications created to provide direct supervision of Investigator IT and
Investigator ill staff. Further, the organizational role of Investigator ill staff
should be modified in order to increase the number of investigator practitioners in
the Department.
~ni7.SltinnSll A1iC"l1mAnt
During interviews with Public Defender attorney and investigator staff, two
views of the investigation function emerged. Some Department staff view
investigation as one part of a "team" effort, whe~by an attorney acts as a team
leader, directing the activities of investigators, paralegals and other support staff
to satisfactorily accomplish the defense of the client. Other staff view
investigation as providing a service function to attorneys, whereby the attorney is
a "client" of a somewhat autonomous investigative unit. Among investigation
staff, the. view that the attorneys are clients of investigation prevails.
The latter view of the attorney-investigator relationship, is detrimental to
the defense process. In Section Ill, the need for attorneys to playa greater role in
evaluating the investigation work product and assessing the performance of
individual investigators is discussed. In order to accomplish these objectives and
foster a closer relationship between attorneys and investigators, the Investigation
organization structure should be modified to align more closely with attorney
assignments.
1 This estimate does not include administrative activities of the Public Defender. the Assistant
Public Defender, Special Services or other management staff of the Department.
-10-
o
a
Throughout the study, Investigation staff assigned to Branch and Area
OffiCes, who had worked in the Central Office, indicated that they were able to
work better with attorneys at those loCations than they were when assigned
downtown. In part, this was attributed to the close physical proximity to attorney
staff and the multiple oPPOrtunities to discuss investigations with the requesting
attorneys. It was suggested by both attorneys and investigators who were
interviewed that the close working proximity to one another and the resulting
increased communications among staff resulted in more cohesive work units at
Branch and Area Offices than exist elsewhere in the Department, and an
improved investigation work product.
This is reasonable. In the Central offices, attorneys are physically removed
from investigators. The investigation request process operates without
necessarily requiring' that attorneys and investigators communicate except
through the written request form. Because of the investigation assignment
process, attorneys can not determine which investigator will be assigned the
investigation. Although 88 percent of the investigators responding to a
questionnaire circulated during this study indicated that they usually talk to the
attorney of record while working on a case, it occurs only through the initiative of
individualstafL With nearly 140 requesting attorneys and 30 investigators
assigned to the downtown courts, the ability to establish mesoni"gfuI work team
relationships' is hampered..
This difficulty has been recognized by some Department managers. In FY
1988-89, a Head Deputy Public Defender assigned to JD"n'lge one of the Central
felony attorney units initiated a project to increase attorney productivity by
creating a mech"nism for improved communication between attorneys and
investigators,Although several meetings were held among attorneys and
investigators to accomplish this objective, a formal team building mech"ni"lD has
not yet been developed by the Department. Further, it is unclear what the level of
continuing effort by Department m"ntlgement will be in this regard since the
efforts by the Head Deputy involved with this project were associated primarily
with the County's Pay for Performance Program, and were not adopted as a long
term objective of the Department.
One way to improve attorney-investigator communication would be to align
investigation teams at the Central office more closely with the attorney
organizational units. Presently, attorneys working on felony cases are divided
among three units which roughly correspond with certain courtrooms located at
the Criminal Courts Building. Similarly, for misdemeanors, attorneys are
assigned to the Municipal Courts Trials Division (downtown), the Hollywood
Municipal Court and East Los Angeles. However, Investigation Division staff
which provide services to these attorneys are assigned to one large unit. Each
investigator is responsible for a mixed caseload of felony and misdemeanor cases
which can originate from anyone of these locations and from any attorney. It
would be more effective to divide the large unit into investigation teams which
correspond to these attorney sections, than to continue with the current process of
pooling investigation requests. Some flexibility would be required to provide
coverage during periods of fluctuating workload, and for vacation and sick leave
relief and unanticipated vacancies and absences, particularly in the Central
office.
-11-
o
o
Manap'ement Structure
. Division Status and Upper MSln-.gement Stru.cture
Investigation is a Division of the Department that has been m"naged by a
Chief Investigator who reports to the Assistant Public Defender, Special Services
Bureau. Below the Chief is an Assistant Chief who is presently responsible for
the day-to-ciayoperations of the Division.
Currently, the Division has been assigned 73 staff (including clerical),
making it one of the largest divisions in the Department, containing
approximately eight percent of total personnel. Over 25 percent of non-attomey
support staff are assigned to the Investigation Division. Because of the number of
personnel dedicated to this function and the specialized nature of the Division's
role, Investigation should continue as a distinct unit and not be fully integrated
into the attomey organizational structure.
However, because it is a support activity which provides direct services to
attorneys, the Investigation Division should not continue to exist at an
orpn'7.ationallevel equivalent to attomey divisions. Rather, Investigation should
be given section status, below the division level Although the l1J"n"ger of the
section should be responsible for day-to-day operations, he should have limited
responsibility for pl"nning, organizing and directing the organization, and
developing Section policies. Rather, the Assistant Public Defender, Special
Services Bureau should be responsible for the overall m"n"gement of the Section,
including these activities, and monitoring the m"nagement and supervision of
investigation staff. Further, issues of investigation policy and practice which
affect services to attorneys should be resolved among the Assistant Public
Defenders, Bureau Chiefs and Division Chiefs. Input from the Investigation
Section Head should be advisory only.
Although the Bureau Chief currently serving as Acting Chief reports that it
is necessary to work overtime to complete his duties related to Investigation,
during recent months the Investigation Division has operated without a full-time
Division Chief and has successfully implemented significant ~h"nges affecting its
operations. Based on this recent experience, discussions with Department
management staff regarding the historical operations of the Division, as well as
the increased role being recommended for the Assistant Public Defender in
managing investigation services, we do not believe Chief and Assistant Chief
positions are both warranted.
-12-
o
o
, Therefore, an Investigation Services Section Head position should be
established within the Department and the Chief and Assistant Chief positions
should be eliminated.2 The proposed position of Section Head should be similar
in organizational status to the Management Services Section Head within
Administrative Services. Given the reduced level of responsibility assigned to this
position, as well as its relationship to other mid-level manager positions which
would exist in the Investigation Section, the salary would be most appropriately
established at the existing Assistant Chief level. However, the Public Defender's
Office should request that the County Office of Human Resources evaluate the
proposed position to assist in defini"g job specifications and an appropriate salary
level (see Section IV for an analysis of job qualifications and specifications).
In addition to investigators, the Department employs approximately 32
paralegals who assist attorneys with case preparation, research areas of law,
investigate certain aspects of defendant backgrounds prior to the sentencing stage
of a trial and provide other technical services for attorneys. The Department
should explore the feasibility of establishing a Technical Support Services Unit
which consolidates investigation, paralegal and other appropriate services under
one organi'T.ational unit which would be within the responsibility of the Assistant
Public Defender, Special Services Bureau. This study did not consider the
feasibility of this alternative as it was beyond the scope of this review.
Further, the Department has indicated that it would be appropriate to
establish a Division Chief position who would be responsible for managing
Investigation, as. well as several other functions within the Department, and
would report to the Assistant Public Defender, Special Services. This suggestion
may be appropriate. However, because this study did not review the activities
which would be assigned to the proposed Division Chief positio~ we are unable to
comment on the suggestion at this time.
Mid Leve1Managem.ent
As shown in the current organization chart (Exhibit 1.1), the Department
currently utilizes three Lieutenant positions who act as mid-level managers,
having broad responsibility for the m"'1agement of the Central Office and certain
administrative functions (Lieutenant, Administrative), and two Branch and Area
Office regions (Lieutenant, Branch and Area Offices). A review of the job
descriptions of these positions indicates that many of the tasks performed are
cleriC8l in nature. For example, the Lieutenant, Administrative is responsible for
"keeping records of time off", maintaining a "master vacation schedule" and
maintaining a "master log of all film purchases". In addition, Lieutenants are
2 All recommended new class titles included in this Section have been civilianized. The
current paramilitary position titles suggest a rigid management structure and chain of
command within Investigation which contribute to the difficulties encountered by the
Department when trying to integrate Investigation into the Department organization and
increase responsiveness to attorney requests for service. By civilianizing these positions, the
paramilitary characteristics of the Division are de-emphasized and an organizational culture
can be developed which is responsive to the overall needs of the Department and not just the
Division. In addition, police agencies are typically organized along paramilitary lines. By
organizing the Investigation Division in such a manner, the investigator's perception of
themselves as law enforcement personnel is encouraged.
-13-
o
o
responsible for compiling case statistics generated at each of the Investigation
Division work locations and summarizing these for central administration.
These activities, are inappropriate for managers at the Lieutenant level and
should be delegated to lower level staff. Further, micro-computer capability
which already exists in the Division, as well as recommendations for automation
discussed in Section IX will greatly reduce the need for Lieutenant involvement in
this regard.
In addition to these duties, the three Lieutenants are responsible for
reviewing the supervisory activities of the Investigator ill positions at the Central
Office, as well as at each of ' the Branches. Although these responsibilities need to
be accomplished, other sections of this report discuss methods for incTA....ing the
efficiency of Lieutenant activities in this regard. Further, with the
implementation of data processing recommendations discussed above, as well as
the assumption of some activities by lower level staff, we believe the number of
Lieut...nant positions within the Section could be reduced.
Therefore, we are recommending that the Department eliminate one
Lieut.mant position. The rem"ining two Lieutenants should be reclassified as a
l\of"n"ger - Downtown and Central Branches, and a Manager - Branch and Area
Offices. These two positions should be responsible for JD"n~ging the Investigation
services provided to Central felonies and misdemeanors, East Los Angeles,
Hollywood and Department 95; and the remaining Branch and Area Offices,
respectively (See Exhibit 12).
Investigator Supervisors
Presently, the Department is utilizing 15 Investigator ill positions for
supervision and the provision of certain administrative and training services, as
follows:
Investi~tn1" m CJ"....
Nnmber
Investigator ill, Adminilltrative
Investigator m. Trsoining
Investigator ill, Supervisor
1
1
13
The Investigator ill, Training, is a new position which will be discussed more
fully in Section ill.
The Investigator III, Administrative, is responsible for a number of
functions at the Central Office which include assigning cases to the three
downtown investigation teams to insure that workload is distributed equitably,
maintaining statistical records and resolving problems, answering requests and
responding to inquiries from attorneys who utilize the downtown investigators.
-14-
a
o
. The Investigator III, Supervisor positions are responsible for providing
daily, on-site supervision of Investigator II employees and other supervision
related activities. Typical tasks include reviewing and assigning all cases,
reviewing all closed cases, maintaini"g case logs and other control documents,
maintaining overtime and other employee time records, and conducting case
audits to determine investigator performance. In addition, the Grade III
supervisors are responsible for many tasks which involve the direct supervision of
personnel, including assigning Investigator IT staff to the daily duty schedule,
reviewing and approving mileage claims, pre-approving all overtime and time off
and lU"intaining information to assist in writing the' yearly performance
evaluation of Investigator II and Investigator 1 staft:
Investigator ill staff are considered by m"n"gement to be the more skilled
investigators within the Division. We were informed by management that
because of this, Investigator ill staff are supposed to carry a 50 percent caseload
in addition to their supervisory duties. Further, management intends that
Investigator ill staffbe assigned cases which require a higher skill level than the
cases assigned to others. Yet a review of the case assignment process uUlized at
th~ various work locations, and our discussions with several Investigator Ill's
who are responsible for assigning cases, indicates that Investigator Ill's are not
necessarily working the most complex investigations, as intended by
management. Rather,. because of the demands from conducting supervisory
tasks, discussed in the first part of this finding, Investigator ill supervisors
indicate they are often assigning themselves the less complex cases.
The Investigator ill staff have a supervisor/employee relationship with the
other classifications of investigators. Yet all three investigator practitioner
classifications - Investigator 1, Investigator II and Investigator In _ are
represented by a single employee association, the Association of Public Defender
Investigators (APD1). Although Department Management cannot affect an
employee group's choice .of bargaining units, this can create difficulties when
employees file grievances or take other personnel actions against their immediate
supervisor, or when an employee challenges the basis for an inferior performance
rating. Because of this, the Investigator ill staff should not be given direct
supervisory responsibility.
Further, because of the high level of supervisory activity being performed by
Investigator Ill's, the Department is losing the benefit of their investigative
expertise. Essentially all case work, no matter what the complexity, is being
performed by a single classification of employee without regard to the skill level or
capabilities of the assigned employee. In practice, the more skilled staff are often
assigning themselves the less complex cases.
A review of the Investigation Division organization also indicates that an
unnecessarily high supervisor to staff ratio exists. Currently, four investigator
locations operate with a 1:2 ratio, five operate with a 1:3 ratio and the remaining
four operate with a ratio of 1:4. These supervisor to staff ratios are excessive.
-15-
o
o
It would be reasonable to create five Assistant Manager positions who
woul,d report to the Manager for Downtown and Central Branches, and the
Manager for Branch and Area Offices. These Assistant Managers would be
responsible for direct supervision of Investigator ill and Investigator n staff on a
full-time basis, and would not be responsible for a caseload. In addition, the
..Assistant Manager's would be responsible for reviewing case weightings (see
Section vn, reviewing the investigation work product for adherence to
Department standards, conducting performance evaluations of staff and
performing other personnel related activities. Under this proposal, the
investigation staff for Juvenile Services would be decentralized and disbursed at
Central and Branch offices based on workload and would not be designated as a
separate work unit (see Section ll). Further, the Assistant M"n"ger assigned the
Compton courts would be responsible for monitoring the contract for investigation
services, as recommended in Section X. With the addition of the Assistant
M"nager positions, the supervisor to staff ratio would increase considerably, as
follows:
IDi/~lmt.or Unit
Supervisor to
RhlffRatiQ
1:12
1:14
1:12
1:93
1:12
Central Felony
Central Misdemeanor
Region 1 - North
Region 2 - Southeast
Region 3 - Southwest
These supervisor to staff ratios would be manageable with the
implementation of new, more efficient and effective l1)"nagement reporting
mer..h"n;sms and alternative workload assignments discussed throughout this
report. For all locations except Central Felony, the Assistant M"n"gers would be
required to supervise staff located at disbursed locations. At Central Felony, staff
will be involved with more complex caseloads. In order to m"n"ge the number of
staff appropriately, it will therefore be necessary for Investigator ill positions to
continue with certain supervisory support functions. Primary among these
functions would be the daily assignment of cases to investigators at the location
subject to the review and approval of the Assistant Manager, the maintenance of
assignment logs, and assisting the Assistant Manager in other ways which do
not require the direct supervision of staff. In addition, the Investigator In should
be a resource person providing general direction and support to lower level staff
and acting as a lead in complex cases.
3 Would also be responsible for monitoring the Compton Investigation contract (see Section X).
-16-
""
"-'
o
, These duties should require Significantly less time for the Investigator Ill's
to accomplish than do the direct supervisory responsibilities which they conduct
currently. We estimate that at a maximum, such tasks should not exceed 25
percent of their work hours, relieving them for casework during the remainder of
their time. In addition, because of the increase in time available for Investigator
ill staff to perform investigations, a reduction of two Investigator II positions
would be appropriate. Exhibit L2 illustrates the proposed Investigation Services
Section organization as discussed in this finding.
By implementing the recommendations contained in this finding, the
Department would realize a net increase of six FTE to perform investigations.
The additional investigative strength would occur at the Investigator ill level,
since the supervisory responsibilities of these positions would be transferred to the
five new Assistant M"n"ger positions. Sufficient Investigator ill staff would also
then be available to replace the activities of the two Investigator II positions
recommended for deletion. Further, these Assistant Manager positions would
provide several of the functions of the Investigator ill, Administrative position,
while other responsibilities of this position would be assumed by clerical staff and
be streamlined with the implementation of data processing improvements
discussed in Section IX. Therefore, the Investigator ill, Adminil;tratiVe position
would no longer be necessary. The following schedule summarizes these
recommended staffing r.h""ges:
Pn<rition Ti6~
Chief Investigator
Assistant Chief Investigator
Lieutenant
Investigator ill, Administrative
Investigator II
Investigation Section Head
Ma'lager - Downtown & Central Branches
Manager - Branch and Area Offices
Assistant M"n'lger
Add
IDelefel
Total
1
1
1
5
8
(1)
(1)
(3)
(1)
(2)
The net cost to the County to implement these recommendations would be
approximately $18,400 annual!y, based on current salaries and a projection of
salaries for the Assistant Manager positions established at a mid-range between
the current Investigator III and Lieutenant positions. Combined with
recommended classification changes included in Section VII, the County would
save an estimated $25,232 annually from all staffing modifications discussed in
this report. The estimated savings and increased revenues from all management
audit report recommendations are included in Attachment 1.
(8)
-17-
o
o
('-oncllL';ions
In FY 1988-89, the Department has reallocated investigation staff to
management and supervisory positions in an attempt to increase direct
supervision. Although these actions were appropriate when implemented
approximately 27 percent of the Division's resources are now committed to th~
mtlnagement and supervision of investigators. This is excessive.
With the implementation of recommendations contained in other sections
of this report, the m"n'lgement and supervisory capabilities of the Division could
be strengthened. It would also be appropriate to modify the organization and
management structure to align Investigation more closely with attorney work
units and the attorney management structure, to more clearly delineate
supervisory functions, and to reduce the amount of upper management staffing
while m"lnng the mid-level m"n'lgement structure more effective.
Recomm.....dafioDS
We recommend that the Public Defender:
1.1 Develop specific job specifications for the new positions of Investigative
Services Section Head, Manager and Assistant Manager, and re-detine the
role of the Investigator ill class, as discussed in this report;
L2 Submit the proposed job specifications to the County Office of Hnman
Resources for evaluation and development of appropriate classification and
salary levels;
L3 Request that the Board of SuperVisors modify the Salary Ordinance and
Budget to reflect the addition of the new positions and the elimin"tion of the
positions of Chief Investigator, Assistant Chief Investigator and
Lieutenant;
L4 Formally adopt a revised organization chart for the Department,
designating Investigation Services as a Section rather than a Division, and
aligning the Section more closely with attorney work units, as described in
this report and illustrated in Exhibit 1.2;
L5 Formally adopt the revised job specifications for the proposed new positions
and Investigator nI's;
1.6 Implement the proposed organization structure and recruit individuals for
the recommended upper and middle management positions;
1.7 Explore the feasibility of developing a Technical Support Services Unit
which would consolidate investigation, paralegal and other appropriate
services under the responsibility of the Assistant Public Defender, Special
Services Bureau.
-18-
('-o"'t<;(R.,.nefit<;
o
o
~
The Department would have a more effective Investigation management
structure, while incre"...ng the number of investigator staff available for assisting
attorneys. Costs to implement the recommendations would be approximately
$18,400 per year. However, combined with the implementation of
recommendations contained in Section VII, the proposed restructuring of the
Division would occur at an estimated annual savings of $25,232.
-19-
L-
CD
'C
c:
CD
-
CD
C
0
-
.c
::J
a.
>c:
-0
c:_
::J UI
0- 0)
02: co
UI C 0)
- T""
CD
- CD c:
t! 0) 0 It)
.I: c: T""
-
" < as>
w
0) as
UI - :2:
-
o UI
....I CD
>
CD c:
.s:::.
-
-
0
UI
CD
0
:;:
-
0
~
as
....I
o
o
- <ion " JOle6!IS9AU, C
...,. III JOle6!IS9AU(
a I
x " JOlelitls"^UI S'Z
'ii
- ~ III JOle6!lseAUI
;; I
z
;; ..c Ol
.. - e" c " JOle6!lS9AUI Z
.... - <~ g
..c .5 III JOle6tlseAUI
- c- o I
_'0 .... a.
3:g w-
....
0 Ol
C
.. " JOle6!lS9AUI C
- ..,
:I III JOle6!lseAU' I
r- Ol
a.
- 0
- .., " JOle6tlS9AU1 C
~ ~ .. - ri~
0.. ~ III JOle6!lseAUI
Gic ai= .. t
- a- IL
-.. :0..
C;;~ "'0
.. -..
> c~
E Eel 0
'0
~ < r-- E " JOle6!llleAUI 9
.. co III JOle6tlseAUI
'0 .. t
c I-
.. .. - co
-.. ~. ..~ ~-
~~ 0 -0
_Gi .1:_ -c CD
0<: 0.. .... II JOle6!lS8J\U( S
-.. ..a _ a :Oc li
:Den - :c= - co:: .. .. III JOle6!lseAUI
,,- 0:: .... "C5 j! t
-..
Q..!!! .!!> -..
_ .0 > "c E-
CCD E at _ '0""
..a. < <
;;en < " JOle6!llleAUI 9
.. '-- E
.. Ol III JOle6JlseAUI
< .. I
l-
e-- .
- C ^I JOleliJls"^u, ...
Iii r- .
> III JOle6tlseJWI t
ci) :0
....
L- a;
-;::
..
CD "''6 " JOle6!ls,,^ul S'Z
~ -
0 s. III JOle6!lSGAUI
CD ..... I
en CD
- ..- .
.. c
~ .. "
- <c c " JOle6!lS9AUI G
0!! ~
.. ~ ;; III JOle6!lSGAul I
3::::; I-
Oll'! " JOle6tls9Aul G
'-- ee
-'10 III JOle6!IS9AU( I
::li
'- li~ II JOle6!lS9AU( G
>~ III JOlelitlSGAul I
-20-
..
.. '" ..
~ '" 0 0
"'3:lf: C .c.
g-L:O 0 '" j
::i: 0
c'5as C
.. 0 '" .. ..
::i:en.:c E ~ 2'
~
c.'C .. 0
..<'l C en I- .s
Cic.
"ii..Q"fi
.:2 "'c
'" ..
a:~
m
...
CD
'C .. ..
C '" -'" .. ... c
CD 0 ~..o a .. !
- If: ",""" ~
CD 0 ","'- E
0 ca€O &. 0 <'3
~.. C"''' z
"'l!! "0"
.2 2'< ::i:en.:c
:a c.., c~'C
"c .. C
~ ::i:. C;;ca:l
Il. .c. Ci.2~
0 .. '" 0
>'c C <..c
c l! a::~
Eo 0 m m
~- ~
- ..
oo!! CIS .., ..
O>N c ..
-- ,!!.. 0
010 C .... ~.., .. 0
:! CIS 0.2 ..
o ~ .. .. .....c ~ ..,
CD Cl en.. ~
G;c'" -.. c:J: "1:- . ;
- ClOO ;00 2'00 j E
:<i "'- Oc cZ. Z cf
c- a..!!! =.2 ~.!
.c. <iii'C _0 ..- :f. c c
.. ~8. gJ} -< ~ .
ClCD cc'" en
w 01- 01 ;;en ..
.. .. 0 c
0- 0 0; > co _ as
~:l Co (/) oS - "'.c.
< .... 0
> 0 .. a: c
CD C ... ~ < ..
~
.c_1l. '" m
- c
..
- ~
0 l- I!! ..
..!!! It)
01 .. 0 .. '"
~ .. c '"
CD "'.., .. .. ~ E
() ",CO Z .. ..,
;: ..,- cuas=: cE .. 0 ..
c .. ~~o .. .. J E
- ...2 0 ~
0 ~ ::i:c" 0.., ...J 1:
....!!! .. 1ii .. -
.. .. :!: '0 Q. .
.2:0 -..~ ..
:: :iiE< .. ~
Ciic c.. w J: 0 I-
aI 3: .. -..-
~ :: 3: o.c. ~"O~
.~ 0 _0 ....-
c- c c ct)'- c
_ c 3: l'! <::i:",
E 3: 0
",,0 om
<0 0
. f!
~ - m OJ
.. c 0 m
",.. 0 0
..0 0 0 0
c.., .. ~
"c ~ c 0 ~ ~
::i:.. .. 0 0 0 0
"'., u: 0 0
.... u: u:
c'" -5
..., .t:: .t::
::;; .. - M iO
.. -
-> -
c c
..-
w,..
- c
:l 0
<Gi
u.
~.
o
o
o
o
SECT,ION II: DECENTRALIZATION OF JUVENilE STAFF
BECAUSE OF INSUFFICIENT SPACE IN
OUTLYING JUVENILE COURTS, THE
INVESTIGATION DIVISION HAS
CENTRALIZED ITS JUVENILE
INVESTIGATORS IN DOWNTOWN LOS
ANGELES. THIS CREATES
INEFFICIENCIES BY INCREASING
INVESTIGATOR TRAVEL TIME; DELAYING
THE RECEIPT OF DOCUMENTS WHICH
SUPPORT THE INVESTIGATION, REDUCING
THE AMOUNT OF PERSONAL CONTACT
WITH TRIAL ATTORNEYS AND
ENCOURAGING TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS
WITH WITNESSES.. INVESTIGATORS
CURRENTLY ASSIGNED TO THE JUVENILE
DIVISION SHOULD BE TRANSFERRED TO
BRANCH OFFICES. FURTHER, JUVENILE
INVESTIGATION SHOULD NO LONGER BE A
SPECIALIZED ACTIVITY, BUT SHOULD BE
COMMINGLED WITH ADULT CASELOAD.
The Public Defender provides juvenile defense services at 10 locations
within Los Angeles County. Six of these locations are operated at Superior Courts
which also provide services to adult defendants, including: Central, Compton,
Inglewood, Long Beach, Pasadena and Pomona. The rem..ini"g four locations
exclusively serve juveniles, as follows:
. Eastlake - located at the Central Juvenile Hall;
· Kenvon - located in Southwest Los Angeles;
. Los Padrinos - located in Downey; and,
· Sylmar - located in the San Fernando Valley.
The Eastlake and Sylmar offices serve juveniles who live within designated
service areas. The remaining offices serve any juvenile arrested within the
particular Superior Court service area, with the exception of Central, which
houses the Public Defender Juvenile Services Division administration, some
secretarial services and all investigator services. There is currently one
Investigator III and four Investigator II staff assigned to the Division.
Investigation and secretarial services for the Public Defender Juvenile
Services Division are located downtown because of the lack of available space at
the outlying facilities. This situation, while relieving space constraints, has
created numerous operational difficulties related to investigator services.
Primary among these are the following:
-22-
o
o
o
o
. . The Public Defender provides juvenile defense services throughout the
County, with the exception of Lancaster where services are provided by
the private bar. Although some attempt is made by the Juvenile
Division's Investigator In to assign investigations by region in the
County, this is often difficult. As a result, investigators can be required
to travel long distances, reducing the amount of productive time spent
performing investigations.
· Attorneys must transmit investigation requests and supporting
material, such as police reports, to investigators. Because the
investigators are physically remote from the attorneys this can create
delays in initiating investigation requests and receiving the
investigation reports. To remedy this and other communications
problems within the Division, the Public Defender has purchased
modems and fax machines for electronically transmitting information.
Although this has reduced many of the delays which existed prior to the
purchase of the equipment, investigators report that delays continue for
those cases which have extensive back-up documentation. In addition,
not all Juvenile Court locations have been equipped with. fax capability.
At these locations, use of the County messenger service can result in
delays of up to three days at the beginning and end of an investigation.
· Discussions with Public Defender juvenile attorneys indicate that
communications with investigators are hampered because of the
reduced amount of personal contact which occurs, as compared with
other areas of the Office. To the extent juvenile investigatQ~. can be
located in close proximity to attorneys these communications Will likely
improve.
· Because of the increase in travel time required of investigators, they tend
to conduct investigations over the telephone rather than in person. This'
affects the quality of the investigation work product and can affect the
ability of an attorney to provide a suitable defense. If a witness later
denies information revealed in a telephone interview, the investigator
has limited ability to challenge the witness by testifying that the
individual with whom the investigator spoke was actually the witness.
Further, during a personal interview, investigators are more able to
assess the characteristics of a witness which would affect the credibility
of the defense case.
Based on our interview of staff and observation of Division operations, we
believe the degree of inefficiency which occurs as a result of each of these
difficulties are significant. Consequently, the juvenile investigators should be
decentralized to the extent possible, according to juvenile workload patterns
within the County. Based on our analysis, the most productive locations for the
existing juvenile staff under a decentralized operation would be: (1) Fl'E at Van
Nuys; (1) Fl'E at San Fernando; (1) Fl'E at Pomona; (0.5) Fl'E at Norwalk; (1) Fl'E
at Torrance; and (0.5) Fl'E at Long Beach.
-23-
o
o
We visited all but two of these offices (Norwalk and Long Beach) and believe
the marginal increase in staff to be housed at the locations visited could be
accommodated. Further, Norwalk and Long Beach already operate with half-
time investigators. The recommended increase of 0.5 FTE at each location would
merely be increasing existing personnel to full-time. Therefore, the effects of
space constraints would be minimized.
Juvenile investigators currently utilize centralized secretarial services for
typing investigation reports. However, the marginal increase in typing at each of
the locations where the investigation staff would be transferred could be absorbed
by Branch secretaries. The Department should explore this issue more fully,
Particularly as it relates to the recent increase in word Processing capability at
many of the Juvenile Service Division locations and Branch and Area Offices.
Industry standards show that word processing capability can increase clerical
typing productivity by a factor of three.
An additional issue related to the decentralization of juvenile investigation
services relates to the potential for spreading juvenile cases over a broader base of
investigators. This could be accomplished by assigning all investigators a mixed
case load which would include both adult and juvenile investigations.
The Juvenile Services DiVision Chief indicates that he has several concerns
regarding this suggestion. First, juvenile services historically have been given
lower priority by Investigation than adult services. We could not confirm whether
this would occur if juvenile investigations were disbursed. However, through the
recommended organization eh""ges included in Section 1, the Department would
have the ability to safeguard against this happening. The Juvenile Services
Division is placed under the Special Services Bureau, as is Investigation.
Therefore, the Assistant Public Defender, Special Services has direct
organizational responsibility for both sections of the Office and would have a direct
role in determini"g the priorities and operations of both. Further, the decision on
whether or not to emphasize adult services over juvenile services is an
appropriate one for upper m"nagement of the Department to make since it is
Tn"nagement's responsibility to continually be establishing service priorities and
the areas for emphasizing resources. Whatever the decision by upper
m"nagement in this regard, it is important that a policy be clearly established
and communicated to all staff.
Second, juvenile investigators develop contacts in the juvenile community
(i.e. at schools, the Probation Department, etc.) which could otherwise be difficult
to develop by individuals with a mixed case load of adult and juvenile cases. We
agree this could create some problems. However, it would be possible to have
certain investigators at each Branch Office location who specialize in juvenile
services, without having them exclusively dedicated to the function. By doing so,
the ability to develop juvenile contacts could be retained although workload would
be disbursed. The statutory time requirements for juvenile matters are shorter
than for adults, which potentially could create difficulties when scheduling
investigations. However, by assigning specific investigators at each location to
juvenile matters, such potential difficulties could be overcome.
-24-
o
o
Conclusion..
Investigation and secretarial services for the Public Defender Juvenile
Services Division are located downtown because of the lack of available space at
the outlying facilities. This situation, while relieving space constraints, has
created numerous operational difficulties related to investigator services.
Specifically, investigators can be required to travel long distances, reducing the
amount of productive time spent performing investigations. In addition, because
the investigators are physically remote from the attorneys there can be delays in
initiating investigation requests and receiving the investigation reports;
communications with investigators are hampered because of the reduced amount
of personal contact which occurs, as compared with other areas of the Office; and,
because of the increase in travel time required of investigators, they are
encouraged to conduct investigations over the telephone rather than in person.
RecoIlDllf'.ndation..
We recommend that the Public Defender:
11.1 Fully explore the capability of secretarial staff to absorb additional typing
resulting from the decentralization of juvenile investigation services
described in this section. Report on alternatives to provide the needed.
secretarial support;
11.2 Decentralize juvenile investigation services, as described in this section;
IL3 Formally establish a policy regarding juvenile investigation priority, and
communicate it to all staff, -
IL4 Direct the Investigation Division managers to designate a juvenile
investigation specialist at each location.
('~DPfib;
Implementation of these recommendations would not result in additional
costs to the Department. Travel time spent by juvenile investigators will be
reduced, potential delays transmitting investigation requests and supporting
material will be eliminated, personal contact with juvenile attorneys will be
increased and investigators will be more capable of performing witness
interviews in person. The results of these efficiencies will be more timely
investigation service delivery and an improved work product.
-25-
o
o
SECTION III: QUALITY ASSURANCE
THE QUALITY OF INVESTIGATIONS
PERFORMED BY THE DIVISION IS
INCONSISTENT BECAUSE EXISTING
INVESTIGATOR PERFORMANCE
STANDARDS DO NOT PROVIDE
SPECIFIC ENOUGH GUIDANCE TO
ENSURE THAT A MINIMUM LEVEL OF
QUALITY IS MET IN ALL
INVESTIGATIONS. FURTHER,
INVESTIGATION DIVISION
SUPERVISORS AND DEPARTMENT
ATTORNEYS DO NOT' SPEND
SUFFICIENT TIME REVIEWING AND
EVALUATING THE QUALITY OF
INVESTIGATIONS.
The Public Defender's Office developed Investigator Performance
Standards in 1983 which are the basis of annual performance evaluations for all
investigators. The three pages of written standards, which are presented in full
as Exhibit IIL1, are comprised of brief descriptions of expected behavior in each of
the following areas:
· Investigative Skills.
· Attitude, Adaptability and Productivity
. Reporting Skills
· Effectiveness of Personal Interactions
· Supervisory Skills :(if the investigator has supervised during the
evaluation period)
As an eXlilIllple, Interviewing Techniques is included as part of "Investigative
Skills" as follows:
"Interviewin!!' Skilh
The investigator interviews efficiently and effectively. The investigator asks
pertinent questions and gathers necessary case information from all types
of individuals".
The Department's Investigator Performance Standards cover most of the
important aspects of investigation work. However, these standards are not
specific enough to ensure that a minimum level of quality will be met in all
investigations. For example, the "Interviewing Techniques" standard above
states that interviews will be efficient and effective but does not specify when it is
acceptable for interviews to be conducted by telephone instead of in person (a
concern to many Public Defender deputies, according to the attorney survey
conducted as part of this management audit).
-26-
o
o
'The lack of specific standards by which to evaluate investigator
performance is compounded by an ineffective performance evaluation process.
Under current Department policy, Division supervisors are devoting most of their
time to ensuring that investigator time is properly accounted for and that all staff
are working full eight hour days. Much supervisorial time is spent reviewing
case logs, mileage claim sheets and overtime records to ensure that they are all
consistent. Investigators have been provided electronic paging devices ("beepers")
which are regularly used to spot check investigator field activities. While time
m"n"gement and accountability are important areas to monitor, the amount of
supervisorial time allocated to this is excessive and takes time away from
overseeing and improving the quality of investigation work. Simil",.ly, quality is
not monitored by the Department's attorneys since they have no formal role in
investigator performance evaluations even though they are the chief users of the
services (see Section V for discussion of including attorneys in the evaluation of
investigator performance). Although some attorneys consider quality when
evaluating investigation services, there is not a mechanism for systematically
transmitting their.. assessment to managers and supervisors within the
Investigation Division and the Department.
ret...~Dtionq ofInvacd:imttor p&Co.. ...M1~
As a result of Investigator Performance Standards which are not specific,
the current allocation of supervisorial time in the Department and no involvement
by attorney staffin the investigator evaluation process, a minimum level of quality
in investigation work is not ensured. This is evidenced by attorney responses to
the survey question, "Do you find variation in the quality of investigation work
performed depending on the investigator assigned?". Eighty-eight percent of the
respondents to this question answered "Yes" and, while numerous respondents
stated that the investigators did a good job overall, many commented on the
inconsistent quality of the work product. This is characterized by the following
comments:
"There are individual investigators who are performing in a highly
competent' manner as opposed to those who do only the bare
. . "
mInImum.
"I feel the main problem with our Investigation Division is the great
disparity from one investigator to the next in terms of motivation and
reliability. It depends too much on the luck of the draw."
.....some very strong investigators and some very weak."
A sample of case files conducted as part of this management audit
confirmed the attorneys' claim of inconsistency in the quality of investigation
work. The results of this sample indicated that in some cases, the investigators
reported they were unable to contact certain witnesses after several attempts to
reach them by telephone or after sending a letter asking that they call the Public
Defender's Office. In other cases, the investigators located witnesses through
-27 -
a
o
~
steps ,such as visiting the witness' home, contacting neighbors and visiting places
of employment. It is not clear why the first minimal effort approach was
considered acceptable by Division supervisors and attorneys when other
investigators clearly take extra steps to attempt to contact witnesses.
In the survey of Public Defender deputies conducted as part of this
management audit, the Department's attorneys were asked to rank
characteristics of investigations according to their importance. The results are
presented in Table ill.1 on the following page.
TABLE ml
RESULTS OF ATrORNEYSURVEY
RANKING CHARACTERISTICS OF
INVESTIGATIONS ACCORDING TO
THEIRlMPORl'ANCE
TO DEPARTMF.NT A'ITORNEIS
Please rank the following characteristics of investigations according to
their importance to you.
<Percentages of responses to each characteristic)
Very
Imnnria.,t
Somewhat
TJnOOrDInt
Nlt
T",nnria.,t
a) Timeliness
90%
97%
10%
3%
0%
0%
b) Completeness
c) Investigator takes initiative
and performs additional
tasks useful to the case.
62%
35%
2%
d) Investigator contacts me
at the outset of the investigation
to discuss the case.
23%
55%
22%
e) Investigator contacts me
during the investigation
to discuss the case.
44%
54%
2%
o Investigator understands
what I am trying to
accomplish and performs
accordingly.
97%
3%
0%
g) Other factors (please list):
- 28-
o
o
Many attorneys added other factors as very important characteristics on their
questionnaires. The most frequently mentioned had to do with investigator
initiative or communications between the attorney and the investigators, as
exemplified by the following:
"Investigator takes initiative;
Investigator doesn't close case without consulting me;
Investigator contacts me if he/she has questions;
Investigator suggests other approaches to case;
Investigator shares personal evaluation of witnesses;
Investigator is interested and motivated;
Investigator has ability to get people to talk;
Investigator conducts face to face interviews with witnesses;
Investigator makes special efforts to pursue recalcitrant witnesses;
Investigator. is_defense oriented."
The investigators were asked to list the most important elements of an
. investigation in a separate survey conducted as part of this man'lgement audit.
Their responses included many of the same characteristics cited by the attorneys
plus the following which were frequently mentioned: .
Clear, concise requests from the attorneys;
Effective communications with witnesses;
Concise report writing by investigator;
Independence and objectivity.
RnArnfic Ferlonna"""" Rhl~
The Department's Investigator Performance Standards should be expanded
based on a combination of the existing standards and input from the attorneys
and investigators about what makes a high quality investigation. More specific
written performance standards are needed to establish when a minim~1 approach
is acceptable (if ever) and when more in-depth work is required. These standards
should be included in the policies and procedures manual provided to all
investigators and referred to during investigations. Although some degree of
flexibility and creativity is required for investigators to perform effectively,
performance standards should be used as the basis for ongoing monitoring of
each investigator's work by Division supervisors and Department attorneys and
should serve as the basis of annual performance evaluations (see Section V for
discussion of performance evaluations).
-29-
c
o
, Some Public Defender offices in other jurisdictions, such as in Alameda
County, have developed detailed written performance standards for the
investigation function which are then included in investigation division's
procedures manual. Besides covering standard issues such as overtime and sick
leave policy, the Alameda County manual includes specific directives about
qualitative investigation issues. Although Alameda is different from Los Angeles
County in size and scale, many of the performance standards which they have.
established are directly transferrable to the Public Defender's Investigation
Division.
At the outset, the Alameda County manual establishes the concept of "due
diligence" as the guiding principle for investigations and, within that context,
provides detailed standards by which the investigators should perform. For
example, under "Interviewing Techniques", the following standard is presented:
"Attitude
- .
After identifying yourself, the investigator ought to adopt the attitude
of one who is ng1 in authority. Only the good will and voluntary
cooperation of the witness will yield an interview. Thus, the
investigator must be able to sell himself and gain the witness'
confidence in an open and ethical manner. Some investigators
purposely engage the witness in a short. non-business conversation
prior to the actual interview."
And, finally, regarding the issue of when a telephone interview is appropriate
compared to an in-person interview, the Alameda County manual provides the
following directive:
"Witnesses are not to ~ interviewed by phone. If the situation exists
that a personal interview is not possible, then a phone interview is
permitted. Phone interviews are possible if okayed by your
supervisor.
CAVEAT: Do not get into the habit of phone interviews, the client is
owed the duty of a face to face witness interview. Effective
legal counsel rights make it a must. Remember, the spirit of
effective representation as it relates to support staff is
important - let's do the job right - face-to-face interviews are
the best."
Finally, in the area of the extent to which investigators should attempt to contact
the witness, the follOwing direction is provided in the Alameda County manual:
"Witness unable to contact
In the event. an investigator cannot locate a witness, it is not
acceptable to merely write a memorandum to the attorney saying
"unable to contact"; this does not satisfy due diligence.
-30-
o
o
Further, a letter sent to an uncooperative witness and then closing
the case without actual contact because the witness does not respond,
is also unacceptable.
Due diligence must be satisfied in all cases if the client is to receive
effective legal representation.
Anything short of due diligence will not be tolerated - appropriate
discipline may be imposed if this standard is not achieved....
These examples set very clear standards for investigations conducted in the
Alameda County Public Defender's Office. Under these standards, a supervisor
would be hard-pressed to allow an investigator to close a case if the only attempts
to locate a witness were made by telephone. Yet in Los Angeles County, this C!lD
and does occur.
'Ii:-....mples of the type of investigative standards that should be developed by
the Department are presented below. The list of characteristics are taken from
the attorney and investigator surveys as well as the audit project team's
assessment of important aspects of investigation work.
Table DL2
~mDle InVP.!ttintor Perfonn...,oe SClFltI'ttds
Characteristic
Examples of Stanil..rils
Completeness
of investigation;
Conciseness of
report
An investigation is not complete until every
possible avenue has been pursued to locate
witnesses including telephone calls; visits to
residences, places of employment and frequently
visited locations; use of reverse directories, DMV
records, utility listings and other public and
private sources of information. Attempts to
contact a witness exclusively by telephone are
unaccentable except in some minor misdemeanor
cases with supervisor approval.
An investigation report will not be considered
complete unless it responds to each question asked
or item requested by the attorney of record. The
investigation report is concise if it does not
include extraneous information beyond that
directly relevant to the request.
-31-
, Characteristic
Timeliness
o
o
Examoles of Standards
An investigation report is timely if it is delivered to
the attorney on or before the trial date on the
investigation request form (Note: The Division
should establish standard numbers of days before
trial dates by which attorneys should receive their
investigation reports to have sufficient lead time to
review them and request additional information to
change the case strategy if necessary without
asking for a case continuance. Under the current
system, delivery of an investigation report by the
trial date does not guarantee that it will be timely
from the attorney's perspective).
The average times for various types of functions
performed by investigators are as follows:
N on-complex services requiring in-County travel
(subpoena service, obtaining medical records, etc.)
should take no more than 2.5 hours on average.
Non-complex services that do not require travel
(in-court photography, DMV search, utility
request, etc.) should take no more than 1 hour on
average.
Witness location and interviews within the county
should take no more than 2.0 hours per witness
for non-homicide cases, including travel.
Additional time should be allowed for particularly
complex cases. Witness location and interviews
within the County for homicide and special
circumstances cases should take no more than 2.5
hours per witness.
Photographing the scene of a crime or preparing
diagrams should take no more than 2.0 hours per
request.
(Note: these times are averages only-exceptions will not
necessarily be held against the investigator but should be
noted for supervisors with an explanation and
justification).
-32-
'Characteristic
Independence
and Objectivity
Initiative
Communications
with attorneys
c
o
Examoles of Standard&
Investigation reports should present aU
information obtained through field work clearly
and concisely regardless of its impact on the
viability of the defense theory. The value of an
investigator's services is not measured by his or .
her proving that the defendant is innocent (though
it is good if information is discovered that leads to
this). Rather, it is measured by the investigator's
ability to accurately and concisely provide all
pertinent information that allows the attorney to
determine the most appropriate way to dispose of
the case.
Initiative is shown when: an investigator
documents that all possible attempts have been
made to locate witnesses, including innovative or
unusual means, if necessary; leads have been
followed up and additional pertinent witnesses not
included on the attorney's initial investigation
request have been located and interviewed.
Communications with attorneys must be
maintained during investigations of any
substance (e.g., all special circumstances,
homicides', felonies and more serious
misdemeanors). If questions arise or surprise
information is uncovered, it is incumbent on the
investigator to make contact with the attorney of
record to discuss these matters and document the
contact in the investigation report. Similarly, if a
delay is likely to occur in meeting the investigation
deadline, it is crucial that the investigator contact
the attorney of record to inform him or her of any
expected delays. Investigator suggests other
strategies on case to attorney of record, if
applicable.
-33-
Characteristic
Communications
with witnesses
"
Understanding of
and support for
role of attomeys ,
Caseload
Management
o
o
Examnles of Standards
Investigators should demonstrate ability to make
frequently hostile witnesses feel comfortable to
talk about their version of the incident being
probed. The investigator should be able to
communicate his or her desire to help the
defendant by obtaining the facts of the case.
Investigator should be able to double check
witness' versions of events through asking the
same question in different ways.
Investigator demonstrates understanding of and
support for role of Public Defender by suggesting
alternative defense strategies, locating additional
witnesses that enhance defense strategy and
advising attorneys of weaknesses in defense.
Investigator demonstrates an understanding of
the goals and objectives of the attorney and is
respectful of Public Defender's clients.
An investigator's m"n"gement of caseload will be
gauged by frequency of compliance with the
tiDiEiliness standards above. If variations from the
standards. can be explained by the nature of and
number of cases handled during the review
period, they will be allowed.
Standards such as these should be included in the Division's policies and
procedures manual and integrated into the supervision and evaluation process.
These standards I.lhould be elaborated upon in the Division's orientation sessions
for new employees and at ongoing training sessions for existing staff. The.
Division has recently created an Investigator ill, Training position which will be
responsible for enhancing the current investigation training program for
investigator and attorney staff. This program should include training in the area
of these revised performance standards.
-34-
o
o
~~:~~~~i~:,estil!ations ~~o!lld also he encour~!!~~ throu:h a~know~~P1nent of
Inve~tll~abon work bv DIVISIon mana!!eme;;;;n_ __Dartm_nt _!J;Qrne_ .
Another important method for ensuring quality work is through
acknowledgment by management and by the ftconsumersft of investigation
services, the attorneys. Letters of commendation from attorneys should be
publicly displayed in the Division's offices. Sessions should be regularly held with
both investigators and attorneys present where jobs well done are acknowledged
in front of all staff by attorneys and m"n"gement. Substantive problems should
also be diacussed at these sessions including communications problems between
investigators and attorneys. The power of acknowledgment from superiors
should not be overlooked in motivating the investigators and maintaini"g a high
level of quality.
Investil!'8.tion reauest standards for attorneVS should he established
Another important element of investigation work cited by numerous
investigators over the course of this m"nagement audit as affecting the quality of
their work is clear and concise investigation requests from attorneys. In the case
file review of several hundred Investigation Request forms conducted by the
ID"n"gement audit team, substantial variation was found iJ;l the format and
content of request forms.
The Investigation Division prepared written investigation request
instructions for attorneys in 1988 that call for each request to include: 1) a
presentation of the prosecution case; 2) the case defense theory; and. 3) the specific
investigation request. Many of the Investigation Request forms reviewed in the
management audit case file review did not follow these instructions. The
prosecution's case and defense theory was not always included in the requests
reviewed. Absence of either of these-limit the investigator's effectiveness because
he or she does not understand the context in which the investigation is being
conducted and thus will be less able to determine if other leads or witnesses not
listed in the request form, but Uncovered in the investigation, are worth pursuing.
Variation was also found in the specificity of the instructions provided.
Some attorneys provide first and last names of witnesses to contact, their
addresses (or at least landmarks to guide the investigator to their residences in
the absence of specific addresses), phone 'ntiinbers and other useful information.
Other requests reviewed provided only minimal information about the witnesses
to be contacted. Some attorneys furnish a list of very specific questions to be asked
of each witness. Others provide general guidance such as, "Find out what the
witness saw at the scene of the crime".
-35-
c
n
',~
, To minimize the amount of unnecessary time spent on investigations, the
Department should establish investigation request standards to provide guidance
to attorneys. The standards should require that investigation requests are
prepared in a consistent format and that they always include a summary of the
prosecution's case, a copy of the police report, a summary of the defense theory
and as much specific information as possible about the witnesses to be contacted.
Information such as addresses, telephone numbers, witness nicknames, etc. can
be most efficiently obtained by the attorneys or paralegals when they interview the
defendants. By tsoln1'lg a few minutes to obtain this crucial information, hours of
investigator time can be saved. The standards should specify the preferred
amount oflead time that should be allowed for the investigation to be completed.
To convey these investigation request standards to the Department's
attorneys, they should be disseminated in the same way as the recommended
investigation standards. They should be included in the Department's policies
and procedures manual and described to newly hired attorneys as part of their
orientation sessions. They should be included as one of the standards used to
evaluate attorney performance. In preparation for performance evaluations,
. investigation request forms should be spot-checked by supervising attorneys for
compliance with these standards.
Condmrion
The quality of investigation work has received less attention from
Department or Investigation Division management than they would prefer due to
an emphasis on monitoring Investigator accountability. The existing
Investigator Performance Standards are not specific enough to provide clear
guidance to the investigators. Division supervisors allocate most of their time to
reviewing time logs, mileage reports and overtime reports for accuracy and
consistency instead of reviewing reports for quality and advising staff on how to
~prove their work, as imposed by management in an effort to increase
investigator accountability. Finally, the Department's attorneys, the users of the
investigators' services, play no .formal role in setting standards for investigative
work or reviewing the investigators' output to ensure that it meets minimum
standards of quality. Investigation requests prepared by attorneys are incomplete
and inconsistent in many cases, which has a negative effect on investigator
efficiency and effectiveness.
Recommendations
The Public Defender should:
111.1 Direct the Assistant Public Defender for Special Services, the Personnel
Officer, the Acting Chief of the Investigation Division and a representative
of attorney staff to:
1) revise the Investigator Performance Standards to make them more
explicit, such as the examples presented above; and,
-36-
o
o
2) develop investigation request standards to be followed by attorneys
when they request investigation services.
Input on these standards should be solicited from Department attorneys
and investigators. These standards should be added to the performance
evaluation forms for investigators and attorneys, respectively;
111.2 Direct Investigation Division management to include the revised
investigation standards in the Division's policies and procedures manual
as a working reference document for use by the investigators;
IIL3 Direct the Personnel Officer and Investigation Division management to
incorporate the revised investigation standards into the evaluation forms
used in the annual ratings of investigator performance;
111.4 Direct Investigation Division m"n"gement to present the revised standards
to newly hired investigii.tors as part of a standardized orientation session.
The revised standards should also be used as topics covered in ongoing
trsoining sessions provided to existing investigator staff;
I1L5 Direct Investigation Division management to develop methods for
acknowledging high quality investigation work such as commendations
from Department attorneys in front of'all Investigation Division staff,
regular posting ofletters of commendation and otherwise setting a tone that
encourages high quality' performance.
111.6 Direct staff to add the new investigation request performance standards in
the Depa,rtment's policies and procedures manual and to include
presentation of them in orientation sessions for new attorneys.
ILL 7 Direct staff to develop and implement a training program for attorneys in
performing evaluations of investigators.
Costs1RP.nPfits
Implementation of these recommendations would not result in any direct
new costs to the department. The recommended actions could be taken by existing
staff. Development and implementation of the recommended standards and
procedures would insure a higher quality investigation work product.
-37 -
...:../ ~.I_..O.S,- "':>;(;ELf-:'" ("()(::'\~('liLI<" UEFE:>:UEH
~:'7 POLICIES ANO'~.'ROCEDURES
W';
.~.. trTt.l:
"''''fOotOVIO: 0
!
""I'<:
Oc-..obu- 10. 1983
Exhi bit r II ..r
--
-
IllVESTICATOR
PER FOR Y.AR CE
STARDI.RDS
A... ':'",v~..ICl..-rvE SJ:YLLs
~... Init1at1.~ and Recoarcetalness
a. n.e U-cti9at:oc recG9Dizes tII.. Deed for action wit110ur being urg-.1 aAd .se.o..-
strates the ctill. creatiyil:7. iAitiati.... and confideace CO effectiyel]' baAcU...
COIIIp1ez Cl:Ci9.......U. The in..e.ti9ab>r _tes tbo... cieeidoa. required U. caaee bur
a_t.. CODcu1t:ation vbe.. appropriate.
b. The imrect:!9at:or deals Prompt.11 aDd effecti....11 wil:!l probleac aAd dCficU1tiee the.
OCCUr. botb u. his regular c:aae1oad aAd in -rgenc:iu or last: JOinute a-i9_nts.
c. The u....ct:19&t:oc to11ovs up 011 1eadc ............red or tmpUed vil:!lout directi.... or
order.
2. ",,=raey
:'be inYecti9atar preparee clear. ..ac:c1nc:t eel acc:arate reports. botb ....itt.... aAd oral.
:'be 1DYc.ti9atar p1cb: up 1Dcaasist:eDciec. diacrep&Ac:ies ill lntoraatiOll obt:ailoec!. n...
inyenigatar recognue. t:he degree co vbic:!l infOOllat:ioa is adequatel1 EUl:>atantut:ed and
cow.". t:h1s appr"t"o1atel]' Ut reports. .
J. Int:ervievina '2'~1cn:tes
:'be lDYeSC1gaeor 1nt:erTi..... -1'''ict....t1]' and e::tec--..f.Ye1]'. -n... in9'est:i9acor eate Peeper
ADd J>erU_ cza-dona -aDd gathere IleCecca..-y ca... 1nt~tiOl1 froa aU l:]'pe.. of 12>-
~1y;<tn.'".
(. 1tnovledoe and Uee of XnYest:iaaU.... ReSOUrce..
\
The 1nYestigatar baa. aDd IlIaintains. a tharouib and cur:_:; cz>ovleciae of resource
material. inYect1gaU.. and 1l1tonIatioa sources and delllODst:rar..s tII~ abUi~ CO apply
aDd ...... thea ap...o.._ Ute1y.
S. ease EvaJ.a.ation
II. A.I.....:._uu::;. ~~ AIm PltOuu......&.V.L...:,
::!>e inYelltigab>r c:arrect:1y evalaatee lnYeCt:ii~tiYe require>IeDts of .t:he ca.... distin-
guishe.. ~" ~..LlODa1 C--"'." f2:op t:he c".ft<\arcl and .f.n.....tigatee a=rdingly. The .f.n......::i-
gaeor recogni.:e. aJ.t:erDaee or h1d4_ def.....ee and briDge t:beae t:lO t:he at:t:....t1= of tile
a t:t:or>>ey.
1. Colmlian= with Rale. .nd Instruet:ions
:'be i.D?ecti9ator acc:....l.oo .....ig~. CUparyisioa and direction in a buci.....slit..
........r. The .1DYc.tigataric aware of and obae=ves ~ rulee. regulations and J.ege1 and
ethical obllgatioD.. of t:he Public JlefeAder'.. Cl:fi.ce. n.e iDvestigator c:on..istentiy
tollows wort illCt:rae-..icDc.
2. Case ItanaOement
::!>e inveati9ator tUft"'e. the nmabu of ca..,. required by tile aca1gDaeDt: and .....ge.
::iae ."oc:atioD aDd cchedaJ.e to ........... peraouaJ. effecti".Dea&. :be UtY..tigaeor
CDIIplet:e. caaa. 1n a timely hctl1ol1. recoguir ing cchedu1ec\ doe cia tee and. court: t:1Jte
CODct:rau.~.
3. Availability and A..ianment Flexibility
':be inve.ti9ab>r will.iDgly accepts cmccbeduled aasi9l1J1eDts. and can perfoCII alU:ig......n::s
~at 1znoolve varying difiicuJ.ty. 1oc:atioa and fw>c-..ional respondbUity. Th. u..eni-
gator .u .vaUable to the atb>rn..y vbea needed. respond.. t:lO ......ages ...v....Uy ana
....u &Ad 'COnfers vit11 ~ .at:t:orDey of :record .. 'DeeeseUJ'.
~o
Exhjbit I I 1.1
- '.
o
,. Pa~rwork Proce3.in~ and Time11n~s.
Tbe 1DYtat;iqccor maL.ac.ains: ca.. t1~. aAd wart record. 1.a &II up-eo-d.~. end OC9&1liZed
f.ah1oQ. vb1cb permits caN ~r.ge ill bi. abaeace... The luV'esc.iq&1:DC PCOCeaae.
necea:ary -.cIainLaUat:h'e fa..... aad reports 14 a compute and timely ta..hioa.
o
~
(
s. Punctualiev and At~endance
The in..estigator's attendan.,., &Ad vork hoars COlIIply vith of:ice policy. The in....ti_
gator &PP<!ars at _t14g. panctually &ad keeps the office inforaed ot hie or ber ""ere-
abouts.
R!:POla'nrc Sau.s
-'
~.
1. Writt.en Reports
The in..e.C:ig.tor prepares, in tlae preacrihed format:. cl.ear, concise, ~rate. iAforma-
d..e vrit:tea reports containin9 all pertiDeat facts &ad concepc:s &ad I,,~'nde. ..........
dates, t1ae.., teleptao.... IlUlIbers and beadUlgs wilere applicable.
2. Oral ~nicaC:ions
TIle -14ve.C:1qator -'ni.c:ates eUec:tiyely vit:ll aCtomey... other ayecC:1qarcrs aad
employees, int:enoi_ cubjeees aad otlaers .. reqaired14 t:lIe course Of bis datie...
3.. J::~Dina At~rneys and SUDer"Ytsors I'ntormed
ne 14....stigarcr COaIpletes aad sal>mit:s rc t:be at:t:orne,. &nd the superYisor. t1aely pro-
gress reports bocb orally and 14 vrit:iAg. TIle 14ftstigatar ad..ises tlae aCtorney and
the &Upcnisor of =u.aaJ. or a:cep..f......! circ:aast:aDces, eYents .or information as t:IIey
occar.
'.. ~:.:..l,...."'Vc..ft~S Ol" P!:JtSoro.r. ~'.I.ORS
1. P"blic Defender Statf
~e in;,estigatar's interactions vit:h aCtomers, seeret:arial. end c:l.erieal StaU, otlaer
illVesti'1ators and otla.r Public: Defend.r sl:att, demonstrate a spirit of "'=aJ. coopera-
tion aad a.s.:isl:azlce. Tbe inYest1qator treats attorneys, =Ue"9lles and cuppQrc: st:&f:
vitia due respee:. The in.....st:J,gat:or is coasiderate of tlae t:iae end volume r..quireaeats
end resource ll:i ts of tlae otfice_
(
2. fieceers o~ the Just1e~ Svste1ll
Tbe &aaner in vbich tlae 14""stigator 14teracts vitia jUdicial of:icerc. prosecutors,
=::r00Cl persoanel. Lav eoforeeaent perSOllael aad ot:her _en of t:lle Justi.ce Systelll
contribuc:es t:o Cbe ef:eeti..e repr.-..atat:ica of the Departmeoc:'s elieots.
3. Others
Tbe maaner 14 vbich tlae tn..esc:i'1ator 14teract::s vitia clients, vitne.... &ad t:he public,
botla 14 person and by c:eupboGe. COQUibutes to tlae effec~iYe representac:ioa of tlae
Dep&rtDea~.s c1jeats.
Sur~~v~SO~ s~
1. Plennlna and A3sianina
~be supervisor organi:es t:he wort of Cbe office tbrougb efficien~ and effect:i..e CYsC:e_
.Dd procedures, .llowing for iodi..idaal case requirements and exc:=aordinary sic:uac:ions.
:be "upe=..iaor sn~1cipates vortlosd ...ri.c:ioas &ad staffing .vailAbility in scbeduling
wort. The Supervisor knows and considers SUCh ..ariables as indi..idual in..esc:igator
stills &nd ca.e vol.... and sabstaoc:e so .lI t:o achieve effective ....siq=ents ~ mini-
mize de.l.ays..
2_ Leader"bi"
Through personal "X&II;>le, the superYisor set::s a stlUldard for the office in aaint:.a1ntnq
vorkload, credibility and .C:C:it:ude toward tlae role of . public defeDder iDvesC:igat:or.
The supervisor teeps peraooauy iotor.ed of botla in......c:iq.c:i"" and ..sllinist:rat:ive- pro-
cedures. -policies and deveLop..<,nt::s and informs or ins tracts oUice IIUlberc so..s rc
....intAio current. eUeedve opeUC:ioa. consistent vit:ll the Dep.rtm4nc: u . vtJoh. TIle
( (
-39-
{
Supervisor m.a....f"\iA.1.y. infarmed decidon. wbic:b 01=~ judg1O<!ncs. per.peer1v". .nd
exerci.. af 4U~it:r .ppropr14~e co the aupervioory 1eve1. ~be ~uP.rv1aar ix aV.11._
41>1e. 4ppraac:b41>1e and is. hir and imp"r~Lo.1 in the tre.=en~ of 1.nd1vldu.o.u and d1r _
~ion of afUe. .cciv1c:.1e.. When cant1ict:4 -xise vit:.b at:.bcr jusc1.,., 4c;ency -era ~
'uperv1sar aupporcs inv..eic;crou in cppropriac.e1.y repruenUnq ebe beae ineere.Cs' af "
~he Dep.rcmene'. clieaca. Th. .uperriaar eftece1ve1y repre.enrs ebe need. of the
aftJ,ce in deparbHult&.l. ~c;_e and incer"9ency pl.cnainq and prall1..,.. co1....ing. TIle
.upervi.nr proooee. COb..i....n... and coop.racion amonq of~1ce ....o.r. to aaint:&in rheir
mor.1.e and procluctivit:r &.I: . group.
-#"" -.... ..........-
J.
~~41uaeiaq Pertormance
The "uperricor accural:&J.y. ........ eb. 1.&ve1. of work performance and ""'-'._a boeb
po.iti...... and n&o].r1.... .&'Cept:1onal perforlllU>c.. The "upcrrisor re9Ul.arll" co_icar""
lnv.srig.ror perforaance to -e;.....e and ebe In.......eie;.rar in an objecU"". COIIIpre-
bensive and etfee~y. a&aDer.
4. DlsciD11narv Conrrol
The superrUor .taya veU 1Afocmcd at U1p1.oy.... varlc pr"9reu and le....l of performance.
and talce. pr.........ciore or couccci..... _aaurea prompely ... uceptiCl:1S deYelop. The ."Per-
visor mainraiu.c . podti_ &PProac:b to di.sci.,Une by empba.iziAq "-.t:rucU"e criricis.
and an acci_ interesl: in ClIp1.oyee deYe1cpa.nr. The .upervbor under.t:andc and etfee:-
Cively emp1.oy. a proqr...i_ll" CeYere proce... of disciplinary acUOll vbeu prob1.eJu are
DOr corrected. The supa:yUor bapI.e.enes Depu:::aeue ruJ.u and r"'1U1Aciou. and carries
oue declcl_. at !Uglier .....9........1: .effeet!...ely. The saper...icor haa4les necessary
disc1pllnuy COfttronral:ioas v1t:bout deUyand in a fort:llric;lIe. objeet!"., and fin
DanDer. .
s. ':'rain1no and Ins1:--",e:1nq
The auperr1.sor id.ul:.i.fle. C.f"f"g _c bot:ll for indl""idual invecele;ators and 0Yer&!1.
staft deyelop..e,u:. The .uperrUor Ps:oYldes t::aininc; eit:ller personally or t:lIrougb -...k-
ine; appropriate ascistance and ~ir1ng resources and makiAq Cle. a"aUab1.e. The
supervisor orients in......cie;&l:Drs co l:be investic;acive ..........""it:r. ies personneJ. re-
sources. and provide. guidance t:lI&e vUl ..."ise indi"ldQ4h in becom1.ng SlOre skUUul.
and ef:~l"e a. Public Defender investigators. .
'_". __ 6_.___.
- ---
. -
""
o
o
SECTION IV: INVESTIGATOR QUALIFICATIONS AND
HIRING PRACTICES
THE INVESTIGATION DIVISION'S
RECRUITMENT AND HIRING POLICIES
AND PROCEDURES ARE OVERLY
RESTRICTIVE AND LIMIT THE POOL OF
APPLICANTS WHO QUALIFY FOR
POSITIONS IN THE DIVISION. EXCEPT
FOR THE INVESTIGATOR I
CLASSIFICATION, ONLY CURRENT
EMPLOYEES OR PEACE OFFICERS ARE
ELIGIBLE FOR EMPLOYMENT IN THE
DIVISION. PREVIOUS EMPLOYMENT AS
AN INVESTIGATOR IN A PUBLIC
DEFENDER OFFICE, OTHER RELEVANT
EXPERIENCE, TRAINING OR EDUCATION
CANNOT BE SUBSTITUED FOR THESE
QUALIFICATIONS. ADDITIONALLY, THE
DIVISION'S RECRUITMENT EFFORTS
ARE VERY. LIMITED AND DO NOT
ENCOURAGE APPLICATIONS BY A
BROAD BASE OF QUALIFIED
INDIVIDUALS.
A critical aspect of any organization's effectiveness is its recruitment,
hiring and promotion policies. In the Investigation Division, individuals with
experience in local law enforcement agencies are favored for recruitment and
hiring. Supervisory and lt1"n~gement positions are open only to Division
employees on a promotional basis. While these job requirements and policies
have proven effective in many cases, they are overly restrictive and do not reflect
the best interests of the Department. At worst, they can actually prevent the
hiring of qualified individuals for positions in the Investigation Division. At best,
they are not flexible enough to encourage a general upgrade of staff qualifications
by allowing trade-offs of experience and education for new hires and promotions.
The minimum job requirements for all Investigation Division
classifications are Stnnm"rized in the chart below:
-41 -
o
o
Exhibit IV.I
Minimum Renuil"Pmentq for Inveqfigator Clfl~fication..q
Classification Minimum Reouirements
Investigator I: Two year's of law enforcement experience, as defined in
California Penal Code Section 830.1;
!m
an A.A degree in administration of justice, criminology or
police science and one year's experience in law
enforcement,
!m
a B.A. degree from an accredited college.
Investigator IT: One year's .investigative experience at the level of an
Investigator 1,
!m
three year's law enforcement experience as a peace officer.
Investigator ill: Two year's experience at the level of Investigator IT.
Lieutenant: Two year's experience at the level of Investigator IT.
Assistant Chief: One year's experience as an Investigator ID.
Chief: Two year's experience as an Investigator Ill.
Most of the investigators now employed in the Division meet the minimum
job qualifications through law enforcement experience at either the County
Sheriffs Department or a local municipal law enforcement agency, such as the
Los Angeles Police Department. All supervisors and m"nagers obtained their
positions through promotions from lower levels in the Division. While their
experience is valuable for work in the Investigation Division, there are other
backgrounds that could be equally relevant and, in some cases, superior, to a law
enforcement background.
The minimum job requirements specify that experience as a law
enforcement officer is limited to that defined in Section 830.1 of the California
Penal Code, or the following classifications:
Sheriff
Undersheriff
Deputy Sheriff
Police Officer
Marshal
Constable
District Attorney Investigator or Inspector
Selected U.S. Department of Justice classifications
-42-
o
o
Law enforcement experience as defined above is certainly relevant for
investigation work and many of the employees hired with that background have
proven to be excellent investigators. However, the law enforcement experience
requirement does not guarantee that applicants will have investigatory skills
because it does not specifically require work in an investigatory capacity.
Experience as a traffic officer in a police department, for example, would
tvhnically qualify one for an investigator position in the Division though it would
not mean that the applicant possesses investigatory expertise. There are other
backgrounds that could be equally or more valuable than peace officer experience
such as investigative experience in a defense office in another jurisdiction. The
following is a good example of appropriate experience requirements, now in use
by the Riverside County Public Defender's Office:
"...experience as a crimin~l investigator in the governmental agency
. of a Public Defender, prosecuting attorney, or in a sheriffs or police
investigations bureau "(emphasis added)
Another impact of hiring only from law enforcement agencies is that some
investigators with experience in prosecution agencies have difficulty in adopting a
defense point of view, which is crucial in serving defense attorneys. For som,e
investigators who have transferred to the Public Defender's Office from law
enforcement agencies, the move represents a second career choice that is
sometimes made for negative reasons (e.g., to avoid stress, to have an "easier job
where no one bothers you") rather than positive reasons (e.g., interest in indigent
defense, professional development). As one Department attorney summed up the
issue:
"The biggest thing that the office could do to improve investigations is
to reform the hiring practice. Those qualities which are present in
successful investigators should be those qualities which are sought
in new hires. Success as a police officer of sheriffs deputy does not
necessarily translate into success as a P.D. investigator. The most
successful P.D. investigators...have both an understanding and
appreciation (if not necessarily sympathy) of what we do. Poor
investigators tend to carry over the attitude of considering our clients
"scum bags" and that all that is owed to them is the bare minimum
'competent' job."
The National Legal Aid and Defender Association reports that there is a
growing corps of skilled defender investigators having both investigatory skills
and the defense viewpoint. Investigators from indigent defense offices in other
jurisdictions would certainly fall into this category, yet, as the minimum job
requirements now stand, their experience would not qualify them for positions in
the Investigation Division. Other backgrounds that would be appropriate for the
job of investigator, but that would also not qualify under the Division's current
minimum job requirements, include psychiatric social worker (for mental health
conservatorship investigations), probation officers, parole agents, coroner
investigators and paralegals. The experience requirements for investigators
-43-
,-,
"--'
o
shoUld be amended to allow greater flexibility in the type of experience allowed to
qualify for investigator positions so that the Division is able to pick and choose
from a greater pool of qualified individuals.
.The Investigation Divison's classifications of Investigator III and above
(Lieutenant, Assistant Chief and ChieO are open only to Division'personnel on a
promotional basis. While this ensures familiarity with the' type of work
performed in the Division and provides a career ladder for employees, it also
limits the pool of individuals who can apply for supervisorial and m"nagement
openings in these classifications. The Department is not able to hire qualified
individuals who have experience in other jurisdictions even though they might be
more qualified for a position than persons in the Division. Specifically, an
applicant with supervisorial or management experience JUl.d criminal
investigation experience (such as in a Public Defender's Office in another
jurisdiction) might be better qualified to work as an Investigator ill, which
requires supervising, than any of the Investigator ITs eligible for promotion.
Under current minimum job requirements, such an individual would not be
eligible for an Investigator ill position or any of the higher classifications in the
Division.
Another factor limiting the Division's hiring pool and overall qualifications
of staff is that the minimum job requirements for the classifications of
Investigator IT and above do not place a value on college training for investigators
by allowing substitutions of education for experience, as is done in numerous
other counties in California. College programs in police science, criminology and
related fields can provide excellent training in new approaches to the field of
criminal investigations as well as analytical skills which would be valuable in
managing the Division. The Investigation Division would benefit from the
injection of employees trained in programs such as these, Particularly when
combined with the field experience of other investigators.
By allowing subsitutionsof education for experience in its minimum job
requirements, the Division would communicate to appliCants that education is
valued by the organi7.ation. In other words, all other things being equal, an
applicant with criminlll investigation experience in a defense office J!J!d a college
degree would be preferred over a comparable applicant with only the required
experience. Allowing substitutions of education for experience would provide a
means of upgrading the qualifications of the staff without reducing hiring
flexibility with a rigid set of requirements.
Besides amending the minimum job requirements, the Investigation
Division class specifications should be expanded to more specifically delineate the
skills and abilities needed to perform the job of Investigator. The existing class
specifications list classification standards, examples of duties and minimum
requirements. Specific skills and abilities needed to perform the job are not listed.
By including more specific skills and abilities, standards would be set against
which applicants could be screened, tested and hired. Once hired, investigator
performance could be evaluated relative to these standards (see Section III for
further discussion of investigator standards).
-44-
o
o
.Examples of required abilities listed in class specifications in other
jurisdictions which would also be appropriate for Los Angeles County include the
following:
Ability' to:
· draw logical conclusions and make sound recommendations; obtain
information through interviews and interrogation; communicate
effectively in written and oral form; establish and maintain effective
working relationships with law enforcement agencies and the publiC;
· gather, assemble, analyze and evaluate facts and evidence, draw logical
conclusions and make sound recommendations;
· communicate effectively in order to obtain information from frequently
uncooperative witnesesses;
· prepare, review and evaluate comprehensive reports on investigations;
· evaluate witnesses in terms of credibility and evasiveness;
· ability to recognize interrelationships of isolated facts to develop leads
and cb"in.. of evidence'
,
· establish and maintain effective working relationships with fellow
employees and the general public;
· establish effective rapport with clients in order to get cooperation and to
obtain confidential personal information;
· operate equipment such as tape recorders, dictaphones and cameras;
· keep accurate records and prepare clear and concise reports;
· maintain ethical and harmonious relationships with law enforcement
and other governmental agencies;
· determine priorities and importance of various types of evidence;
· maintain high professional standards and observe ethics of defense
investigation.
. speak Spanish
. train and coordinate the work of subordinates
-45-
('I
'-'
o
. Another improvement needed is in the area of the Division's recruiting
policies and procedures. At present. active recruitment and formalized testing
for screening and interviewing investigators is minimal. Most recruitments are
accomplished through informal communications between Investigation Division
management and employees in the Sheriffs Department. Announcements of
position openings are not routinely sent to colleges with police
science/criminology programs (e.g., Cal State. Los Angeles), public defender
offices in other counties or other Los Angeles County departments to encourage
greater numbers of applicants. This limits the type and number of applicants
that apply for openings and does little to ensure that the Division is hiring
individuals who are highly skilled in crimin~ll investigations and are supportive
of the goals of an indigent defense office. By actively recruiting college graduates,
employees in public defender offices in other jurisdictions and other Los Angeles
County employees, the Division would have a larger pool of qualified applicants to
choose from, many of whom would have a defense orientation and would be
accustomed to or interested in working in an indigent defense office.
Screening and interviewing of applicants for investigator positions is
presently conducted by Investigation Division m"nagement only. Consistent with
the recommendations in Sections ill and Vof this report calling for an increased
level of attorney involvement in the development of investigator standards and
monitoring of investigator performance, an increased level of attorney
involvement should be established for the screening and interviewing of
applicants for investigator positions. Establishment of a screening and
interviewing panel comprised of Investigation Division management and
representatives of the Department's attorneys should be established to form"H?,e
this process and ensure that the needs of both groups will be met by new hires. In
addition, the Department's own personnel m"n'lger should be part of this panel to
ensure that screening and interviews are conducted in accordance with
professional personnel principles.
Con<-l1J~nn
The job requirements and recruiting and hiring. policies of the
Investigation Division restricts the hiring of qualified individuals by not attracting
persons with backgrounds other than law enforcement. College education,
experience as a criminal defense investigator and supervisory/management work
experience are examples of backgrounds that would benefit the Department but
are not acceptable under the current minimum job requirements. The Division's
recruitment efforts are limited and do not seek to attract a broad base of applicants
for investigator position openings. Screening and interviewing for position
openings are conducted by Investigation Division management without
involvement by attorney staff or the Department's own personnel manager.
-46-
o
o
,
RecommendaQORfi;
The Public Defender should direct the Department Personnel Officer to
revise the classification specifications for the investigator positions to:
IV.1 Allow applicants to have experience other than only law enforcement, as
defined in Section 830.1 of the California Penal Code.
IV.2 Allow for other related work experience such as experience as a probation
officer, parole agent, corner investigator or psychiatric social worker (for
mental health conservatorship investigations);
IV.3 Allow for college education to be substituted for experience for Investigator
IIs and above;
IV.4 Include specific abilities required to perform the jobs.
The Public Defender should direct the Personnel Officer and Investigation
Division m"n"lgment to:
IV.5 Prepare an investigator recruitment plan to include sending notices of
openings in the Division to colleges with police science and other related
programs, other public defender offices and other relevant Los Angeles
County departments such as Probation and the Coroner's Office;
IV.6 Establish procedures to assemble a panel comprised of Investigation
Division m"Qagers, representatives of the Department's attorneys and the
Department's Personnel Officer to screen applications for and interview
applicants for investigator positions.
CosfsIRP.nefifs
Implementation of these recommendations would not result in any direct
new costs to the Department. The actions recommended could be taken by
existing staff. A more highly qualified and more diverse pool of investigator
applicants could be recruited by the Department.
-47-
o
o
SECTION V: INVESTIGATOR PERFORMANCE
EVALUATIONS AND APPRAISALS
OF PROMOT ABILITY
EV ALUATlONS OF INVESTIGATOR
PERFORMANCE COULD BE IMPROVED BY
INCLUDING INPUT FROM THE
DEPARTMENT'S ATTORNEYS AND MAKING
THE INVESTIGATOR EVALUATION
STANDARDS MORE SPECIFIC. THE
PROCESS FOR APPRAISING
INVESTIGATOR PROMOTABILlTY IS ALSO
AFFECTED BY THE ABSENCE OF SPECIFIC
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AS WELL AS
A LACK OF STAFF UNDERSTANDING OF
THE CRITERIA USED IN MAKING
PROMOTION DECISIONS.
InVP..Clti_tor PP.rfonn~""", EvHluationc; Need More Attornev lI!nut
Although the Department's attorneys are the users of investigation
services, they do not play a formal role in the monitoring and evaluation of
investigator performance. Although attorneys may be consulted by the Acting
Chief regarding investigator performance, investigator performance evaluations.
are prepared by supervising investigators, only some of whom informally consult
with Department attorneys as part of this process. Some attorneys report that .
they let supervising investigators know if they have a problem with an
investigator's performance or if an investigator has done a particularly good job.
Unfortunately, attorney feedback of this sort is not systematically collected and
supervising investigators are not receiving comprehensive appraisals from the
informal feedback system. Worse, some negative feedback is never heard because
some attorneys are reportedly unwilling to register complaints about investigators
for fear of receiving poor service.
Only 20 percent of the respondents to the management audit attorney
survey reported that investigators usually take initiative and perform additional
tasks useful to their cases, even though 62 percent of the respondents consider
this a very important characteristic of an investigation. This type of evaluation is
significant and should be routinely reported to the Investigation Division to
identify areas for improvement.
To improve the quality of Investigation Division performance evaluations,
attorney feedback on investigator performance should be routinely collected. After
each case is completed, attorneys should be required to complete a simple, short
evaluation form such as the sample shown in Exhibit V.l. below:
-48-
o
o
EXHIBIT V.I.
SAMPLE INVESTIGATOR EVALUATION
FORM TO BE COMPLI!;.nw BY ATI'ORNEYS FOR
EACH INVESTIGATION
1) Was the investigation report submitted on a timely basis?
Yes
No
Comments about the timeliness of the report:
2) Please rate the quality of the report:
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Comments about the quality of the report:
3) Please evaluate communications between you and the investigator
on this case while the investigation was in progress.
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Comments about communications between you and the investigator
on this case:
-49-
o
o
Evaluations such as these should be routinely provided to the investigator's
supervisors. The results should be tabulated and presented to investigators as
part of their annual Performance Evaluations.
Approximately 71 percent of the respondents to the Department attorney
survey stated that it would be desirable to playa greater role in the evaluation of
investigator performance. In some jurisdictions, the attorneys supervise and
evaluate the investigators directly. That is not recommended in this report but
more attorney involvement in the investigator evaluation process is needed to
ensure that the usefulness of the Investigation Division's efforts is m"nmi7'.ed.
To further improve the evaluation process, and as recommended in Section
III of this report, revisions to the Department's investigator performance
standards should be made to provide more specific guidelines for investigation
work. These revised standards . should be the criteria by which annual
performance evaluations are conducted. For that reason, these performance
standards should be reviewed and understood by the attorneys so they will be
better able to evaluate investigator performance. The Investigation Division's new
Training Officer should provide orientation sessions for attorneys on the
standards. A mechanism should also be established to allow for periodic
updating and revisions of the standards when attorneys and/or investigators find
deficiencies.
~:':'~~~":~~~'::::~':~':,:::~~:1~::: ';:t;a:;~=::!ecfive dup.
Appraisals of Promotability are conducted by the Department in a process
seP8rate from annual performance evaluations. The purpose of these appraisals
is to project an employee's potential to perform in a higher position for which he
or she is competing (e.g., Investigator ill, Lieutenant). In a handbook on the
appraisal of promotability process, the County's Chief Administrative Officer
(CAO) defines the process as, "a judgement, expressed in numerical terms, of the
probability of an individual satisfying all requirements of a higher level position. "
To accomplish this, the CAO states that,
"Any appraisal process should include the
following features to ensure a smooth functioning
promotional system which will meet
organizational needs for qualified personnel.
1) Visible management support.
2) Understanding of the process by all
employees.
3) Development and dissemination of a
departmental Appraisal Policy.
-50-
o
o
4) Selected relevant and defined Appraisal
factors and standards against which the
employee's potential to assume the duties
and responsibilities of a higher level
position may be predicted."
The Investigation Division's Appraisal of Promotability process does not
meet points #2 through #4 from the above CAO's list: the process is not clearly
understood by Division staff; the criteria for the process are not adequately
dissemin"ted; and, the factors and standards against which potential is evaluated
are not all relevant or sufficiently defined.
~nntl1n~nnllhvlm'lnl~
In response to the question, "Are the Division's criteria for promotions
clear and appropriate?", 70 percent of the respondents to the Investigator Survey
conducted as-part of this m"nagement audit stated, "No". The nearly universal
comment made by these respondents was that promotions are based on a "good .
old boy system" or are the result of favoritism. Many investigators complained to
the m"n~gement auditors of racial and sexual discrimin"tion in the Division's
promotion process. While some of these complainants may be disgruntled
employees who did not get promoted, the responses are too numerous and too
consistent to be ignored. Most employees do not believe the process is fair.
For Appraisals of Promotability for Investigator In positions, the factors
considered are almost entirely the same as the Investigator Performance
Standards used in annual Performance Evaluations of investigators: investigative
skills; attitude, adaptability and productivity; reporting skills; effectiveness of
personal interactions; and, supervisory skills. Of these, only supervisory skills
are not included in Investigator II and 1 Performance Evaluations because those
positions do not supervise.
Although the factors used are almost identical, they are used for different
purposes in the two processes. In Appraisals of Promotability, the factors are
used to evaluate an employee's potential ability in each area as needed for a
higher position. In Performance Evaluations, the factors are used to assess
current performance. Outstanding Performance Evaluations do not necessarily
translate into outstanding Appraisals of Promotability. However, when the
criteria used in both are nearly the same, it is perplexing to employees when they
receive high ratings in a certain area on their Performance Evaluations but not in
the same area in their Appraisal of Promotability.
Ratin... factors are not !mAr.ific or WPJI defineq
Though the Appraisal of Promotability process is, by definition, subjective,
it is overly so for Investigator III positions because the rating factors used are not
specifically tied to job requirements of the classification. As a result, each rater
must rely on his or her own sense of the standards to be met as an Investigator
III when evaluating candidates for promotability.
-51-
o
o
The rating factors used in the Appraisal of Promotability should stem from
performance standards unique to the target classification. These standards
should be based on the knowledge, skills and abilities that distinguish the
classification from others. For example, the -current Investigator III
. .classification specifications state that the position conducts investigations in the
more difficult or sensitive cases. This should be translated into a performance
standard such as "75 percent or more of cases handled by an Investigator ill are
special circumstances, homicide an,d heavy felony cases". This performance
standard should then be translated into a rating factor for Appraisals of
Promotability such as, "Has the candidate demonstrated an ability for 75 percent
or more of his/her cases to be special circumstances, homicide or heavy felony
cases?" The raters could review the candidate's actual performance records to
determine if he or she has actually been conducting a high percentage of the more
complex cases as an Investigator II (this should not be the only criterion used as
some qualified Investigator IIs may riot have had the opportunity to work on more
complex cases for reasons having nothing to do with their ability, but it would be
one way of developing a perception of a candidate's skill level).
Based on the examples of duties in the current Investigator III
classifications, the following sample performance standards and rating factors
should be developed. Each sample rating factor lends itself to specific
accomplishments that can be readily documented.
#1)
Duty from Classification
Specifications:
Supervises, assigns, reviews and
evalriatei{'ihe work of subordinate
investigators.
Sample. Performance
Standards for Performance
Evaluations:
Ability to train, motivate, direct and
evaluate staff; possession of
leadership qualities that command
respect; identifies most efficient
procedures for planning and
directing the work of subordinate
staff.
Sample Rating Factor
for Appraisals of
Promotability:
Has candidate demonstrated
potential to train, motivate, direct and
evaluate staff? Has candidate
demonstrated potential to gain the
respect of co-workers through
demonstrated leadership qualities?
Has candidate demonstrated
-52-
o
#2)
Duty from Classification
Specifications:
Sample Performance
Standards for Performance
Evaluations:
Sample Rating Factor
for Apprai~ls of
Promotability:
o
potential to identify more efficient
means of accomplishing work for
himlherself as well as subordinate
staff?
*************
Trains subordinates in the
procedure, policy, laws and methods
of investigative techniques.
All subordinate staff are well versed
in the procedures and methods of
investigative techniques; employee
attends investigation training
sessions regularly; attendance of
trsoini"g workshops is encouraged for
subordinate statr, employee regularly
makes pertinent documents
regarding criminal investigation
policy and law available to
subordinate staff.
Has candidate demonstrated
potential to stay apprised of new
investigative. techniques through
regular attendance of training
sessions? Has candidate
demonstrated potential to develop and
communicate new investigative
policies and techniques to co-
workers?
#3)
*************
Duty from Classification
Specifications:
Sample Performance
Standards for Performance
Evaluations:
Reviews cases for quality,
completeness and conformance with
departmental policy
Cases performed by subordinates are
of the highest quality with every
-53-
o
o
attempt possible made to contact
witnesses and a clear response made
to each attorney of record's request.
Additional leads developed during the
investigation are pursued by
subordinates and reported to the
attorney in the investigation report.
Sample Rating Factor
for Appraisals of
Promotability:
Has candidate demonstrated
potential ability to thoroughly
understand and meet Division
standards for quality investigations?
Has candidate demonstrated ability to
understand and meet completeness
standards and department policy
regarding investigations?
These examples are based on the existing specifications for the Investigator
ill classification. As discussed in Section ill, these classification specifications
should be amended to include specific skills and abilities needed to perform the
duties of the class. Performance standards should be derived from any additional
skill and ability requirements added and translated into rating factors for
Appraisals of Promotability.
With links between these three areas, there will be greater consistency in
Appraisals of Promotability prepared by different supervisors and a stronger
relationship between Performance Evaluations and Appraisals of Promotability.
Performance Evaluations should provide documented evidence of some of the
abilities under review in Appraisals of Promotability. For example, an
Investigator II who has met or exceeded the Completeness of Investigation and
Initiative standards {recommended in Section IID should score well in their
potential ability to review cases for quality, completeness and conformance to
department policy as an Investigator III.
Promotion criteria hSM not ~ weD tliGQAft'llns:lted to Divicdon am"
To improve the Investigation Division staffs understanding of the
promotion process, the new performance standards and related rating factors
should be distributed and explained to all staff by Division management. They
should also become part of the Division's policies and procedures manual for easy
reference. . Discussions of areas that need improvement for an investigator to be-
considered for promotion should be pointed out to him or her as part of the annual
Performance Evaluation.
-54-
o
o
Finally, to reduce staff distrust of the Division's promotion process, an oral
interView should be reinstated as part of the Appraisal of Promotability process.
It should be conducted by a panel comprised of Investigation Division
management, representatives of the Department's attorneys and the
Department's personnel officer. Participation by Department personnel from
outside of the Division will help make the process more impartial and objective
and make it more credible to staff.
Cnn~]u~on
Investigator performance evaluations are deficient because they do not
always include input from the Department's attorneys, the users of the
investigators' work, unless requested to provide such input by the Acting Chief.
Assessments of Promotability conducted for Investigator Ills are needlessly
subjective due to the absence of clear performance standards exclusive to that
classification. The promotion process is either not understood or not trusted by
most of the Investigation Division staff.
Reco1'111'11Ant1:Afion..'I
The Public Defender should:
V.1 Direct attorney staff to complete evaluations of each investigation completed
for them on a simple, short evaluation form to be prepared by the
Investigation Division with input from attorney ",..nllgement;
V.2 Direct Investigation Division staff to tabulate the results of the attorney
evaluations and include the results in each investigator's annual
Performance Evaluation;
V.3 Direct the Department's personnel officer to assist the Investigation
Division in revising the classification specifications for Investigator ill and
above to include more specific examples of the knowledge, skills and
abilities required of the job and to develop performance standards for each
of these;
V.4 Direct the Department's personnel officer to assist the Investigation
Division in revising the Appraisal of Promotability rating factors so they are
directly linked to the new performance standards for each of the
classifications;
V.S Direct Investigation Division management to disseminate and explain the
new rating factors to all Division staff. The factors should also be included
in the Division's policies and procedures manual;
-55-
o
o
V.6 Direct Investigation Division management to reestablish an oral interview
as part of the Appraisal of Promotability process and to establish a panel to
conduct these interviews consisting of Division. management,
representatives of the Department's attorneys and the Department's
personnel officer.
CostslBenefits
Implementation of the recommendations above would not result in any new
direct costs to the Department. The benefits of the recommendations would
include a more comprehensive and. useful Performance Evaluation process.
Attorney involvement in the process would result in investigation work that is
more responsive to the needs of the Department's attorneys and establiAhment of a
much needed ongoing dialogue between attorneys and investigators regarding
investigations.
The Appraisal of Promotability process would also be improved through the
establishment of more objective rating factors directly tied to the knowledge, skills
and abilities required for each of the target classifications. A better connection
would be developed between the Performance Evaluation and Apprai~al of
Promotability processes and staff understanding and trust of the entire process
would be improved.
-56-
o
o
SECTION VI: WORKLOAD ANALYSIS
THE INVESTIGATION DIVISION HAS
NOT DEVELOPED A PROCESS FOR
SYSTEMA TICALL Y EVALUATING ITS
WORKLOAD. AS A RESULT, THE
PRODUCTIVITY OF INVESTIGATOR
ST AFF CANNOT BE EFFECTIVEL Y
MEASURED, THE BASES FOR THE
CURRENT STAFFING LEVEL AND STAFF
CLASSIFICATIONS ARE UNCLEAR AND
THE ALLOCATION OF PERSONNEL
BETWEEN WORK LOCATIONS APPEARS
INAPPROPRIATE. THE DIVISION
SHOULD IMPLEMENT A CASE
WEIGHTING AND ANALYSIS PROCESS
WHICH WOULD PROVIDE MEANINGFUL
MANAGEMENT INFORMATION.
The Public Defender's Investigation Division maintains several records of
investigator work.hours and case activity. These records are kept for the dual
purposes of providing m"n"gement with a measurement of Division workload
and monitoring investigator productivity. However, because of the methods used
to record work hours, the categories established for collecting case information
and the lack of an effective methodology for analyzing the data which is collected,
the Division does not have the capability to systematically evaluate workload and
productivity.
The Division determines necessary st...ffing and its allocation between work
units based on incomplete information and an intuitive sense of locational
requirements. Further, the procedures established for measuring investigator
productivity require a costly and unnecessary level of line supervision. The
Department should establish a case weighting and data collection system, as
established in other 'California jurisdictions; implement data processing
recommendations for collecting employee work hours, discussed in Section IX;
and develop an analytical process for assessing the Division's staffing
requirements and the productivity of investigator staff.
InvestilmtorTime Record.. Ca.<;t>Joad Data Collection and Anal~
Current Time Records and Data Collection Processes
The Investigators are presently required to maintain two separate records
of time and activity. Case Time Sheets (Attachment 2) are used to record the
amount of time spent by investigators and investigator supervisors on each case,
summarized by the categories of Office Time, Court Time, Travel Time,
Investigator Field Time and Overtime. These time sheets also have space to
indicate the number of Office Interviews and Field Interviews conducted, and the
number of Subpoena's served. For Special Circumstance cases, Mileage is
recorded (first degree murder death penalty cases, and second degree murder
-57-
~
',-
(")
cases where the defendant has served a prison sentence for a previous murder
conviction). Each entry is to be recorded by the date the task is performed. A
Remarks section provides the investigator with an area on the form for recording
the specific case activity. These records are kept by half hour time increments.
The second record maintained by investigators is the Daily Work Sheet
(Attachment 8), which is used to record the ame spent each day performing tasks
related to casework and other activities such as meetings and adminietration.
This record is also segmented into half hour time increments, indicating the
Time of Arrival, the Location, the Activity and the Investigation Number and
Case Name.
A .third record, which is not required, unless investigators desire
reimbursement, is the Mileage Claim form. This document records the miles
driven in the employees' personal vehicle on County business. This claim form is
sufficiently detailed to provide claim information by case number, name, date and
activity.
These records are used for two purposes. Regularly, Investigator ill
supervisors and Lieutenants perform sample case audits to ensure that the three
separate records correspond with one another and that investigators actually
performed the tasks recorded at the time specified on the Daily Work Sheet. This
involves comparing the three documents to one another, and may involve
contacting . witnesses or conducting certain other checks to verify the
investigators' whereabouts at specific times. It is m"n"gement's intention that by
doing so, investigators will be more conscientious about their performance and
increase productivity.
In addition, Investigator ill supervisors and LieutAn"uts compile case and
ame records on a Statistical Records form, which show the total number of cases
closed and the total number of hours recorded each month by offense category. A
statistic is then generated which illustrates the average number of hours worked
by closed case. Also shown is the total number of cases opened, closed and
pending since the last reporting period, and the number of investigators assigned
during the period. Two additional statistics are then calculated, showing the
average number of cases worked per assigned investigator, and the average
number of cases worked per investigator, adjusted for time off. (See Attachment
4). These records are maintained for each Investigation unit and summarized for
the entire Division.
This method of compiling case statistics was implemented on February 1,
1989. Prior to that date, case hours were recorded only at the time the case was
closed. Because of this, the total staff hours worked during anyone monthly
period could be inflated or deflated depending on whether special circumstance or
other substantial cases which covered multiple reporting months were closed
during that period.
-58-
o
o
.. Current Data Analysis
Based on discussions with Division managers, it appears that the primary
purpose for maintaining the Case Time Sheets and Daily Work Sheets is to
provide records for verifying that investigators are working a full day and
performing the tasks requested by attorneys. Through the case audit process,
m"n"gers are able to identify discrepancies in the investigators' records of activity
which may indicate abuses of the work policies of the Department. Once
identified, disciplinary action can be taken with the employee as a corrective
measure.
There are several reasons why this process is not as effective a means for
identifying abusive employees as it could be. First, observations of investigators
recording work hours show that the hours attributed to a case can be arbitrarily
inflated.. Investigators often assign activities which may take only a few minutes
to the minimum time increment of one half hour, much more time than that
which was actually expended. The result is an incorrect representation of activity
which can easily be adjusted by investigators who wish not to work a full day.
These observations were confirmed through discussions with multiple
investigators who indicated that they sometimes fill out the time and mileage
records prior to their days activities to insure that entries on the various records
correspond with one another and that m"n"gement will not reprimand them. It
appears that the emphasis by m"nagement for investigator staff to maintain
accurate, corresponding c;locumentation of activity is resulting in records which
add-up properly, but do not necessarily reflect the employees' work effort.
Further, although the case audit process may sometimes be an effective
. means for identifying abusive employees, it is a time consnmi"g process which
results in high levels of supervision. As discussed in Section 1, the Division now
operates with a management and supervision level of 27 percent of staff, which is
excessive. The case audit proCess contributes considerably to this inappropriate
level of supervision and could be replaced to some degree with more me"ningful
methods for analyzing caseload. Case audits should be utilized only when other
means of analyzing staff productivity provide JU"nagement with the basis for
believing that a particular employee or employees are not performing
appropriately. They should not be utilized as a routine m"nagement tool (Note:
In order to insure that mileage claims are accurate and conform to County policy,
they should continue to be routinely reviewed by management).
Similarly, it is unclear what purpose the monthly and annual statistical
summaries serve. No effort is currently made by management to analyze the
work hours logged to cases and compare these with productive work hours of the
employees. Because no distinction is made between cases based on the level of
effort required to successfully fulfil attorney requests, case statistics have little
meaning for evaluating productivity. As they are presently recorded, one would
assume that felony investigations require a higher level of skill and effort to
perform than do misdemeanors. Yet a review of case records indicates that felony
requests may only require an investigator to serve a subpoena or perform a check
of official records, while misdemeanor requests often may entail locating and
-59-
o
o
interviewing multiple witnesses, photographing crime scenes and performing
other more complex tasks. The severity of the offense is no indication of the
complexity of the investigation request.
Further, the statistics generated by the Division have little meani"g. As an
example, the average hours spent by case category is a factor of the total hours
logged to closed cases and pending cases, divided by closed cases only. This
statistic assumes none of the hours were recorded on pending cases. Further, the
average number of cases per investigator is calculated only on the closed cases.
No recognition is made of the differences in case complexity or of the effort
expended on pending cases. Our review of special circumstance case files at
various locations shows that it is not unusual for investigators to spend 50 percent
of their time on one case for a period which covers multiple reporting periods.
It is not clear that m"n"gement has developed a sufficient concept of the
purpose of good statistical analysis. While record keeping can often be used to
illustrate general workload, it can also be extremely helpful when analyzing the
performance of the staff and the organization, if designed properly and if
appropriate statistical measures are developed. Based on discussions with
m"nagers in the Division, it appears the only data which they use is that which
illustrates the total investigation requests by location, for a rough measurement of
staffing requirements. No information is collected to provide m"n'lgement with
the ability to view this activity by the complexity of the cases or the geographic and
demographic characteristics of an area. As an example, statistical samples of
1988 caseload at the Torrance Branch indicated that simple, one task investigation
requests comprised over 40 percent of the workload; while at Central Felonies,
such requests comprised just over 13 percent. Rather than evaluating workload
and staffing based on an analytical process, m"n9gement indicated that decisions
are made based on total caseload data, the personal experience of m"nagement
personnel when they were serving as investigators at each location and the extent
of complaints for insufficient.staffing made by site supervisors.
An,,1v..ic:; ofCun-P.Dt Worldoad And PrndncfivitI:
We analyzed 1988 case data and time records to determine management's
effectiveness at evaluating overall Division staffing needs and the allocation of
staff between work units. The 1988 data was chosen for this purpose for several
reasons:
.
It was not until late 1988 that investigators were required to maintain
records of time by case and day, which were then checked to insure that
each record corresponded and that the investigator recorded a full eight
hour work day. Therefore, it is probable that case records for 1988 are a
truer representation of total actual work hours emended by investigators on
cases than more recent data for 1989.
.
We were able to collect a full year of case activity which was compiled under
a sin!!"le method of data collection, making it more consistent for statistical
analysis.
-60-
.
o
o
.
,Hours were compiled in 1988 based on the total logged at the close of the
case, rather than those logged on a monthly basis. As a result, 1988 records
provide a more accurate representation of total ~n:::P'ator work effort by
case catel!'Orv and averal!'e total time exnended b than do more recent
records (i.e. current records would only show partial time records for
pending cases). By collecting data over the course of an entire year,
deviations which would result from special circumstance cases which had
not yet been closed have been minimi7'.ed.
Three tests were performed using the 1988 case and time data. The first
test was used to determine whether investigations performed at the various
investigation units. took similar amountS of time to complete, which would show
whether the current method of segregating data by case type and averaging case
hours by location is an appropriate measure of workload. The results of this
analysis show that the deviation from the average time taken to perform
investigations at each location is significant, strongly suggesting that
determining worker productivity based on the average time spent performing
investigations by the current.case categories is not a mE'...ni"gful measure. .
The second test compared the number of hours logged to cases with the total
hours worked by non-supervising investigators during the year, by calculating the
percentage of time worked but not logged to cases. Table VI.1 illustrates the
results of this test:
Table VI.1
Pero..atofHours WorlmdButNot
Logged to Cases - By Work Unit
LosAugeles County PubllcDefendel-
InVMti_tion Dtvi.<rion CY 19~
Work Unit
Department 95 - Mental Health
Long Beach
Norwalk
Torrance
Compton
Santa Monica
Pomona
Central Misdemeanors
Juvenile
Pasadena
Central Felonies
San Fernando
Van Nuys
Average all locations
Un-logged
Work Hours
(8%)
14%
16%
20%
23%
23%
24%
27%
36%
36%
44%
52%
52%
32%
~1-
"...,
_.
o
.
,
As can be seen, the percentage of time worked but not logged to cases varies
considerably by location. At the extremes, Department 95 logged 8 percent more
time to cases than actually worked by investigators, while Van Nuys and San
Fernando investigators did not log 52 percent of the time which they actually
reported as worked. We would expect a fully productive employee to be unable to
log a maximum of approximately 25 percent, or two hours of their work day, since
they would have general anministrative tasks, would take permitted breaks and
perform other duties not directly related to specific case work. However, as can be
seen, six locations exceeded this percentage, while two locations did not log nearly
double the expected amount of their work hours. On average, the Division
exceeded the anticipated .amount by seven percentage points, or approximately 28
percent.l
. The third test was conducted to determine whether the extreme variations
in the average amount of unlogged work hours may have resulted from the under
reporting of case time at some locations and the over reporting of case time at
others. However, the results of this analysis indicate that this is probably not the
cause of the variations. Rather, the analysis shows that that there is a correlation
between those locations which report a higher average number of hours per case
and those which show a higher percentage of unlogged work hours. Had the
extreme variations in the Percent of unlogged work hours been the result of under
reporting of time on cases, a negative correlation would likely have occurred.
Because the quality of the data collected by the Division could be improved,
none of these tests are conclusive. However, these tests do indicate that the
current method of measuring workload by the number of requests generated at
each work unit is not valid. Further, productivity of investigators at some
locations could potentially be increased more than at others and the allocation of
staff between work locations may be inappropriate. By improving the quality of
the data collected, segregating it appropriately and developing statistical tests
such as those described. above, the Department could improve its ability to
determine investigator stsoffi"g requirements by work unit, better measure the
productivity of staff and reduce the amount of supervisory personnel assigned to
the existing case audit process.
1
It should be noted that similar tests were performed with 1989 data to determine the
effectiveness of the timekeeping system established by the Department in late 1988. Based on
this analysis, Divisions are now logging approximately 20 percent more hours to cases on
average than the total number of hours worked by investigator staff. Considering that one
would anticipate that 25 percent of an employee's work hours would not be logged to cases due to
administrative tasks, permitted break time and other duties not directly related to specific case
work, this analysis indicates that employees are now over-renortinp' case hours by as much as
50 percent. In addition, extreme variations in the percentage of logged hours continues to exist
between work units.
-62-
o
o
Dev..lnninO' A ~ for A'N . --'nO'Worldnad sand Productivity
Despite the problems the Division has experienced collecting accurate time
information on cases, it is important that m~nagement continue to improve and
refine the quality of its time data. This can be more easily accomplished using
8""nning and data processing equipment recommended in Section IX. However,
unless mE"...ni"gful analysis of logged time compared to worked time is conducted
by m"n"gement. the information collected would.be meaningless. Through the
methods discussed above, the Division should be able to assess productivity of staff
through time records by measuring the total productive time expended by
employees on cases.
It is equally important to assess the timeliness and the quality of the
investigator work product, as discussed in Section ill. Without qualitative
information, it cannot be determined whether the level of effort expended by staff
is apprgpriate for the tasks requested by the attomeys; or if more staff or less staff
would be appropriate for accomplishing the objectives of the Department.
Further, unless both quantitative and qualitative measurements are produced by
the Division, it cannot be determined whether attomeys are being sufficiently
served or whether a greater investigation demand exists than what is apparent
through the current number of requests. The National Legal Aid & Defender'
Association <NLADA) suggests: .
"In order to ensure that investigations are conducted in every case where
there is a factual question not subject to objective determination, an
adequate attomey-investigator ratio is necessary. At least one investigator
should be employed for every three staff attorneys. "2
However, because of the lack of a sound process for determining investigator
productivity and performance in Los Angeles County, broad generalizations such
. as those made by the. NLADA cannot apply. Without first maximizing the
performance of existing staff and establishing attorney confidence in investigation
services, such ratios have little me"ning.
At least three California jurisdictions identified through our survey
presently use a process for assigning a weighted value to investigation requests
based on the complexity of the request and not on the offense category. In
Alameda County, Orange County and Santa Clara County, investigator
supervisors review investigation cases when submitted by attorneys to determine
the level of effort required to complete the requested tasks. Based on the number of
tasks being requested, the supervisor simply determines a numeric value for each
case and assigns it to investigators according to the total, combined value of each
investigator's work load. As an example, a request to subpoena a witness would
receive a numeric value of "1". A request to determine the location of the witness
and then interview and subpoena the witness would be given a numeric value of
2 National Legal Aid & Defender Association, National Study Commission on Defense
Services, "Guidelines for Legal Defense Systems in the United States, Final Report 1976".
-63-
o
c
"3". . Once determined, these cases would be assigned to the investigators at the
work unit with a total case load value of one and three points less than the other
investigators. This simple process provides management with a tool for
assessing the work load of staff and making the distribution of assignments more
even.
Discussions with Investigator III supervisors indicate that when cases are
received an informal assessment of case complexity is made to determine which
investigator is most capable of absorbing the new request. However, it is clear
that these assessments are not standardized throughout the Division. Further,
supervisors are not able to easily identify and track the workload of their staff. At
one location, a supervisor indicated that it had been several weeks after
assignment to a Branch Office from elsewhere in the Division before the
supervisor realized that an assigned 187 PC (murder) investigation was actually a
special circumstance case which was taking approximately 50 percent of an
investigator's time.
A case weighting process, as developed in other jurisdictions, would be an
improvement over the current methods used in Los Angeles County. However, it
could be improved further by expanding the weighting ~riteria, without
unreasonably increasing the complexity of the determination made by supervisory
staff. Four categories of weighting could be developed, including: .
1. Acti.vityLeveI
· Subpoena service, copying official records, conducting a Department
of Motor Vehicle records search, court photography, etc. (1 point
each). .. .
· Photographing crime scenes, interviewing in-custody witnesses, etc.
(2 points each).
· Interviewing a witness, address known. Additional points for each
additional witness (3 points each). .
. Locating and interviewing a witness, address unknown. Additional
points for each additional witness (4 points each).
(Note: Point distinctions could be made on whether a telephone
interview or an in-person interview is more appropriate. See Section
III on the development of investigation standards).
2. Geographic Considerations
. Ability to schedule investigation activities with other tasks or with
investigator's commute (1 point).
. Distance.l!!: traffic will significantly impact investigator's ability to
accomplish tasks efficiently (2 points).
. Distance 1m.d. traffic will significantly impact investigator's ability to
accomplish tasks efficiently (3 points).
-64-
o
o
.3. Demographic Considerations
. Witness is stable, can be easily located and is sympathetic to defense
case (1 point each).
· Witness is stable, can be easily located but is not sympathetic to
defense case (2 points each).
· Witness is transient, cannot be easily located but is sympathetic to
defense case (3 points each). .
· Witness is transient, cannot be easily located and is not sympathetic
to defense case (4 points each).
· Other Faclnrs
· Low probability that investigation will require extraordinary effort (1
point).
· High probability that investigation will require extraordinary effort (2
points).
In preparing the request, attorneys should be required to indicate as much
information as possible for investigator supervisors to make the above
determinations. Each investigation request could then be scored according to
these or other appropriate criteria, and cases assigned to staff based on the total
point value of requests.3 Data could then be generated at each location which
would provide a much more accurate reflection of investigator workload than that
which presently exists. Combined with information generated through the
investigator time accounting and analysis process discussed above and the
qualitative assessment process discussed in Section V, management would be
better able to gauge the productivity and performance of staff. Through these
methods, the time consuming and costly process of auditing case and time
records could be minimi7,ed Time spent scoring requests should not be excessive
in most instances, and the process will insure that supervisors and lead
investigators thoroughly evaluate the request prior to assignment. Effort
expended generating workload data should not exceed that which is presently
expended.
3 In order to claim reimbursement from the State for the costs to provide certain defense services
on all special circumstance cases (see Section XI), the Lieutenant, Administrative presently
makes an estimate of the level of investigator effort which will be required. This process for
estimating investigation costs could be modified to permit cases to also be weighted according
to the above criteria for internal work load measurement purposes. Once this has been
performed by the Lieutenant, Administrative, or other appropriate management staff, it could
be incorporated into the case assignment process at the appropriate work location.
-S5-
o
o
It should be noted that no system will provide an exact reflection of
workload. Each case has particular characteristics which will affect whether
actual performance corresponds with the weight established by the supervisor or
lead at the outset of the investigation. Such deviations from the weighting are to
be expected. Because of this, the Department needs to treat the process to weight
cases as a dynamic one. Over time, criteria for evaluating cases may need to be
modified. It also may be appropriate to simplify or expand the criteria based on
actual experience of the Division.
Understanding this, managers of the Department and the Investigation
Division need to be flexible in their application of the case weighting system to
actual investigator performance. The inability of an individual staff person or
unit to perform according to expectations developed through case weighting
should not, by itself, be used as the basis for disciplinary action. Rather, case
weighting should be used to identify performance which deviates from the norm
and as a gauge for determini"g overall Division performance. Once deviations
are identified, management should examine the specific performance more
closely to develop an understanding of problems which may exist, and implement
corrective actions or procedural ~h""ges which may be necessary at that time.
Conclusion'!
The Public Defender's Investigation Division maintains several records of
investigator work hours and case activity. These records are kept for the dual
purposes of providing m"n"gement with a measurement of Division workload, as
well as a means of monitoring investigator productivity. However, because of the
methods used to record work hours, the categories established for collecting case
information and the lack of an effective methodology for analyzing the data which
is collected, the Division does not have the capability to systematically evaluate
workload and productivity.
The Division determines necessary staffi"g and its allocation between work
units based on incomplete information and an intuitive sense of locational
requirements. Further, the procedures established for measuring investigator
productivity require a costly and unnecessary level of line supervision.
Recommendation'!
The Public Defender should:
VI.1 Continue to improve and refine the quality of the data collected on
investigator work hours through the implementation of recommendations
contained in Section IX, and the development of statistical measurements
described in this section;
VL2 Develop a process to monitor the quality of the investigator work product, as
discussed in Section III;
-66-
o
o
VI.3 Establish case weighting criteria and procedures, as described in this
section;
VI.4 Develop an analytical process which assesses investigator productivity
based on statistical measurements of productive work hours and case
weighting, as described in this section;
VL5 Modify the practice of regularly auditing investigation Case Time Sheets
and Daily Work Sheets for consistency in entries. Use this method only
when the results Of analysis recommended above indicate that a particular
employee or employees are not performing appropriately. Continue to
monitor mileage claim forms for accuracy and to insure they conform to
County policy.
Co~t14'!fib:
No new costs would be incurred from implementing the above
recommendations. The Department would be better able to gauge the productivity
and performance of investigators. Determini"g appropriate staffing levels, the
assignment of staff to investigation units and the assignment of cases to
individual investigators would be based on a rational process of analysis.
Supervision responsibilities of Investigator ill staff would be reduced.
-0/-
~
~
o
SECTION VII: INVESTIGATOR AIDES
THE DEPARTMENT CURRENTLY UTILIZES
INVESTIGATORS FOR ACTIVITIES WHICH
REQUIRE CONSIDERABLY LESS SKILL
nl~.~ THAT POSSESSED BY CURRENT
EMPLOYEES INCLUDING SERVING
SUBPOENA'S, COLLECTING OFFICIAL
RECORDS, AND OBTAINING REPORTS
FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR
VEHICLES. THE DEPARTMENT SHOULD
CREATE AN INVESTIGATOR AIDE POSITION
TO PERFORM THESE AND OTHER LESS
COMPLEX TASKS. FURTHER,
INVESTIGATION REQUEST FORMS
SHOULD BE S'TANDARDIZED AND
AUTOMATED EQUIPMENT UTILIZED TO
INCREASE STAFF PRODUCTIVITY.
The Investigation Division is presently allocated three levels of investigator
classifications: .
· Investil!'ator I is an entry level position which "conducts criminal
investigations of limited scope and complexity to support the defense of
persons represented by the Public Defender". In practice, individuals
hired into this class typically remain for short periods of time and then
are promoted to Investigator ll. There are no Investigator 1 positions
presently filled in the Department.
. Investil!'ator II is a journeyman level position which "plans and
conducts difficult criminal investigations to support the defense of
persons represented by the Public Defender". Most investigators
assigned to the Division are in the Investigator IT class.
· Investil!'8.tor III is a supervisory position which "supervises a section of
the Public Defender's Office and conducts the most difficult criminal
investigations" .
In addition, one position of Witness Coordinator I exists which "locates and
notifies persons required to testify . . . in Superior Court trials to effect their
presence in court at the time specified". In practice, this position more commonly
is involved with collecting legal documents and providing routine support
activities for the Investigation Division management. Unlike the investigator
classifications which require previous law enforcement experience or higher
education, the Witness Coordinator requires only prior experience at the level af
Los Angeles County's class of Intermediate Clerk.
-68-
o
o
~here are a number of investigator tasks which do not require the skill level
or the training of individuals hired into the investigator classifications, but which
require greater skill than individuals appropriate for the position of Witness
Coordinator. Primary among these tasks is the serving of subpoenas to witnesses
or to institutions for copies of official documents. Other tasks performed by
investigators which would be suitable for a lower classification include:
researching Department of Motor Vehicle (DMV) records for information
regarding a defendant or witness; contacting Los Angeles County utility
companies or departments for information regarding a witness address; copying
official records such as birth and death certificates; and researching address
information from the various indices and directories available to the Division. It
may be appropriate for the Department to establish a position of Investigator Aide
to perform these tasks rather than assigning them to investigators.
We conducted statistical tests at the Central investigation unit and at the
Torrance Branch Office to determine the percentage of cases for which the
attorney of record requested that only one of these lower level tasks be performed
by the Division, and the amount of work time expended by staff in performing
these functions.! Based on these tests, approximately four Investigator II
positions could be elimin9ted and replaced with a lower level classification of
Investigator Aide, relieving the rem"ini"g Investigator n and ill positions to
perform more skilled investigations.2 In addition, it would be appropriate to
reclassify the Witness Coordinator position to the proposed classification of
Investigator Aide to permit greater flexibility in utilizing the position for
investigation related tasks. Based on activity patterns in the County, three of
these positions should be assigned to the Central Office; one of these positions
should be assigned to the Norwalk Branch Office to serve the eastern part of the
County; and one position should be assigned to the Torrance Office to serve the
western part of the County. Pomona and San Fernando, because of their
remoteness to other County areas, should continue to assign the identified lower
skill level tasks to their regular investigator staff. Further, at those locations
where Investigator Aides would be assigned, Investigator n and ill staff should
continue to perform some of the identified tasks if those tasks are directly
associated with other case activities which they are performing (i.e. serving a
subpoena based on the results of a witness interview), or if workload or
geographic considerations make it more efficient for the higher level person to
perform the task.
1 A sample of over 100 cases each were reviewed for felonies and misdemeanors at the Central
Offices and at Torrance. Based on population and sample size, these tests have a 95 percent
confidence rating:f: 10 percent.
2
For Central felonies, approximately 13 percent of the total caseload was for these less complex
tasks, averaging 2.5 staff hours each to complete. For Central misdemeanors, approximately
30 percent of the requests were for these less complex tasks, averaging 2.9 staff hours each to
complete. For the mixed caseload at the Torrance Branch Office, 41 percent of the requests
were for these less complex tasks, averaging 1.25 hours each to complete. Estimates for the
entire Division were based on these samples extended to the entire 1988 caseload.
-69-
c
o
The proposed position of Investigator Aide should be established at an
apprentice level for the Investigator classification series. However, requirements
for promotion should be significant. Promotion should not be considered
automatic based on tenure, as appears to be the practice with the Investigator I
class. Further, the job specifications and duties of the Investigator Aide
classification should be clearly distinguished from those of the Investigator 1, who
should be expected to independently perform more skilled investigative functions
than what is envisioned for the Investigator Aide.
Our survey of other jurisdictions indicates that the practice of utiHring
lower level positions to perform these types of functions is common. Five of the 12
jurisdictions from which questionnaire responses were received indicate that
lower level. and specialist classifications such as process servers and
polygraphers are used in place of investigators for many tasks. Further, the
National Legal Aid & Defenders Association <NLADA) states:
"As the size of an investigative staff increases, specialization within
the investigative staff should be encouraged. . . The analysis to
determine whether specialization is needed incorporates several
factors: a) is there a specific set of tasks or subtasks which are
severable from the general performance of the function; b) is there a
sufficient quantity and flow rate of assignments for those tasks; c) is
there particular training required or skills related to performing
those tasks; and d) is there an expectation that a staff member
performing the specialty will be more efficient or effective than a
generalist staff member."3
The justification for each of these tests is met in the Los Angeles County
Public Defender's Office for the creation of an Investigator Aide. In fact, our
analysis of the tasks which could be assumed by such a position did not include
several additional duties which would be appropriate with proper training and
organi7'.a.tion of work. As an example, investigators are occasionally requested to
attend court to photograph witnesses or evidence. A lower level classification
could be trained to perform these less skilled photography requests. Further,
Investigators often spend time researching witness address and telephone
information prior to contacting the witness. Such tasks could routinely be
performed by Investigator Aides.
3 "National Legal Aid & Defenders Association, National Study Commission on Defense
Services, "Guidelines for Legal Defense Systems in the United States, Final Report, 1976"
-70-
o
o
. Although job specifications and salary levels 'would need to be established by
the Office of Human Resources, for purposes of this analysis we have assumed an
entry level salary of approximately $30,000 per year based on the skill level and
reduced independence of the proposed Investigator Aide position when compared
with the existing Investigator I. Assnmi"g that this salary level is appropriate,
the County would save an estimated $43,623 per year by eliminating four
Investigator n positions and the Witness Coordinator position, and adding five
Investigator Aide positions, as follows:
Posifion
CIa.<Nification
Change in
Pncdtinna
Cun-ent
Bac;e Ral......
Plqmed
R-Ral......
('AlSt
tRsnrinCl1Cz)
Investigator n (4)
Witness Coordinator 1 (I)
Investigator Aide .5
Base Salary Cost
Benefit Cost Rate
Total Savings
$162,972
21,364
o
o
o
150.000
$150,000
($162,972)
(2l,364)
150.000
$l84,336
(34,336)
27.05%
($43,623)
Otl-u... Methods for T"""",,crin~ Investifl'ator n Productivity
In an orgsoni7.ation the size of the Investigation Division, Opportunities for
incr('~Aing the efficiency of staff should be continually explored. In its 1976 report
on "Guidelines for Legal Defense Systems in the United States", the NLADA
states:
"The major share of investigator time,perhaps 60 to 70 percent,
should be spent in field investigations. Therefore, field investigators
require dictating equipment and. secretarial support which permits
them to file reports without substantial portions of their time being
allocated to ineffectively performing the secretarial function. "
We agree with this concept. A review of case records at the Central and Branch
offices indicates that investigators spend approximately 52 percent of their time
performing activities from the office, with 26 percent spent in travel and 22
percent actually conducting field investigations. Although some investigation
tasks, such as contacting witnesses and researching information, are performed
in the office; other activities, such as drafting investigation reports, detract from
the ability of Investigators to perform efficiently.
-71-
"'"
'--
o
-
Discussions with the Administrative Services Deputy indicate that the
Department owns many dictating and transcribing machines for use by
attorneys, investigators and secretaries, but that it is his belief that these
machines are under utilized by stafL This was confirmed from discussions with
investigator staff who indicate that they prefer writing reports in long-hand,
rather than using dictating equipment or other automated processes. The
Department should encourage the use of dictating equipment by investigators
whenever possible. In addition, trsoini"g in the use of dictating equipment should
be provided through the newly established position of Investigator ill, Trainer.
By immediately recording the results of a witness interview or other investigative
activity, the subject matter can be more easily recalled and therefore may be more
accurate and comprehensive. In addition, travel time between field visits could be
more fully utilized than is otherwise possible. Further, the amount of time spent
in the office writing reports could be reduced, m"In"g staffmore available for field
investigations.
Similarly, the Department should incorporate the Investigation Division
into its plans for increasing word processing capability. Many professional offices
find that ready access to word processing equipment increases the productivity of
its professional staff and the efficiency of its typists. Some investigators were
observed typing their reports on electric typewriters, some reported preparing
their reports on their own personal computers and others indicated they would
welcome the opportunity to learn word processing if the Department made
equipment available to them. Certainly not all investigators would feel
comfortable learning to use such equipment. However, to the extent that
investigators do assume direct processing of their reports, the demands for
clerical staff will be reduced and the timeliness of reports will improve.
Throughout the study, investigators and investigator managers indicated
frustration with not having direct access to automated information resources
which they commonly utilize. Currently, the Division does utilize the Sheriffs
Automated Jail Information System (AJIS), but because the Public Defender is
not considered a law enforcement agency, it is screened from many of the other
information resources developed for police and prosecution agencies. Because of
this, it is important that the Department efficiently access those resources which
are available to them.
As an example, in order to receive DMV records an investigator must
telephone the State and make a request for a copy of the record. The State then
prepares the record and sends it to the investigator who must then review it and
transmit it to the requesting attorney. According to investigator staff, the
telephone line to Sacramento is often busy, requiring multiple telephone attempts.
Further, once investigators gets through to Sacramento, they may be placed on
hold for some period of time. In any event, the amount of time required to obtain a
copy of a DMV record is excessive.
-72-
o
o
. Some Public Defender Offices in other jurisdictions presently have access to
DMV records and other information not presently available to the Los Angeles
County Public Defender except through time consuming and labor intensive
processes, as described above. Many have direct access to these automated
information resources through agreements with other County departments and
other agencies. Others subscribe to services which provide them with direct
computer access to many systems. We were informed during the course of this
review that the contractor providing investigation services at the Compton Branch
Office has access to many of the information resources as a private investigation
company that the Public Defender's Office has been unsuccessful in obtaining,
Certain vendors provide automated information resources to businesses
and government offices through contract. One vendor, whose literature we
reviewed, provides access to DMV driver history, vehicle registration and vehicle
ownership records; Secretary of State Department of Corporations information;
real.property ownership records; reverse telephone directories; fictitious business
name filings; death and probate records; consumer credit information; social
security number records and others. Although we could not determine the cost of
such services based on information available from the Public Defender, the
Department should explore the possibility of contracting for such services and
establish a competitive bid process for selecting a vendor.
An additional method for increasing the productivity of attorneys and
investigators would be to conduct a complete review of all forms and documents
which could be used to prepare an investigation request and report. As an
example, our review indicated that at some locations, requests for subpoena
service or a ..records search are prepared on a form whereby the attomey checks
boxes and provides minimum information regarding the requested action (PD1-
101-88). However, not all locations are 'using such forms, but rather, attorneys
often have secretarial staff type longer requests, providing information not useful
to the 'investigator in completing the assigned tasks. In addition, investigators
often respond using the long form Investigation Report (PDI-100-88) when it is not
necessary.
Investigation requests and reports should be further standardized and
snmm"rized whenever possible. In addition, the use of existing forms designed
to expedite the request and response processes should be enforced by
management. Finally, with the implementation of word processing, standard
glossary functions should be utilized to their maximum to reduce the amount of
report preparation by investigators and typing by secretarial staff.
-73-
()
~-
o
Conclusionq
There are a number of investigator tasks which do not require the skill level
or the traini"g of investigators but require greater skill than those required for the
Witness Coordinator I. Primary among these tasks is the serving of subpoenas to
witnesses, or to institutions for copies of official documents. Other tasks
performed by investigators which would be suitable for a lower classification
include: researching Department of Motor Vehicle (DMV) records for
information regarding a defendant or witness; contacting Los Angeles County
utility companies or departments for information regarding a witness address;
copying official records such as birth and death certificates; and researching
address information from the various indices and directories available to the
Division.
Dictating equipment is underutilized, and limited word processing and
information resource systems exist for use by investigator staff. Certain
abbreviated investigation request and reporting forms could be better used by the
Department.
RecommenMfionq
The Public Defender should:
VII.! Develop proposed job specifications and salary levels for a position of
Investigator Aide, as described in this section, and submit them to the
Office of Human Resources for review and approval. The proposed .
position should be established at an apprentice investigator level with
significant requirements for promotion;
VII.2 Request that the Board of Supervisors approve five Investigator Aide
positions and funding, and eliminate four Investigator II and one
Witness Coordinator 1 positions based on the Office of Human Resources
review and approval of job specifications and salary;
VII.3 Assign three Investigator Aide positions to the Central Office, one to the
Norwalk Branch Office and one to the Torrance Branch Office, as
described in this section;
VIlA Encourage the use of dictating equipment by investigators whenever
possible;
VII.5 Provide training in the use of dictating equipment for investigators
through the newly established position of Investigator III, Training;
VII.6 Incorporate the Investigation Division into the Department's plans for
increasing word processing capability;
VII.7 Explore the possibility of contracting for automated information resource
services and establish a competitive bid process for selecting a vendor;
-74-
o
o
VII.S Conduct a complete review of all forms and documents which could be
used to prepare an investigation request and report. Standardize and
snmmtJcize investigation requests and reports whenever possible. Utilize
standard glossary functions on word processing equipment when
available to the Investigation Division.
Cosfs/RP.t1f'!fib;
The cost of the proposed five Investigator Aide positions would be
apprnYim"tely $190,575 per year, offset by approximately $234,199 in savings from
elimin8ting four Investigator IT and one Witness Coordinator 1 positions.
Therefore, the net saving to the Department would be $43,624 annually which
could be used to offset the net additional cost of$18,4OQ for positions recommended
in Section L Rem"ining Investigator IT staff would appropriately be assigned
more complex investigations. The cost for the automated information resource
system could not be determined based on information available from the Public
Defender. However, if purchased, tasks such as researching DMV records could
be conducted more efficiently by investigator staff. Staff time would be saved
through utilization of dictation and word processing equipment.
-75-
()
o
SECTION VIII: POLICIES, PROCEDURES
AND GUIDELINES
ALTHOUGH THE DEPARTMENT HAS
RECENTLY UPDATED ITS INVESTIGATION
POLICIES AND PROCEDURES MANUAL,
THIS MANUAL COULD BE EXPANDED AND
BETTER ORGANIZED. IN ADDITION, THE
DEPARTMENT HAD NOT DISTRIBUTED THE
REVISED POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
MANUAL TO STAFF DURING THE COURSE
OF THE STUDY, NOR HAD IT ESTABLISHED
A LOCATION WITHIN THE CENTRAL
DIVISION OR EACH BRANCH OFFICE
WHERE UPDATED, COMPREHENSIVE
POLICIES AND PROCEDURES, DIRECTIVES
AND RESOURCE DOCUMENTS WERE
AVAILABLE TO STAFF. FURTHER, THE
DEPARTMENT HAS NOT DEVELOPED FIELD
RESOURCE BOOKS. WHICH INCLUDE
GUIDELINES FOR CONDUCTING
INVESTIGATIONS, OR IMPLEMENTED A
PROCESS. FOR CONTINUALLY UPDATING
AND IMPROVING ALL SUCH DOCUMENTS
USED BY THE DIVISION.
The Public Defender Investigation Division implemented major revisions to
its Policies and Procedures Manual in March, 1989, to reflect significant "h""ges
in policy and procedures occurring since the middle of 1988. According to
Investigation management, a comprehensive revision to the Policies and
Procedures Manual had not occurred for several years. A review of the previous
document indicates revisions occurred as recently as 1985.
The efforts by the Department to prepare a current Policies and Procedures
Manual are commendable. However, there are several improvements which
could be made to the existing document as well as the process for revising,
updating and distributing it to staff.
In addition, the Division has not developed a Field Resource Book for
in....estigators which describes basic field activities, policies of the Department
related to investigation services and methodologies for conducting witness
interviews and other types of investigations. These guidelines, as well as
investigation standards, which are discussed more fully in Section III, should be
developed and incorporated into such a resource.
-76-
o
o
Policies and Procedure.q Mjln1J91
Format
The Policies and Procedures Manual recently prepared by the Department
is divided into six sections, as follows:
· Introduction - which includes a discussion of the purpose of the
manual, a code of ethics for Public Defender Investigators, a description
of the history of the Public Defender's Office, a description of the
Investigation chain of com"'''nd and an organization chart.
· Administrative Policv (Denartment) - which includes several
department-wide sd",iniRtrative policies.
· Administrative Policy Hnvestif!ation) - which includes administrative
policies which relate directly to the Investigation Division.
· Procedure - which includes numerous investigation procedures.
. Juvenil~ - which includes a listing of problem areas specific to juvenile
services, common juvenile investigation terms, steps in the processing
of juvenile matters and other points of consideration.
· Conservatorship - which includes guidelines and interview instructions
for Mental Health Conservatorship matters.
. The Policies and Procedures Manual has been designed with a table of contents
which lists each of the topics contained in the binder. However, the 0Tg9ni7.ation
of the material contained in the Table and the Manual could be improved.
. Chapters of the Policies and Procedures Manual have been organized
according to different criteria. The Manual includes two policy chapters
organized by issuing organizational unit (i.e. "Department" and
"Investigation"); there is a Procedures chapter; and two chapters which
deal exclusively with the organizational unit they affect (i.e. "Juvenile"
and "Conservatorship"). Persons typically research information
contained in manuals according to subject. Therefore, it may be more
appropriate to organize the report according to such categories as 'Work
Hours and Employee Leave", "Performance and Work Standards",
"Employee Reimbursement and Claim Procedures", etc.
-77-
("\
o
. Policy and procedure sections are not listed in any apparent order and
have not been grouped by topic within appropriate chapters. As an
example, to determine the Division's policy on vacation, one must review
Administrative Pnlicv m:~::=~~~ Section "1011.0 - Vacation", and
Administrative Policy (In__,,:_,,:__) sections "2014.0 - Vacation" and
"2014.1 - Vacation Negotiation of 12-21-83". These policies are pages
apart and one must review the entire Table of Contents in order to know
that all policies related to vacation have been identified.
· Most forms used by the Division are listed and provided under Procedure
Section 3014.0. Other forms, such as those used for vehicle accident
reporting and Subpoena's are included elsewhere in the Manual (i.e.
Sections 3000.1 and 3020.3 respectively.
The contentoffhe PoliMes aDdProoeduresiManual could be P.lI:pInOOd.
/
There are no sections in the manual which express the mission statement,
goals or objectives of the Division. These statements by m"nagement are essential
and are necessary to establish the foundation' for policies it develops.
In addition, although there is an Investigator's "Code of Ethics"; only
limited statements are made regarding the appearance and professional m"nner
of the staff. Sections 2003.0 and 2004.0 discuss Disorderly Conduct (i.e. drinlnng
on the job) and Dress Standards, but there is no discussion of other topics which
affect the perception the public and other professionals may have of investigators.
As an example, a policy has not.been established prohibiting posters of nude
women, obscene cartoons and other inappropriate wall decorations which are
prominently displayed in investigator offices. We believe such a policy should be
immediately adopted and implemented by the Department. Further, some
complaints have been made by management and staff of perceived sexual
harassment from investigators who use sexually provocative language when
addressing women in the Department. Although the audit staff did not observe
this behavior, it should be strictly forbidden and explicitly stated as such in the
Division's Manual.
Other policies and procedures appropriate for the Investigation Policies and
Procedures Manual have not been developed or included. As an example, over 70
forms are listed and presented in Section 3014.0. Yet, there are no policies or
procedures which discuss when it is appropriate to use the forms or how they
should be filled out. One of the forms, "Investigation Report and Request", was
not being consistently used by attorneys or investigators. It was unclear from our
review of operations and discussion with stsff whether all investigators knew it
existed or when it should be utilized. The Policies and Procedures Manual does
not clarify these issues.
-78-
o
o
'We also found that units within the Division were utilizing forms not
included in the Policies and Procedures Manual. As an example, the Department
95 - Mental Health investigators utilize an investigation interview form which has
not been recognized in the Manual, although detailed instructions on how to
complete this form have been included. Forms, such as the one described, should
be either formally adopted or prohibited until formally adopted by m"nllgement.
The omission of policy statements by the Department regarding
investigation can have serious consequences. As an example, m"n"gement and
staff from the Division acknowledged that investigators often carry firearms when
conducting interviews or collecting other information in dangerous areas of the
County. Yet no policy regarding the use of weapons by staff has been developed or
clearly communicated within the Division. Should an incident occur whereby an
investigator's firearm is discharged, the County could potentially be exposed to
significant liability. Instead of avoiding such issues with the hope that an
incident doesn't occur, the County should develop a clear policy and enforce it. If
it is decided to permit investigators to use firearms, the investigators should be
required to secure appropriate weapons permits and attend mandatory training
regarding weapons use. Attachment 5 provides a sample policy utilized by the
Riverside County Public Defender's Office regarding firearm use.
The Public Defender's Office should utilize policies and procedures
manuals from other jurisdictions' investigation units as references for the
development of a comprehensive manual for Los Angeles. Several jurisdictions
responding to our survey provided the tables of contents from their manuals
which would be helpful. A copy of the "Investigator's Division Policy Manual of
the Cook County Public Defender's Office" has been included as a reference as
Attachment 6. This manual appears to.be well organized and comprehensive in
many respects. Section ill discusses the need to develop investigation standards
and guidelines for the Division. It is important that these also be incorporated
into a policy and procedure manual or other reference booklet for regular use by
investigators.
The County of Alameda provided our staff with a copy of their complete
investigations manual, which includes a wide variety of topics related to the
process for obtaining information, interview and investigation techniques and
approaches, legal parameters of investigations, various administrative directives
and procedures. The entire manual has been reproduced in a 5 by 8 inch booklet
so that it can be easily carried and referenced by investigators in the field. Many
departments which regularly provide field services produce handbooks or other
reference booklets which permit their employees access to the most relevant
information necessary to perform their job while away from their office.
-79-
CI
o
Distrihution.. Uoru.te and ("-ontrol
We received a copy of the revised Policies and Procedures Manual shortly
after beginning field work and were informed that copies would be distributed to
staff shortly thereafter. However, several weeks later, approximately 91 percent of
the investigators responding to our questionnaire indicated that they had not yet
been provided a copy of or access to the Manual. In fact, a closer review of survey
responses indicate that those investigators who responded that they had received
copies of the Manual were in the management and supervisory positions of the
Department.
We advised Division m"nllgement of the responses which we had received
and were informed that the Department was awaiting delivery of three ring
binders prior to distributing the Manual to staff. However, in the interim period,
the Department could have made a limited number of Manuals available to staff
at the Central Office and at each of the Branches. Even if the binders which were
ordered specifically for the Manuals were not available, other binders available for
filing completed cases or other purposes could have been temporarily used.
To some extent, our observations on report distribution probably reflect
circumstances of the period of time audit staff were present in the Department.
However, m"n"gement needs to insure that all staff are continually advised of the
most recently developed policies and procedures as Soon as they are available.
Although it has been m"n~gement's practice to distribute individual memos and
other documents expressing approved policy and procedure ~h,,~es to staff on an
ongoing basis, and it has been their intent to distribute the entire revised Policies
and Procedures Manual when the binders are received, management has
indicated that they were not considering maintaining a Policies and Procedures
Manual at the Central Office which would be kept current at all times and be
available to staff as an official resource document. Rather, it has been the
intention of m"nagement to provide each investigator with periodic modifications
to the Manual and the responsibility of each investigator to update their personal
copy. In order to insure that all staff have access to a complete and updated
version of Department policies, procedures and directives, and that the content of
the Manual is controlled by m"nagement, central maintenance and access to a
Manual is necessary.
The Division should also maintain a central library of resource documents,
literature and other material related to investigation services. Although the
Department is presently involved in the development of a computerized resource
listing which will increase the availability and access of information for staff, the
collection, organization and control of the Policies and Procedure Manual, as well
as these other resources, should be specifically assigned to a management staff
person at the Central Office.
-80-
o
<~
('"onclusion.<;
There are several improvements which could be made to the existing
Investigation Policies and Procedures Manual, and the process for revising,
updating and distributing it to staft: The organization and format of the material
contained in the Manual could be improved. The content of the Policies and
Procedures Manual could also be expanded.
RecDl11m~ndationq
The Public Defender should:
VIII.1 Reorganize the Investigation Policies and Procedures Manual, as
described in this Section, utilizing formats developed in 'other
jurisdictions and departments within the County;
VIII.2 Incorporate mission statements, goals and objectives into the Policies
and Procedures Manual to establish a foundation for policies supporting
investigation activity;
VIII.S Implement a policy prohibiting posters of nude women, obscene cartoons
and other inappropriate wall decorations which are prominently
displayed in investigator offices;
VIII.4 Provide procedures for all forms utilized by the Division, so that staff
understands when it is appropriate to use the forms and how they should
be filled out. Similarly, formally adopt or prohibit any other forms or
documents not specifically approved by man"gement and included in the
Policies and Procedures Manual;
VIII.5 Address policy and procedure issues which could potentially have
serious financial or criminal consequences for the Department or
investigators. Specifically, adopt a firearm policy and strictly enforce it
with investigators;
VIII.6 Utilize policies and procedures documents from other jurisdictions to
help identify issues of substance which should be addressed by Los
Angeles County; . ..'
VIII.7 Consider producing a manual of manageable size, which includes
standards and guidelines, as well as policies and procedures, so that it
can easily be referenced by investigators in the field;
VIII.S Immediately distribute the Policies and Procedures Manual to staff;
VIII.9 At a minimum, immediately provide office copies of the Policies and
Procedures Manual at the Central Office and each of the Branch Offices;
-81-
c.
o
VIII.10 Maintain a central library, which includes a current policies and
procedures manual, as well as resource documents, literature and other
material related to investigation services;
VIII. 11 Assign a specific management siaff person the responsibility to collect,
organize and control the Policies and Procedures Manual, as well as
other resource documents identified by the Department.
COsf:cVRA....fits
No new costs would be incurred from implementing the above
recommendations. The Division would operate with a comprehensive manual of
policies, procedures and directives. Resource material would be readily
accessible to all staff.
-82-
o
o
SECTION IX: AUTOMATED TIMEKEEPING
THE PRESENT SYSTEM FOR RECORDING
CASE ACTIVITY, MILEAGE INFORMATION
AND INVESTIGATOR WORK HOURS IS
CUMBERSOME, CAN READILY BE
ABUSED AND REQUIRES SIGNIFICANT
EFFORT ON THE PART OF SUPERVISORS
AND MANAGEMENT TO MONITOR. BY
PURCHASING SCANNER EQUIPMENT
AND SOFTWARE ESTIMATED TO COST
BETWEEN $20,000 AND $50,000, AND
ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES FOR THE
COLLECTION AND COMPILATION OF THE
RECORDED DATA, THE DIVISION WILL BE
ABLE TO INCREASE THE PRODUCTIVITY
OF SUPERVISORS AND BETTER
MONITOR THE ACTIVITIES OF STAFF.
As discussed in Sections ill and VI, the Investigation Division expends a
considerable amount of its investigator, supervisor and m"n'lgement resources
recording,compiling and analyzing time and mileage information. These
activities are significant and contribute to the excessive amount of supervisory
and management staff time presently utilized by the Division As discussed in
Section VI, it is not clear how management utilizes the information collected or
whether the effort expended on recording and compiling the information is
worthwhile.
As further discussed in Section VI, this data is not reliable because of the
way in which it is recorded, and because of the m;nimum time increments of one
half hour which have been developed by the Division. In addition, the data is not
recorded or compiled in a m"nner which allows meaningful analysis to be
conducted. As a result, the validity of the data and any analysis of the data
currently conducted by the Department is suspect.
Accurate time records are important so that management can be ensured
that staff is performing their assigned tasks efficiently, and that the productivity
of staff is at its optimum. Further, the process used to collect the information
should have a minimum impact on the staff, but should be complete enough and
in a format which is flexible enough to provide management with the ability to
utilize it as a meaningful management tool.
The Department is installing a new computerized case management
system this summer called the Defense Management System (DMS). This system
will not provide Investigation Division case management information until the
spring of 1990, at which time the proposed system will require that the time spent
on each case by each investigator be entered into the computer system each
month. Certainly, the implementation of this'system will have an impact on the
Division, since clerical staff will have to be responsible for collecting and entering
all of this information into the system.
-83-
~
~
--
Although the DMS system will save some time by automating the
compilation of the investigator case-time data into various management reports,
it will not affect the problems with gathering the data or those which involve the
compilation of the investigators' auto-mileage records at all. Further, the DMS
system will only provide case management information for adult criminal
matters. No information will be recorded or tracked for juvenile or mental health
investigations performed by the Division. In 1988, these comprised approximately
20 percent of the Division's caseload, and consumed approximately 17 percent of
the Division's staff. '
New technology is available which could automate the gathering of the
Investigators' case-time and auto-mileage data and compile the data into reports.
This technology involves bar codes and the devices to read or scan them,
eliminating the need for a clerical staff person to manually enter the case-time
information into the computer system. Rather, secretaries would log cases onto
the micro-computer currently owned by the Division when the request is
submitted by attorneys. At that time a bar code label would be produced which
would identify the case for the computer, and then would be attached to the case
file.
The Division would also create bar code cards which would identify each
activity needed to be tracked. With these, and bar code sc"nners commercially
available, investigators would be able to track activities in actual time. As an
example, if an investigator travels to a location to interview a witness, he or she
would scan the case identifying bar code and then scan the activity code for
beginning travel. The odometer reading on the investigator's car could also be
entered into the scanner.
Once the investigator arrived at the witness location, the bar code for
completing the travel could be scanned, the ending odometer reading entered, and
then the bar code for locating the witness scanned. At the end of each day, the
scanners would be placed into a recharger device which, in addition to
recharging the scanners, would transfer each Investigator's case-time and
activity data and auto-mileage data into a microcomputer. This data could then be
transferred electronically to a central microcomputer for entry into a data base
program which would compile any management Investigator activity or auto-
mileage reports required and/or could transfer the information to the larger
computer systems operating the DMS. The information collected could then be
utilized to monitor the investigator's activity and productivity, and to evaluate
caseload. Information collected at Branch Offices could either be sent by modem
to the Central Office, or periodically sent by County messenger on floppy disk.
-84-
o
o
: Bar code scanners are available which are approximately the size of a stack
of seven credit cards, small enough to fit into a pocket. The scanners are battery
powered and rechargeable. They record the exact time and date that a given bar
code is scanned using an infrared sensor. These shirt pocket scanners cost
between $240 and $640 each depending on the type required. We estimate that the
Department could purchase 70 such devices, recharger-readers and necessary
software for between $20,000 and $50,000, depending upon the configuration of
equipment chosen. The higher priced system would permit investigators to
directly enter information, such as odometer readings, and would provide a
visual display of any information entered or scanned. The lower priced system
would not provide either of these features. Costs have not been determined for the
ongoing replacement and maintenance of the proposed equipment. However,
assnming that such costs approximate ten percent annually, the total cost after
initial start-up should not exceed $2,000 to $5,000 each year.
The Department has recently purchased microcomputers which would be
suitable for processing the data collected with this system. In addition, other
applications for this computer could be developed. For example, analysis of
caseload weighting (discussed in Section VI) could be conducted more efficiently
and regularly with a microcomputer. An inventory and check-out log for the
Division's equipment could be developed using the bar code scanner system.
Vacation scheduling, sick leave records and other personnel management
systems could be developed using standard microcomputer systems. The
responsibility for these various routine clerical data compilation functions could
be transferred from the Division's Lieutenants to the clerical staff.
It should be noted that no time-keeping system is completely accurate.
Fixed time clocks and time-keeping procedures at companies can be intentionally
abused, as can other systems. Employees who spend a considerable amount of
their work day in field activities have even greater opportunity to abuse time-
keeping systems.
It is clear that the current system for collecting, monitoring and analyzing
investigator time is supervision intense. Based on our review and analysis of data
discussed in Section VI, the benefits resulting from these efforts also appear
marginal. With a real time system for collecting this information and
appropriate monitoring and analysis of the information collected, the Department
would be better able to identify abuses and evaluate productivity of their
employees.
-85-
a
o
Conclumon
The Investigation Division expends a considerable amount of its
investigator, supervisor and management resources recording, compiling and
analyzing time and mileage information. The data is not recorded or compiled in
a manner that allows for me"ningful analyses. As a result, the validity of the
data and any analysis of the data currently conducted by the Department is
suspect. The Department's new mainframe computer system, DMS, which will
be operational in 1990, will provide certain investigation case-time information
processing capability but will not solve the problems associated with gathering
and compiling time and mileage data.
New technology is available which could automate the gathering of the
Investigators' case-time and auto-mileage data, compile the data into reports and
transfer the data into the DMS system for additional compilation and reference to
individual case files, and provide a record of activity for all Division activities.
This technology involves bar codes and the devices to read or scan them,
eliminating the need for a clerical staff person to manually enter the case-time
information into the computer system.
Recommendationc;
The Public Defender should:
IX. 1 Direct Department Data Systems staff to conduct a detailed evaluation of
scanning devices, recharger-readers and computer software to
determine the configuration which would be most suitable for the
compilation and analysis of case, time and mileage information by the
Investigation Division;
IX.2 Request that the Board of Supervisors authorize funding for the purchase
of the recommended scsonning system;
IX.3 Direct Administrative Services staff to develop and circulate a Request for
Proposals to receive competitive bids for the purchase of the proposed
system, or utilize other approved County procedures for soliciting
estimates and negotiating purchase agreements with vendors identified
by the Data Systems staff;
IX.4 Direct the Assistant Public Defender, Special Services to coordinate the
selection and purchase of the recommended equipment, and to develop
procedures on utilization of the devices and analysis of collected data.
-86-
o
o
Costsl&nefit<;
The cost of the recommended scanner system, recharger-readers and
associated software would cost between $20,000 and $50,000 depending on the
specific configuration chosen by the Department. Ongoing costs for replacement
and maintenance of the equipment was not determined. However, if such costs
approximate ten percent annually, such costs should not exceed $2,000 to $5,000
per year. The case, time and mileage records maintained by the Division would
be improved. The Division would reduce the amount of clerical staff time
necessary to enter information into the DMS system, and would reduce
ml:lnagement and supervisory staff time currently expended compiling and
analyzing information. collected by the Investigators. The analytical capability of
the Division would be enhanced.
-87-
(j 0
-
SECTION X: COMPTON INVESTIGATION
CONTRACT
THE COMPTON BRANCH OFFICE IS THE
ONLY LOCATION WHERE THE PUBLIC
DEFENDER CONTRACTS WITH A PRIVATE
FIRM FOR INVESTIGATIVE SERVICES.
ROUTINE ASSIGNMENTS ARE COMPLETED
BY THE CONTRACT INVESTIGATORS IN A
SATISFACTORY MANNER. HOWEVER,
COMPLETION OF ASSIGNMENTS WHICH
ARE MORE COMPLEX COULD BE
IMPROVED. THE AUDITOR-CONTROLLER
AND THE DEPARTMENT SHOULD
ESTABLISH A PROCESS TO EVALUATE
THESE CONTRACT SERVICES FOR BOTH
COST EFFECTIVENESS AND QUALITY.
UNLESS CLEAR BENEFITS CAN BE
ACHIEVED FROM CONTRACTING, THE
CONTRACT SHOULD BE ELIMINATED AND
SERVICES PROVIDED BY DEPARTMENT
STAFF.
The Compton Public Defender's Office replaced staff investigators with
contract investigators in April, 1988 through a temporary contract with a private
investigation firm. The firm has eight investigators who perform County
investigations exclusively under the corporation's investigation license issued by
the State. However, only the. firm's 2 partners, who do not directly perform
investigations but review the work of the investigators, are licensed by the State.
In February, 1989, the Board of Supervisors approved a new amended contract
which activated the first one year option included in the temporary contract.
The contract currently authorizes the County to pay the contractor $23.63
per hour for investigative staff, an increase of $1.13 per hour, or 5%, over the
original contract. It also authorizes a new rate of $11.81 per hour for special
administrative work (regular clerical filing and related services are paid as part
of the $23.63 rate). In addition, the original contract included an annual cap of
$250,000. The new contract eliminates this annual limit.
Unlike fixed County staffing, which limits the availability of investigative
services based on the number of authorized and assigned staff, the contractor may
now utilize as many investigators as he determines is necessary to complete
investigative tasks requested by Compton attorneys (although the Compton
attorneys approve the number of investigators assigned to a case). Without a
dollar limitation on the contract, the County has lost much budgetary control over
the cost of services in' Compton.
-88-
o
o
We interviewed many of the Public Defender attorneys at the Compton office
regarding the quality of investigative. services that are provided by the contractor.
Initially, we were informed by the Head Deputy Public Defender that the attorneys
were very satisfied with the services being provided by the contractor. However,
as the interviews with trial attorneys proceeded, the overriding comments from
the vast majority were that the service was not satisfactory and required major
modifications in order to result in acceptable services. It became clear from later
discussions with the Head Deputy, that the concerns of his staff had not been
effectively communicated to him so that his perception of the service quality was
not consistent with his staff's. Some examples of attorney dissatisfaction are as
follows:
· Although the contract investigators have a police background, their
experience is generally not in detective work. Also, the contract
investigators tend not to have the amount of police or related experience
found with the County sta1L Thus, the investigators are not prepared to
provide the professional level of investigative work required by the
attorneys. According to one of the investigation firm's partners, the
firm has no formal trA;n;1'\g program, but employees are encouraged to
pursue further education.
. When less complex assignments are given to the investigators, the
investigators perform the work in an acceptable, timely manner.
However, as assignments become more complex, or require ingenuity,
the quality of the work decreases. The result is that the attorneys believe
they must write long, very detailed instructions for an assignment or do
field work themselves. Some indicated that they must often re-open an
investigation request to have the contract investigator complete
appropriate follow-up work.
However, the attorneys do not believe that contracting for investigative
services is better or worse than having staff investigators. The attorneys believe
there are negative and positive aspects of each. Some examples are as follows:
· The contract investigator's office is many miles from Compton, while in
other branch offices the staff investigator offices are typically in close
proximity to the attorneys. Attorneys state that when the staff
investigators were in the office, it was much easier to ask them
informally about the status of the investigation, or to discuss the case to
explain case strategy or expand on aspects of the investigation request.
. The contract investigators generally do not work after normal hours as
much as the staff investigators did. This can affect the quality and
success of an investigation, since witnesses often cannot be contacted
during normal working hours.
-89-
o
o
. The contract investigators are more responsive than former staff
investigators. Staff investigators, who had their own organization unit,
tended to set their own schedule and priorities which were not always
consistent with those of the attorneys. Thus, attorneys often felt
frustrated about getting investigations accomplished in a timely
manner.
· Many of the attorneys believe that the requirement for both contract and
staff investigators to have experience as a police officer is not necessary.
For example, persons with experience working for federal agencies
such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation would not qualify for an
investigator position with the contractor unless they had prior police
officer experience. The attorneys believe that intelligent, trained people
could do the work in a professional, timely manner. .
It should be noted that many attorneys who had been at the Compton Office
for a number of years expressed dissatisfaction with investigation services at that
location whether they were provided by contract or staff investigators. Part of the
reasoning given for this was that the Compton area is a very difficult part of the
County in which to perform investigations. Crimes are often of a very serious
nature, individuals can be unCOOperative and difficult to locate, and certain areas
within the Court service area can be extremely dangerous to enter. As a result,
the investigative success rate can be low and seemingly simple tasks can often
involve extensive effort to accomplish.
Because the Department has not developed a process for evaluating the
quality and productivity of contractor m: in-house staff, a valid analysis comparing
the cost and quality of contract services to those provided by the Investigation
Division cannot be made.' Although the Investigation Division provided the
m..n..gement audit staff with an analysis which shows that contractor services
are more costly on a per case basis than staff services, it could not be determined
whether the basis of the comparison is valid. No reliable data on the
comparability of case load or other factors affecting productivity and costs in .the
Compton area were considered.
It is not reasonable to contract for services unless there is a clear benefit to
the County. Typically, government jurisdictions contract for one of three reasons:
because they receive a comparable or higher quality service at a lower cost; they
require expertise not possessed by their own staff; or, they require services to
supplement the acdvities of their own staff due to fluctuations in workload or
difficulties recruiting personnel. Clearly the County has the expertise to provide
services in the Compton area, and has not had workload or recruitment
difficulties which require supplemental services. Based on the information
available, it cannot be determined whether Compton is receiving a comparable or
higher level of service through the contract compared with when County staff had
performed the function. Certainly, based on the testimony of most attorneys at the
-90-
o
o
Branch, services are not acceptable at this time. Further, without a clear
understanding of the complexity of investigation requests at Compton compared
with County operated investigation units, a valid analysis of the costs and benefits
of the contract cannot be made.
Department management indicated to us during the study that the
Compton Branch Office was chosen as the location for the contract because of its
operating ch~racteristics: It serves a well defined geographic area and
population center and operates from only one court facility. As a result, the
Compton Branch investigation services unit could be easily severed from other
investigation operations within the Department.
However, lTUlnRgement has also indicated that they reluctantly agreed to
contracting when the concept was suggested and approved by the Board of
Supervisors. Consequently, Department 1111,"sgement decided not to involve itself
directly in any analysis or assessment of the operation for fear that if the results
were negative, it could be ~lR;111ed that the Department was not being impartial.
As a result, no comprehensive analysis of contract services has occurred.
Further, because the Department has not taken .an aggressive role in mRn'lging
the investigation contract, the contract has not been incorporated sufficiently into
the overall investigation 111l:lnagement structure.
The Department and the Auditor-Controller should develop a process for
evaluating the contract by incorporating it into the workload and performance
measurement mechanisms discussed in Sections ill and VI of this report.
Specifically, attorney investigation rating systems should be developed and
implemented at Compton for the contractor, and an investigation weighting
process should be util;,..ed to collect data on case characteristics.
Further, an Investigation Section Assistant MRnlJger position, discussed in
Section I, should be charged with direct responsibility for monitoring contractor
activities and compliance with the weighting procedures, recommended above,
and should be assigned to this function along with the Head Deputy at the
Compton Office. Once six months of reliable data has been collected, the Auditor-
Controller should conduct a complete assessment of contractor performance.
Based on the results of this assessment, recommendations should be developed to
either discontinue services and replace them with County staff, continue services
at their present level or expand the contract to include additional service units.
-91-
{'I
"",,w
o
('.-onclusion
The Department should contract for services if it results in a cost savings or
an improved level of service. Based on the information available, it cannot be
determined whether the contract investigation services at the Department's
Compton branch office is producing either of these results. According to of the
most attorneys at the Branch, services are not acceptable at this time. However,
without reliable data on the comparability of caseload or other factors affecting the
productivity of the contractor compared to in-house staff, a valid analysis of the
costs and benefits of the contract cannot be made.
Recoounendation<;
The Public Defender should.:
X.l Develop specificationS to tighten controls on contract activities and costs,
and to permit me<>n;ngful analysis of contractor-performance;
.L2 Develop a process, with the Auditor-Controller, for evaluating the contract
by incorporating it. into the workload and performance measurement
mechanisms discussed in Sections ill and VI of this report;
x.a Develop and implement an attorney investigation rating mechanism at
Compton for the contractor;
X.4 Utilize an investigation weighting proCess to collect data on contractor case
characteristics;
X.5 Charge an Investigation Section Assistant Manager position, discussed in
Section I, with direct responsibility for monitoring contractor activities and
compliance with the weighting procedures implemented by the
Department;
X.6 Once six months of reliable data has been collected, request that the
Auditor-Controller conduct a complete assessment of contractor
performance;
X. 7 Based on the results of this assessment, develop recommendations to either
discontinue services, continue services at their present level or expand the
contract to include additional service units;
x.s Immediately begin negotiations with the contractor to modify the contract,
establishing a contract limit for the current contract year;
)(.9 Send the amended contract to the Board of Supervisors for approval once the
contract limit and amended specifications have been agreed upon.
-92-
o
o
("AlStslBene6t<;
No additional costs would result from implementing these
recommendations. A clear understanding of the costs and benefits from
contracting for investigation services would be obtained. A contract limit would
be established for the current contract year, potentially limiting costs to the
County.
-93-
c
o
o
o
SECTION XI:
STATE REIMBURSEMENT
FOR CERTAIN MURDER
CASES
DURING FY 1987-88 THE PUBLIC
DEFENDER WAS REIMBURSED
$325,364 BY THE STATE FOR COURT-
ORDERED EXPENSES OF INDIGENT
DEFENDANTS IN CAPITAL CASES
PURSUANT TO PENAL CODE SECTION
987.9. HOWEVER,AS A RESULT OF
INCORRECTLY COMPUTING THE
HOURLY COST OF EMPLOYEES, USING
A SINGLE AVERAGE EMPLOYEE
BENEFIT RATE, NOT CLAIMING ALL
SECRETARIAL AND PARALEGAL HOURS
AND NOT CLAIMING OVERTIME HOURS,
THE COUNTY HAS NOT RECEIVED FULL
REIMBURSEMENT OF ITS COSTS.. BY
DEVELOPING AND IMPLEMENTING
IMPROVED ACCOUNTING PROCEDURES
THE PUBLIC DEFENDER COULD
REALIZE INCREASED COST
REIMBURSEMENT ESTIMATED TO
AMOUNT TO AT LEAST $61,073
ANNUALL Y.
Section 987.9 of the Penal Code (PC) provides the authority for the State to
reimburse counties for certain costs related to the defense of indigent clients
charged with certain capital offenses. Such costs must be considered reasonably
necessary by the court for the preparation or presentation of the defense and
includes the cost of investigators, experts and others. Cases qualifying for
reimbursement include:
· First degree murder (death penalty) capital cases;
· Second degree murder, where the defendant has served a prior prison
term for murder in the first or second degree.
During FY 1987-88, the Department reported that it received State
reimbursements for PC 987.9 costs amounting to $325,364. The review process to
evaluate the Department's claiming procedures included:
. Interviews with investigative staff who prepare and submit claim
information to the Accounting Division;
. Interviews with accounting staff who prepare and transmit the claims
to the State;
-94-
o
o
. Interviews with personnel and payroll staff who provide employee
hourly cost information;
. Interviews with Chief Adm;nistrative Officer (CAO) staff who determine
budget allocations of certain County-wide fringe benefit costs to each
department;
· Interviews with CAo.Risk Insurance Management Agency staff who
compile actual costs for unemployment insurance benefits, workers'
compensation, retiree insurance, retirement debt service and long-term
disability for each County department;
. Interviews with Superior Court accounting staff who prepare PC 987.9
claims for the Court; .
· Review.of claims documents submitted to the State Controller's Office,
State regulations for submission of claims, the Public Defender's FY
1988-89 Indirect Cost Proposal and the Auditor-Controller's Indirect
Cost Proposal Preparation Guide.
Based on these interviews 'and review of records, it was determined that certain
costs were not being correctly calculated, fully claimed or claimed in a m..nner
that would result in the greatest reimbursement for the County. These issues are
discussed below:
Comuumtion ofF.mploveP. Homiy:Rat-
Employee hourly rates are computed upon request by the Personnel and
Payroll Division for staff preparing reimbursement cost affidavit forms for
submission to court and the State. Payroll staff compute hourly rates of employees
by dividing the employee's annual salary at the time of the request by 2,088 paid
hours in a year. Although this methodology is correct for payroll purposes, it
results in an understatement of the Department's cost when determining
reimbursement rates. This understatement results from the employee being
compensated for holidays, vacation, sick leave, jury duty, military leave and other
paid time off. The State Controller's PC 987.9 cl..;.n;ng regulations provide for
counties to compute hourly rates based on 1,800 annual productive hours, or the
actual productive hourly rate if computed (see page 21 of State Regulations in
Appendix 7). The Auditor-Controller periodically computes the County-wide
average number of productive work hours per employee to assist departments in
preparing bills for services provided. The current average annual number of
productive hours per employee is 1,788. The computation of hourly rates based on
1,788 hours per year results in a 16.78 percent increase over rates computed
using a standard of 2,088 hours per year.
-95-
o
o
Comnlltation ofF.mnlovee IWnefit ('A)!;js
State regulations provide counties with alternative methods of computing
employee fringe benefit costs. The preferred option is to determine the actual cost for
each employee. Alternatively, counties can compute single or multiple average
employee fringe benefit rates. Currently, the Department annually computes a
single average employee fringe benefit rate for all employees. The FY 1988-89 rate is
24.17 percent after adjustment downward by 0.11 percent for prior year
overestimates. Due to the fact that a significant number of employees in the
Department are attorneys who earn significantly higher wages than do the
investigators, secretaries and paralegals and due to the fact that some fringe benefit
costs are fixed dollar amounts per employee, the computation of an average benefit
rate per employee results in an understatement of actual costs for lower paid
employees and an overstatement of costs for higher paid employees. An analysis of
the actual benefit costs for a sample of investigators, secretaries and paralegals is
shown in Table XL1. A small sample of FY 1988-89 attorney fringe benefit costs was
analyzed to confirm the lower average fringe benefit percentage anticipated for this
employee group. The average rate for the attorneys was 2.18 percent to 4.64 percent
less than the rates shown in Table XU for investigators, Secretaries and paralegals.
Table XLI
Analysis of Fringe Benefit Costs
By Rm"lovee C1A",..;fi....fion
F.mnlovee Frin_ RAnAfit Investi~t.n"" ~""n~ Paralemtls
Retirement $8,29LOB $3,575.54 $3,628.64
Health 2,310.00 :, . '-1,130.00 1,230.00
Dental 180.76 130.12 200.48
Life Insurance 0.00 5.76 10.05
Accidental Death 0.00 5.25 9.00
Thrift Plan 84.99 6L80 0.00
Savings Plan 0.00 127.16 854.01
Workers' Compensation 659.11 286.22 367.85
Unemployment Insurance 4.51 3.28 4.10
Long Term Disability 86.90 37.74 48.50
Retiree Insurance 630.85 458.80 573.50
Retirement Debt Service 48299 201.0.') 258.39
Total Monthly Fringe Benefit Cost $12,71L19 $6,022.71 $7,184.53
Total Monthly Salary $46,999.00 $20,409.00 $26,230.00
Average Fringe Benefit Rate 27.05% 29.51% 27.39%
FY 1988-89 Departmental Average
Fringe Benefit Rate presently submitted
to the State 24.28%
Understatement of Fringe Benefit Rate 2.77%
24.28%
24.28%
5.23%
3.11%
-96 -
~.
\. !
o
As Table XLI shows, by using the single average methodology of calculating
employee fringe benefit costs, the actual costs for employee groups which can be
claimed for reimbursement is understated by from 2.77 percent to 5.23 percent.
JdPnfifiNltion of Hours to he Chdmed
Based on a sample of 50 claims submitted to the State Controller in FY 1987-
88 and FY 1988-89, it was determined that all eligible hours are not being claimed.
Although investigator hours were claimed in all 50 cases sampled, not one hour
of overtime was claimed by investigators, secretaries or paralegals. Secretaries
claimed hours for only 37 of the 50 sampled cases and paralegals claimed hours
for only 5 of the 50 cases. The sample also showed the distribution of costs d..;med
to be as follows:
Investigator salaries $ 73,789 45.10%
Secretary salaries 6,683 4.08
Paralegal salaries 15,499 9.47
Other costs 67.6.')3 ~
Total $163,625 100.00%
Because secretarial effort including typing of reports, preparation of
Reimbursement Cost Affidavit Forms and other duties is required on every case,
the amounts claimed have been understated by an amount which could be
projected based on amounts claimed in the 37 cases where secretarial hours were
reported. Assnm;ng that secretarial effort in the 13 cases which did not include
any.reported secretarial hours was proportionate to the level of effort reported in
the other 37 cases, unclaimed secretarial costs would amount to $1,213. Paralegal
hours, however, were reported in only five of fifty cases sampled and showed
widely varying amounts of effort in those cases. Therefore, unreported paralegal
hours cannot be estimated, but could be significant based on the substantial costs
involved in the few cases. that were reported. Three of the cases which included
paralegal costs included paralegal salaries which ranged from $4,096 to $6,477.
E.c;titns:1ltM Pntp!nti1l1 Additions:tl ~l1A
Based on the reported revenues collected in FY 1987-88 and the distribution
of costs from the cases sampled, it is possible to estimate the potential increase in
revenue which could be realized by implementing improved accounting and
operating procedures. Such procedures would include submission of consolidated
claims for each case by the Investigations Division; verification of hourly rates
and overtime hours by the Accounting Division; and computation of average
fringe benefit rates for each of the three classifications of employees by the
Accounting Division. Based upon the existing level of claim activity, the Public
Defender could realize an estimated $61,073 annually by implementing the
recommended improvements in claim development and preparation procedures.
To the extent that the dollar amount of claims increase or decrease in future
years, the potential benefit from these procedures would increase or decrease
proportionately.
-97-
o
o
Proiected Reimbursement Usin...
Cun-ent Proposed
J>rorpj!ures J>rorpj!IIn><::
. Investigator salaries $146,739 $146,739
-16.78% hourly rate adj. 0 24,623
-Fringe benefits@ 24.17% 35,467 0
-Fringe benefits@ 26.94%(27.05-0.11) . 0 46.165
-Subtotal 182,206 217,5Z1
-Overhead costs @ 38.64% 70.404 84.052
-Total $252,610 $301,579
. Secretary salaries $ 13,275 $ 13,275
-16.78% hourly rate adj 0 2,228
-Fringe benefits@24.17% 3,209 0
-Fringe benefits @ 29.40% (29.51-0.11) 0 ~
-Subtotal 16,484 20,061
-Overhead costs @ 38.64% ~ 'J.:J1jZ
-Total .$ 22,853 .$ 27 ,813
. Paralegal salaries $ 30,812 $ 30,812
-16.78% hourly rate adj. 0 5,170
-Fringe benefits @ 24.17% 7,447 0
-Fringe benefits @ 27.28% (27.39-0.11) 0 jW.6.
-Subtotal 38,259 45,798
-Overhead costs @ 38.64% 14.783 17.696
-Total .$ 53,042 .$ 63,494
. Fully cl..;.n secretarial hours '$ 0 $ 1,416
. Fully claim paralegal hours 0 undetermined
. Claim overtime hours 0 undetermined
Combined Total $328.505'1 ~'J02
Increased claim 0 $ 65.,7~
Projected Increased Revenue @92.820/<h $ 61,073
a The combined total amount exceeds the actual FY 1987 -as revenue amount used as a base in this
analysis as a result of increases in the fringe benefit rate and overhead rate for FY 1988-89. The
FY 1988-87 rates were 23.576% and 26.82% compared with rates of 24.17% and 38.64% for FY
1988-89.
b The projected revenue resulting from claims submitted to the State is based on a sample of 25
cases submitted in FY 1987-88. These cases resulted in reimbursements equivalent to 92.82% of
the amount claimed.
-98-
o
o
('AlncllL<;ion<;
The Public Defender has in place a comprehensive set of procedures to
collect, report and submit cost information to the State relative to the provisions of
Penal Code Section 987.9 pertaining to the defense of indigent clients. However,
the Department has not maximized its reimbursements dt!-e to the methodology it
has used to calculate certain costs and its inability to fully capture all eligible
costs. The alleviation of these problems would result in increased revenues
estimated to amount to at least $61,073 annually.
RAt-nmmAndation~
The Public Defender should:
XI. I Change the methodology used to compute employee hourly rates from
2,088 annual paid hours to 1,788 annual productive hours, or as
otherwise is appropriate based on periodic computations by the Auditor-
Controller;
XI.2 Change the methodology used to compute employee fringe benefits from
the single average employee benefit rate method to average employee
benefit rate by classification for the three classifications of employees
which can be claimed to the State for reimbursement;
XI.3 Develop operating procedures to ensure that all secretarial, paralegal
and overtime hours are identified and claimed at the appropriate hourly
rates.
Crnm::IR......6.ts
No additional costs would be incurred from implementing these
recommendations. Implementation would result in increased revenues
estimated to amount to at least $61,073 annually.
-99-
N
-
o
...
<II
el
m
0.
III
C
~
-
m
"0
C
<II
E
E
o
U
III <II
Ola:
:>
c~
Ol"O
> :>
;:.<
-
-.;c
C Ol
o E
=<11
T'"':c a
_"Cc
~<~
E"O_
.cCO
UCII
CII ... C
:: 0.2
<..Em
i;E
en~
iii<ll
0-
o~
-
o E
:-,0
~ ..
CII-
Eel
E C
::J=
en :>
III
Ol
a:
'" C
:00_
"C_1Il
.2:00
"Coo
co.
~1Il
_ el
III C
0-
O~
-en
"0'
Ol'
Ill'
0-
a....
20
0.0
^
<II
"0-
"O.!!
<<II
c
v
...
III
"OCII
OlO
III
o C
a.o
2=
o."iij
o
0.
-,
C,
<11-
.. ...
:;0
00
^
<II
:gCii
<<II
c
v
III
III
_.!!!
co
Ol
.. C
.. 0
:>=
o"iij
o
0.
elC
CO
=0=
C U
_<II
U.en
o
..-000>......(")(")
to 0 lDt--.CO v
C\l(\l~O<>>,......
------
(\I"""OO<OMO
t--.<DlOlOlt) v
~
10
- 0)10(")(0
to 10(")0)0')
C\lO~o~~
& 0)0)('1')......
,.... 1OC\lU)CI)
-
coG)t.C) <:)
0......10 a)
o(\l~~oo "":
":<00 10
<0.....0) C\I
...N ...
.....0(\11000
~ '"
CD Ol
"C al_
e: c=_
CD "0 m
Em ::E....
EGJ 00
8:I:-ccuGi
cQ)asCJ)CJ)
CDOO_;;
a:_CGO')(I)CI)
_oCC;;CDCIJ
OGJa:lcn>>
2en::E<-=-=
...co....
100....
C\lC\I~o
. -....
N........
.... co
...
C') co
co co
~~
C')...
It) co
^ ^ ^
......C')
v v v
^ ^
... (\/
v v
!!l
~
- c
~ --t8~
o en-- tn
- Cii g 2 ~~
5-ma:sc.......
.."x o 0",= C\I
cw=-=u.r.>.
~Q)cn(l) ~
::Jc CD Q)(I)
Q)0>>:3
~z..!:=a::
c
. .!!!
Q;.~
- '"
.e",
0<
------
co
...
0>
C')
.
....
co
~
...
(\/
...
m
-
.0
- -
o .
GJD
en:>
en
M 0
" 0
.... 0
00
" M
~
(\/co
....C')
O>"!.
'co
~(\I
...:;.
...
co
M
0>
co
10
o
o
00
o
10
...
co
010
"C
<c
.. ..
00
Ciias
0l0l
;';:
(I) III
GJCD
> >
-SE
0>
co
0>
o
....
It)
(\I" C')
....co co
"!.C") co
(\I .
co'" 0>
...(\1 "
^
co
v
^ ^
.". ...
V V
!!l
-~
. c ~
~Q):::.o
-....m .......
o ::.,
(00)0
_ 0 Q) .
me....
CJ) U) "0:: C\I
-= '" U. r.>.
",CD "'"
Q)C(/)-
> .":: :J
c:>-
->0.
>>
-100-
co
co
(\/
0>
It)
....
It)
o
.".
>~
o
-
- .
OD.
<II:>
en en
o
.".
(\I
co
C')
.".
It)
....
It)
o
0>
...
o
It)
0>
0>
...
.".
C')
(\/
o
^
It)
v
>.1Il
- :D'g
Ol_-
2m>
ent1l
N
C')
~
It)
N
...
co
...
01
01
....
....
...
...
...
co
co
::
It)
o
co
...
cD
el
m
a.
^
...
....
-
><
Ol
C
C
o
III
Ol
:>
c
=
c
o
o
Ol
:0
..
I-
v
'"
-
o
'"
Gl
Ol
ClI
a..
Ol
C
~
-
ClI
't:J
C
Gl
E
E
o
()
Ol Gl
Gla:
::I
c:!::
Gl't:J
> ::I
Gl<
a:
-
c
Gl
E
Gl
Ol
C
'"
:E
'"
c
~
...:!::
't:J
-'t:J
g<
E't:J_
.cCo
()ClI
"'OlC
::: 0.2
<..5<<;
>-
ClI C
enGl
_E
Ol Gl
0-
oE
oE
>.0
... ...
",-
EOl
E.:
::I:!::
en::l
Ol
Gl
a:
~Ol
-Ol
Ol C
0-
0>
_ClI
en
't:J.
Gl.
Ol.
0-
CoOl
f 0
a.. 0
-.
c.
Gl_
... Ol
:;0
00
OlC
C 0
-0-
E~
11. en
o
>
>0
olSm0 en
Ol ::I
"'cEoGl
en ._ ->
> 0 '"
'" ... Gl
en - 0..
'"
-
()-
Gl Gl
enz
'"
M
'"
en
'"
...
<D
M
m
m
,..
,..
...
co
<D
...
'"
Gl
'"
'"
o
en
o
co
...
...
Gl
-0
...
::I
:;;
c
'"
-
...
Gl
o
...
o
-
-
C
Gl
E
Gl
'"
...
:>
.Q
E
Gl
a:
x ~
.0
-:;:
~:o
00-0
<{
M
,..
~
...
<D
...
~o
- -
() ..
Gl 0
000
-101-
o
o
o
o
en
~
g
~
Gl
Gl
.:.:
Gl
E
j::
't:l
~
'"
E
o
-
:>
<l:
00
w
~
z
w
>
w
a:
....I
<{
Z
o
E
c
c
<{
c
z
<{
00
Cl
~
>
<{
00
....I
<{
t-
O
t-
o
en
o
M
<D
M
...
Gl
C
c:
o
'"
...
CD
a..
~8.
c: 0
:> ()
0'"
0.0
>0.2.
.Q-o
-oGl
Gl c:
.5~
E~
CD ...
en -c:
~ .g 0
.$ CD -0
'" .0 CD
'" '"
. -0 '"
~::::_..c
cn<<S::J<<o
a;tnoQ)
c_ 3: c
"c-9
::JQJCU-
..CJ ~.a :
CDCI)::IO,,-
iUa()<{CD
CDCU- .0
-~J2-=o
(ij> -..-
O cu(f') <<S_
=a-.!!Ciia;
Q,lasmo:Q)
E~<ii::E~
c-Cl):r:_
o~"C 5
~u!!~:::
- CD
C Oi OJ "C en
Q)C"OQ)~
~;:::J-m
,,-cu.o<<S_
a. - E '"
(I) CI) CD ': (I)
C - ()) CI)_
OCD<<Ja>c
:>... CD
~o~~E
[caC:Scocu
c c (ij OJ
~ 0 0 (I) ~
-g -0 -0 0 E'"
_alma
0(1)(1)0_
cctSca --
-mmg<l:
.... ~..
..: Q)
. : '0
: z
o
o
Attachment 2
Defendant
Attorney
Charge
Invest.igat.ion U
Invest:igat.or
Date Opened
BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION - CASE TIME SIIEET
~
8
cu en en
.e ): ): en en
O'W-l cu cu cu <<I 0
Date "'E-< E .... -... c cu~ Remarks
cu ..... ., ..... CU> > CU'O oi1
0 ., cu en '0 ., ..... en U ~ '0 ~ ocu '"
.... cu ~ cu>cu cu..... ~ "'~ .... cu ..... cu a.> ~~.
k::~ :1 Eole >cu cu ...,:1 ....... CU..., .t:l~
0.... ~.... c.... > 00 ...c ....c :1CU
OE-< UE-< E-<E-< ....e.. 0 E-<X 0>-< C&.>-< ClHIl ::E(Jl
..
-
--
.
-
761SS2N . {REv. 10.8Bl
-102-
("'.
-,
o
Attacllnent 3,
LOS ANCELES COUNTY PUBLIC OEreNDER
INVESTICATOR DAILY WORK SHEET
Inv4'!:lcigatoc
D4C~
I
rime of Arrival! Locac.ion Activity lnv. No. " Case Name
I
0800 I
I
0830 o. I - ---
-
0900 I
I . .
0930 :0
I
1000 I
1030 I
1100 I
1130 I
1200 I
1230 I
1300
1330 I
I -
1400
1430
1500 I
1530 I
1600 I
1630 I
1700
Recognizing the importance of thie document. undersigned has checked it tor
accuracy to the beat of my ability.
Gcade III lov.
Date
Acting Le./Lt.
Date
A.saiatant Chief
Date
POI-IOII-88
~1n.,
Attachment 4
o
o
INVESTIGATION STATISTICAL RECORDS
~ocation: MASTER
;'lonth & Y.ear: JIPRII.. 1989
CASES
HOURS
AVERAGE
!
. 270 1119 n d 1
i H&S
. 459 PC & RSP 107 d77.0. 4.0 .
I
I
I 211 PC & Dl.CL 204 652.5 3.2
i 751 5 4 0 .
j GT/A & VC 63
l l.l
! GT 13 4l ~
,
, ADl. & ASSAULT 134 ~ld~n 4 6
! 6.3
288 PC & MORALS 43 272 . 5
FORGERY & CNSF 1 1.0 1.0
STAT. /; FORC.
RAPE 18 R7_n 45
187 PC 218 1962.0 9.0
MISC. 96 314.5 3.3
MISD. 628 7177.5 3.5
DEPT. 95 208 SIR.n 2.5
TOTAL 2003 8431.0 4.2
CASES OPENED:
1106
CASES CLOSED:
1125
PENDING CASES:
604
NUMBER OF
INVESTIGATORS:
49.5
CASES PER
INVESTIGATOR:
22.3
ADJUSTED CASES
PER INVESTIGATOR:
Rev. 1/89
pnT-?04-RA
-104-
o
(
)
/'
.~
\
\
~
C';,
/
.'
,..-
..' ./
.- ./
-/,. ......
- /'
. ,
\/-
..//'
\:..../
-.
-',
.-
/
o
Attachment S
POLICY MANUAL
OF TIlE
,
.-
"
-'.../
.-
INVESTIGllTOR'S DIVIS lOll
COOK COUlITY PUBLIC DEFENDER' S OFFICE .
,
AtLaCl1ment :,.
o
o
(.
TABLE OF COllTEllTS
I. INTRODUCTION. .
.. ... ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
1
1.1: Purpose of Cook County Public Defender's Office 1
1.2: History and Description of the Public Defender's
Office . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.3: Purpose of Policy Manual .
2
1.4: Distribution. .
3
a. Supplements . .
3
b. Return of Manual
3
1.5: Policy Questions. .
. . .
3
II. GENERAL PERSO~NEL POLICIES
. . .
4
2.1:' General Employment Principles
4
a.
Employment Categories
. . .
4
c..
b.
Recruitcent
.. .. .. .. .. ..
4
2.2: Recruiting and Hiring Procedures.
4
<
a. Pre-employment Procedures
4
b. Offers of Employcent
5
2.3: New Employees
,
5
2.4: Probation Period.
5
a. Length of Probationary Period
5
b. During Probation
5
c. Probation End
2.5: Termination of Probationary Employee
6
2.6: Reassignment Probation
6
.. .. .. ..
6
2.7: Release of Reassignment Probationer
6
<-
III. PERFORl1ANCE EVALUATION AND PROHOTION . .
7
-.
-106-
(
(
IV.
c.
(')
Attachment 5.
o
3.1: Perforcance Policy. . .
a. Performance Standards
(1) Investigative Skills
(2) Attitude, Adaptability and Productivity .
(3) Reporting Skills ...........
(4) Effectiveness of Personal Interactions
(5) Supervisory Perforcance Standards
3.3: Changes in Employment Responsibilities. .
a. Prol:lotions
b. Del:lotions .
c. Reclassification of Positions
. . .
. . .
,
d. Upg=ading of Positions
.3.4: PerforuanceMonitoring . .
3.5:. Seci-Annual Performance Evaluations
3.6: Discretionary' 'Performance Evaluation
3.7: Perforoance Review with Employee
J.8: Effects of SUbstandard Rating
. . .
3.9: Prol:lotional.Evaluation
. . .
. .
3.10: Retreat to Former Position
POSITlml CLASSIFICATIONS AIID PAY RATES
4.1: Entry Rate. . .
. . . . . .
4.2: Applicability of Step Rates
4.3: Step Advancement
4.4: Existing Rates.
4.5: Transfers or Changes of Position
a. Transfers between County Offices
--
-107 -
7
7
7
8
9
9
10
12
12
13
13
13
14
14
14
14
15
15
15
16
16
16
16
16
17
l7
o
()
(
b. Transfers within the CCPO
17
4.6: Promotion Policy. . . . .
17
4.7: ReemploymentjReinstatement Rates
18
4.8: Salary Increases. . . . .
18
4.9: Part-Time and Temporary Employees
. .
18
a. Computation of Salaries of Part-Time Employees 19
V. GENERAL ItNESTIGATIVE OFFICE POLICIES
20
5.1: Office Hours
. . . . .
. . . . .
20
5.2: Overtime and Emergency Work Hours
20
5.3: Personal Arpearance Standards
20 -
5.4: Attendance.
20
5.5: Absence fro~ Office
20
5.6: Unauthorized Absence
21
f
'-
5.7: Conduct
21
a. Business Conduct
21
.
b. Conduct Regarding Use of
Conputer Hard~arejSoftyare
,
21
c. General Conduct of Employees
22
. -
5.8: Securi~y and Confidentialiy
22
5.9: Conflicts of Interest
23
5.10: outside Employcent
23
VI. DISCIPLINE POLICY
24
6.1: Scope
24
6.2: Attendance
24
6.3: Behavior.
25
6.4: Performance
26
l
6.5: Types and Progression of Discipline
26
-108-
,-...
(
a. Oral Notice . .
b. written Notice
c. Pay Reduction
d. Disciplinary Demotions
e. Suspension
6.6: Discharge
6.7: Adoinistrative Review Policy
VII.
BENEFITS
..........
7.1: Designation of Holidays
7.2: sic}: Leave . .
7.3: Vacation Leave' .
7.4: Perso:lal Days
7.5: Health Insurance
( 7.6: Life Insurance .
7.7: Pension Plan .
~
< 7.8: Disability Benefits
a. Ordinary Disability Benefits
b. Duty Disability Benefits
7.9: Eoployees Assistance Program
7.10: Military Leave
7.11: Excused Absence with Pay
a. Funeral Leave
b. Jury Duty . .
c. Convention Delegates
7.12: Excused absence without pay
l
7.13: Requests for Leave
-109-
o
Attachment S'
- . . . . . . .
. . .
27
27
27
28
28
28
28
30
30.
30
31
33
34
34
34
34
35
36
37
37
38
38
38
38
39
39
Attachment S
o
o
\.. 7.14: Compensatory Time and/or Overtine Compensation 39
7.15: Leaves of Absence . . . . 40
7.16: Return From Leaves of Absence .. . -.." 40
.
~
7.17: Maternity/Paternity Leave of Absence . . . . 40
7.18: Supplemental Temporary Total Disability -" 41
7.19: Personnel Records . . . . . . . . . . 42
7.20: Continuing Education . . . . 42
7.21: Compensation During Attendance at Seminars
Outside Meetings and Educational Meeting
Activities . . . . . . . .
43
VIII. EI-1PLOYHEI-lT SEPARATIOlI
44
8.1: Resignations
. . . . . . . .
44
8.2: Layoff . .
44
r
\...
8.3: Discharge
44
8.4: Checkout Upon Employcent Separation
44
IX. UTILIZATIOll OF IllVESTIGATOR REPORTI::G
,
...
9.1: Requests for Investigations
9.2: Reply to Investigation Requests.
.9.3: State~ent of Witness.
46
46
. . .
46
9.4: Daily Activity Report
46
9.5: Expense Vouchers
47
9.6: Time Due Form
47
9.7: Requests for Vacation, Personal or Time Due
47
9.8: Statistical Reporting
. . . . .
. . . .
47
c
-110-
(:;VERSIOE COUNTY
PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE
o
Attachment 6,
INVESTIGATIONS BUREAU
POLICY FOR TilE USE OF FIREARMS ON DUTY
Policy Letter
June 4, 1985
Public Defender Investigators are ~ law enforcement 'officers as
defined in Penal Code S8JO.l, so, those investigators who do not
have peace officer status, and who for personal protection reasons
deem it necessary to carry a concealed weapon, must conform to the
provisions of Penal code S12050.
Penal Code 512050 provides for the issuance of a license to carry
a concealed pistol, revolver, or other firearm. . . [providing]
"that good cause exists for the issu~nce". Licenses issued to
investigators of this department are issued for .self-protection"
while on duty.
It will be the policy of 'the department that ca=ryir.g.a cvl'lce:alcd
weapon with a lice~se, will be limited to special circumsta~ces
. -- -
where an investigator is on o~~icial du~y and believes that he is
in grave danger and that normal protec~ion is not available to
him so he must provide his own protection, and where he has obtained
the express written consent of the Public Defender, or, in his
absence, the Assistant Public Defender.
The use of deadly force with a concealed weapon by an investigator
wilt be limited to a situation where a reasonable and prudent person
believes that without the use of deadly force he will be killed or
seriously injured. The use of deadly force or firing.a weapon at an
assailant will be a last resort action by the investigator.
Weapons will not be drawn or displayed to intimidate unarmed hostile
persons. Investigators are not obliged to stand up to dangerous
confrontations. A strategic retreat is usually the sensible course
to take in dangerous situations. An investigator, having civilian
ATTACHMENT "D"
-111-
policy
Use of
Page 2
6/4/85
Letter
Firearms on Duty
o
()
'-'
status, is not obliged to pursue and arrest persons merely hostile
or verbally'~busive to him.
In summing up this Department's shooting policy - "shoot only if
your life depends on it."
MICHAEL B. LEWIS'
Public Defender
J?d~
ToR. BURS ELL
Chief Investigator
-112-
r"""I
"- .'
o
Attachment 7
:
-
.
'REIMBURSEMENT FOR COURT-ORDERED EXPENSES
,
OF INDIGENT DEFENDANTS IN CAPITAL CASES
UNDER
PENA.L CODE SECTION 987.9
GRAY DAVIS
State Controller
September 1, 1988
-113-
o
o
<DSTS o:::MFUI7ITIOO
~. IAaR <DSTS
A county may claim allowable direct: labor costs if sud1 CXlSts ~
r."oe""~ry md can be &paCifically identified to the l-'L'-':IL...... Dizect:Labor
costs cx:nsist of twO . . "\ .one.nts, direct: labor and enployer's frin;Je benefits
VoA.Lt:ibuticn.
~. Y..lY'Jr - noot"PnII;ne a ProdJ.x:tive Hourlv Rate
A produc:t:ive hourly rate may be <:xa1PJted for each jcb title \dlOGe labor is
directly related to the C'J",i""""" reimbursable cost. A o:urt:y has the opticn of
us~ any of the follawi.rq:
o AcbJalllI1OOa1 productive how:s f= each jcb title,
o ;.ihe o!I1ti.ty's a-re..-age a.~ pro:xilr...iva hocrs or, for siDplicity,
o .1.n annual average of 1800* how:s to o:Ilp.rt:e the productive hourly
rate.
:If acb.la1annual prcducti.ve boor.; are chosen, she\.' the factors affecting total
boor.; \oIOrlced.
.'
'!he foll~ Jrethcd is used to convert a bi\oleekly sal.aIy to an equivalent
Rroductive hourly rate for a 40 hour \leek.
(Biweekly Salaxy x 26)/1800* = F.quivale.nt Productive Hourly Rate
If, for exanple, the sal.aIy f= a partio1lar jcb title was $935.00 bi\oleekly,
the equivalent prcducti.ve hourly rate would be: .
($935 x 26)/1800* = $13.51 Fqui.vale.nt Prcrluctive Hourly Rate
'Ihe same Jrethodo1ogy may be used to convert weekly, .lIOllthly or other salaxy
periods:
o o:rnrert the salaxy to anannual.' rate.
o Divide by the allowable annual. productive how:s for that position.
*1800 annual prcrl1x:tive how:s in::lu:ie:
o Paid holidays
o Vacation earned
o sick leave taken
o Informal time off
o Jury duty
o Military leave taken.
-114-
("'\
o
o
,:)
A'ITACHMENT 8
Survey Iustnunent and Quantitative Results of
OCh.erJuri.wction Survey
Public Df>.IeodP.1" find Other Tndil!'ellt 1)pj"P.INP. Offices
1) Please provide the following general information regarding your
organization: (average)
Number of Attorneys
Number of Investigators
Number of Paralegals
Number of Process .Servers
Current Year Authorized Budget
119.6
27.Ji
9.2
LO
$11.336.137
(See last page of this attachment for average staffing ratios derived (rom above
data.)
2) Please provide a copy of your current office-wide Ol"gl'n;7.atiOn chart showing
the organizational placement of investigative staff. If investigation functions
as a separate division, please provide a detailed organization chart at that
level.
3) Please provide a copy of the table of contents from any 'formal p9licies and
procedures manuals or employee handbooks which conceminvestigation
operations. . ~
4) Please indicate if you provide investigation services for the following indigent
defense case types: (# responding yes)
Adult Criminal
Death penalty (if applicable) 10
OfuerMur&r ~
Other Felony 13
Misdemeanor 13
Traffic Misdemeanor 11
Juvenile
Criminal
Dependency
13
~
Mental Health
Conservatorship
Other Mental Health
9
~
-115-
("',
o
Attachment 8 .
.GiY:ii
General Civil
Other
1
1
Please describe anv other tvues of cases for which investil!ation services are
urovided
5) Please provide attorney caseload statistics for your office for your most recent
full fiscal year, segregated by category of offense [i.e. Death penalty (if
applicable), other murder, other felony, general misdemeanors and traffic
offenses].
6) Please provide investigator caseload statistics for your office for your most
recent full fiscal year, segregated by categories of offense which most closely
correspond with attorney caseload statistics.
7) Are your investigators managed directly by attorney staff? (# responses)
Yes 5
No 9
Please describe any advantages or disadvantages you believe result from this
attorneylinvestigator relationship.
8) Please describe the process used to assign investigator cases and to monitor
their progress and report completion. Indicate whether this process is
computer assisted.
-116-
o
J
9) Please provide position descriptions for all investigator classifications
(including managers and supervisors) utilized by your office. If paralegals or
other more generic. categories of staff are used for investigation, or if
investigation services are provided exclusively by contract, please describe
below.
10) Please provide the current number of authorized and actual investigator
positions for your office (attach budget summary documents or indicate
below).
Average Authorized 40.0
Average Actual 33.4
11) If any investigation services are provided by contract, please indicate the
nature and extent of these services, below.
Please provide the name, title and telephone number of the person responsible
for administering these contracts.
Name
Title
Phone <--J
12) Has your office developed standards for conducting criminal investigations
and reporting the results of such investigations to attorney staff? If yes, please
indicate whether these standards have been formalized in a procedure
manual, hand-book or similar document for your investigators and
supervisors to utilize. (It responses)
Yes
No
10
3
Formalized 5
Please provide the name and telephone number of the representative from
your office most familiar with these standards.
Name
Title
Phone (~
-117-
c
o
Please provide a copy of these written standards, if formalized.
13) Briefly describe any information utilized by investigation managers to monitor
field activity of investigators (i.e. field activity logs, radio logs, case logs,
mileage claims or vehicle logs, beepers or pagers, etc.)?
14) Has your office developed a methodology for determining investigator staffing
requirements based on complexity of case assignments, demographic and
geographic considerations, reporting requirements or otl.ter factors? (##
responses) .
Yes 3
No 9
If yes, please describe this methodology briefly below.
Please provide the name and telephone number of the representative from
your office most familiar with this methodology.
Name
Title
Phone L-->
15) Does your office have any data processing capability for tracking investigator
case progress, producing investigation management reports, compiling costs
for investigation services or other purposes? (# responses)
Yes 5
No 7
-118-
o
:)
If yel?, please describe these systems below.
......
Please provide the name and telephone number of the representative from
your office most familiar with these systems.
Name
Title
Phone <-.J
16) Do your investigators carry firearms? (II responses)
Yes 1
No 12
If yes, please describe any restrictions which may apply towards investigators
carrying firearms. Also, please describe any minimum training
requirements related to investigators carrying firearms, which'may apply.
17) Please list below any other trAining (including in-service training) which your
investigators. .receive. Indicate whether this training is mandatory or
available as an option to investigators. Also, please indicate whether other
formal education benefits, tuition/conference reimbursement or education
leave-with-pay is provided to your investigation staff.
Type
Type
Type
Type
Type
Type
Mandatory
Mandatory
Mandatory
Mandatory
Mandatory
Mandatory
-119-
~
o
Other
Surveys Sent Out: 16
# Responses: 14 (87.5%)
Surveys were sent to the following jurisdictions:
Alameda County
Contra Costa County
Cook County (Chicago)
Dade County (Miami)
New York (Legal Aid Society) *
Maricopa County (Phoenix)
Multnomah County (Portland)
Orange County
Philadelphia <Defender Association of Philadelphia)
Riverside County
Sacramento County
San Bernardino County
San Diego County
San Francisco City and County *
Santa Clara County
Ventura County
* No response from this jurisdiction
'-]20-
o
.....
, ...J
AveI:8ge Staffing Ratios Based on Data Provided in Survey of Other
Jurisdictions:
AttorneyslInvestigators 4.7
Attorneys/Paralegal 27.1
AttorneyslInvestigattors & Paralegals 3.7
-121-
,-.
--
o
Survey Instrument and
Quantitative Results of
Investigator Survey
A'ITACHMENT 9
To:
All Investigators
Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation, Management
Auditors
From:
Subject:
Surveyoflnvesti~tors
Date:
April 28, 1989
As part of our m"n"gement audit of the Investigation Division, we
are interested in getting as much input from Investigators as possible on
the operations and m"n"gement of the division. Please take a few minutes
to fill out this survey form and mail it to us in the attached self-addressed,
self-stamped envelope. If you need more room for your answers, feel free to
write on the back of these sheets or. attach additional sheets of paper. All
responses will be treated confidentially, so please be candid.
On a randomly selected basis, we will be interviewing some of you
and accompanying you in the field during the next few weeks. If we have
not contacted you and you wish to talk to us in person, please call us at (213)
625-5003 and we will set up a time and place to meet with you at your
convenience.
Thank you for your assistance.
1. What are the most important elements of Investigation Requests
prepared by department attorneys? (percent of responses to each
element)
Very Somewhat Not
ImDortant ImDortant ImDortant
a) Attorney of record's description
of case 67% 30% 3%
b) Police report and court
documents attached 94% 6% 0%
c) Detailed description of defense
strategy being used in case by
attorney of record 64% 36% 0%
d) Names of people to
contact and specific questions
to ask them 88% 12% 0%
-122-
o
..:)
1. (cant'd)
Not Very Somewhat
ImDortant Imoortant Imoortant
0% 97% 3%
3% 91% 6%
e) Adresses of people to contact
o Sufficient lead time before trial
date
g) Opportunity to talk with attorney
about case while it is being
worked
6%
58%
36%
h) Other factors (please list): (varrous factors listed)
2. Do the Investigation Requests prepared by the attorneys generally
include enough background material to provide a sufficient
understanding of the case and other factors affecting the investigation
(i.e., attorney strategy)?
~ Yes
~ No
If NO, please explain: (Qualitiative answers provided)
3. How did you learn to conduct investigations?
91% Formal law enforcement training
27% Previous non-law enforcement training
.lir2Q Formal in-house training provided by the department
-123-
o 0
3. (cont' d)
~ Professional training paid for by the department
ilQ2Q On the job training in the Investigations Division
Other (describe)
4. Do you think that investigation training in the department is adequate?
~ Yes
~ No
4.a. What type of additional investigator training courses would be useful?
(percentage of respondents listing each area)
Investigation techniques .fi1JQ
Technological developments that
can be used in investigations
(e.g., computers) ~
Police officer training (e.g., POST) ~
Report writing ~
Safety training 55%
Supervising co-workers 58%
Dealing with conflict ~
Other (please specify):
5. In your opinion, what are the elements of a good investigation?
(qualitiative responses tabulated by auditors)
-124-
o
.:)
6. Do you usually talk to the attorney of record while you are working a
case?
~Yes
12% No
6.a. If YES, do you contact them or do they contact.you?
~ I usually contact them.
~ They usually contact me.
~ Sometimes I contact them and sometimes they
contact me.
7. Do you usually hear the results of the cases you've worked on or get any
other feedback from the attorneys of record after you've completed your
investigations?
~Yes
82% No
7.a. If NO, would it be beneficial to your work to get more feedback from the
- attorneys?
~Yes
~No
~ Doesn't matter
8. As security measures, do you think that Investigators should be
allowed to carry firearms or travel to certain areas in pairs?
~ No
Carry firearms
~
3%
Travel in pairs
~
15%
9. What are the most productive hours of the day for you to conduct
investigations? (qualitiative responses tabulated by auditors)
-125-
o
o
10. Do' you sometimes work on cases before 8 a.m., after 5 p.m. or on the
weekends?
42% Frequently
~ Occasionally
;r&. Never
1O.a. Do you believe your productivity could be increased if the department
permitted greater time flexibility for conducting investigations?
m.%. Yes
.....a2'QNo
11. Have you been provided a copy of or access to the Investigation Division's
policies and procedures manual?
~ Yes
91% No
ll.a. If YES, is the manual adequate in your opinion?
9% Yes
No
12. Please provide your assessment of the level of supervision and
management control currently provided in the Investigations Division.
(qualitiative respolUJe8 tabulated by auditors)
13. If you were the Chief, how would you monitor the Investigators to make
sure they were using their time well? (qualitiative responses tabulated
by auditors)
-126-
o
"""
....,I
14. Are the Division's criteria for promotions clear and appropriate?
'JQJQ Yes
lJ}2Q No
.~
15. Have you ever worked in a branch office?
~ Yes
.lil1Q No
15.a. If YES, how would you compare branch offices to Central?(qualitiative
responses tabulated by auditors}
16. Please add any other pertinent comments about the Division here, if you
wish. (qualitiative responses tabulated by auditors)
Optional Questions
17. Please describe your background in the Investigations Division (other
positions and locations) as well as any previous positions held.
-127-
o
o
Optional Questions (ClOned)
18. Name
Thank you for completing this survey. Please drop it in the mail in the self-
addressed, self-stamped envelope when completed.
Please return by May 12,1989. Thank you.
Surveys sent out: 61 (all Lieutenants, Investigator Ills and Investigator
lIs)
# Responses:
33 (54%)
-128-
o
()
Survey Instrument and
Quantitative Results of
AttorneySurvey
ATIACHMENTIO
To:
Attorneys
Harvey M. RoseAooountancy CorPoration, Management
Auditors
From:
SuIVect:
Attorney Questionnaire Regarding Investigations Division
Date:
April 28, 1989
As part of our management audit of the Investigations Division, we
are interested in receiving comments from department attorneys regarding
the department's Investigations services. Please take a few minutes to fill
out this survey form and return it to us by May 12, 1989 c/o Ken Green's
office, Room 19-818 in theCrim;nl;ll Courts Building. If you need more
room for your answers, feel free to write on the back of these sheets or
attach additional sheets of paper. All responses will be treated
confidentially, so please be candid. If you have any questions about the
management audit or this survey, please feel free to call Fred Brousseau of
the Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation at (213) 625-5003.
1. In what division of the department do you work?
2. Do you request Investigation Division services:
46% Frequently.
38% Sometimes.
16% Seldom or never.
2.a. If SELDOM OR NEVER, is that because of the types of cases you handle
or for other reasons?
45% Types of cases
55% Other reasons
If OTHER REASONS, please specify:
-129-
o
o
OTHER REASONS (coot'd)
3. Please briefly describe what you believe to be the role of the Investigations
Division in the Public Defender's Office.(qualitative a1l$lpers- tabulated by
auditors)
4. Please rank the following characteristics of investigations according to
their importance to you.
(Percentages of responses to each characteristic)
Very Somewhat Not
Tmnorbmt Tmnorbn'lt Tmnorblnt
a) Timeliness 90% 10% 0%
b} Completeness 97% 3% 0%
c) Investigator takes initiative
and performs additional
tasks useful to the case. 62% 35% 2%
d) Investigator contacts me
at tM outset of the investigation
to discuss the case. 23% 55% 22%
e) Investigator contacts me
during the investigation
to discuss the case. 44% 54% 2%
0 Investigator understands
what I am trying to
accomplish and performs
accordingly. 97% 3% 0%
-130-
o
C)
g) Other factors (please list):
5. Please rate your actual experience with the Investigations Division
according to the following criteria. Please feel free to add other criteria at
the end of the list. {Percentages of responses to each characteristic}
Usuallv Sometimes Never
a) Reports are submitted
on a timely basis. 73% 27% 0%
b) Reports are complete. 63% 37% 0%
c) Investigators take initiative
and perform additional
tasks useful to the case. 20% 76% 5%
d) Investigator contacts me
at the outset of the investigation
to discuss the case. 10% 70% 19%
e) Investigator contacts me
during the investigation
to discuss the case. 23% 72% 5%
f) I contact Investigator
during case work and we
discuss the case. 24% 74% 1%
-131-
o
o
g) Investigation makes a
significant difference
in the outcome of the case.
Usuallv Sometimes
Never
36%
63%
1%
h) Other factors:
----------------------
------
----------------------
----------------------
------
----------------------
----------------------
----------------------
6. Do you find variation in the quality of investigation work performed
depending on the investigator assigned?
88% Yes
12% No
7. Is the law enforcement background of investigators helpful in your
opinion?
...:....,;,-
71% Yes
19% No
10% Other (added by respondents)
7.a. If YES, which of the following characteristics are helpful? (feel free to
add others at the end of the list). (percentage of times mentiorred by
respondents.)
-
59% The investigators are "street smart".
53% The investigators have useful contacts in law enforcement
agencies.
35% The investigators are able to safely accomplish their work
in dangerous areas.
30% The investigators can serve as "devi!'s advocates" by
lending a law enforcement perspective to the case.
. -132-
,.
o
:J
22% Other reasons (Please specify):
8. How did you learn to prepare an Investigation Request form?
(percentage of times mentioned by resporuknts.)
66% Department training
39% Other attorneys on staff
36% Devised my own system
9% Department procedures manual
24% Other (please specify) :
9. What role do you play, if any, in evaluating the performance.ofthe
investigators?
(qualitative answers tabulated by auditors)
9.a. Do you think it would be desirable for attorneys to playa greater role in
evaluating investigator performance?
71% Yes
29% No
10. Please add any other pertinent comments about the Division here, if you
wish.
-133-
,'I
o
o
Optional Questions
Position
Years with department Avera!!'e = ] 1.99 vears
I would like to be contacted to discuss these and other matters
related to investigation services. My name and phone number
are:
Name:
Phone:
Thank you for completing this questionnaire. Please return it to:
Management Auditors
c/o Mr. Ken Green
Bureau Chief, Branch and Area Offices
Law Offices
County Public Defender
Room 19-818
Criminal Courts Building
Surveys sent out: 115
# Responses:
86 (75%)
-134-
o
o
Attachment 11
LA W OFFICES
LOS ANGELES COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDEH
WILBUR F. LITTLEFIELD
PUOlIC OEfENOEfl
VAN NUYS BRANCH OFFICE
14400 ERWIN STREET MALL
10TH FLOOR
VAN NUYS. CAUFORNIA 91401
TELEPHONE: (8181374-2350
August 23, 1989
Mr. Stephen Foti
Project Manager
Harvey M. Rose
Accountancy Corporation
1390 Market Street, Ste. 1025
San Francisco, CA 94102
SUBJECT: Management Audit
of
Public Defender Investigations
Dear Steve:
This. is the response of the Department of the Public
Defender to the Management Audit Report on Public Defender
Investigations prepared by the Harvey M. Rose Accountancy
Corporation. The Department wishes to express its appreciation to
the entire staff of the Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation
for the dedication and thoroughness which staff members brought
to this task. Your report is a comprehensive document which
addresses all areas of concern had by Departmental management
with respect to its Investigations Unit. We are confident that
your work and your findings will result in substantial
improvements to our Investigation Unit and an improvement to our
investigation work product. For the sake of simplicity, I will
make our comments in the order in which the subject matter
appears in your report.
-135-
o
o
steve Foti
Page 2
August 23, 1989
In Section One, your report addresses the issue of
organizational alignment of the Investigations Unit. The report
recommends that the Investigations Office which serves the
Central Superior Court Trials Division be divided into teams
which correspond to attorney trials sections. The Department has
reservations about this approach based on what we believe would
be difficulty in maintaining a balanced caseload among
investigators. Different attorneys produce investigation work in
differing amounts and the ability to spread this work over a
larger number of investigators assures flexibility in maintaining
even investigator caseloads. The Department will take a careful
look at this recommendation during the implementation phase. One
pOSsibility is that we will attempt a pilot project to determine
the efficacy of this approach.
In Section One under the heading Manaqement structure
and the subheading Division Status and Upper Manaqement Structure
you address the lines of authority between Investigation managers
and Departmental managers. You note that the Department has
reservations about Investigators answering directly to an
Assistant Public Defender~ The Depa~ent.s reservations are
based on its experience over the past seven months with
supervision of Investigations, on the findings of your report and
on an analysis of the Department's current structure. Attached
you wU.l find an organization chart which reflects the
organizational structure of the Special Services Bureau as
recommended in your report. Please note that under this structure
the Assistant Public Defender for Special Services will have
answering to him a Division Chief, two Head Deputies and the Head
of Investigations. In addition, the Assistant Public Defender for
Special Services has direct line responsibility for three
departmental functions. We believe that this is too great a span
of authority .for a high level manager to undertake. In addition,
since December of 1988, the role of the Chief of Investigations
has been carried out by a Departmental Bureau Chief. In order to
successfully implement those changes undertaken by the Department
before your audit began, this Bureau Chief dedicated more than
-136-
..
o
Q
steve Foti
Page 3
August 23, 1989
half of his time to investigations work. The result was that he
had to substantially reduce the amount of time he could spend on
work within his own Bureau. This effected a substantial detriment
to the Department. We believe that this kind of distortion of the
span of cOlllllland of high level managers is inadvisable. There
continues to be a need for an individual with sufficient time and
a sufficiently narrow span of authority to directly oversee the
work of Departmental investigators. In our view, one of the
causes of the problems found in our Investigations Unit was an
overly broad span of authority required of Departmental attorney
supervisors. A structure in which an Assistant Public Defender
would have line responsibility for a unit as large as
Investigations would continue this pattern.
In Section One under the subheading Mid-Level
Manaaement you recommend a change in the title for investigation
supervisors. We would prefer to use titles other than Manager and
Assistant Manager.
'In Section Two you note that problems inuring to the
decentralization of the juvenile investigation staff could be
ameliorated by assigning specific investigators with juvenile
experience to each location. There are insufficient numbers of
investigators with such experience to accomplish this. Most of
these problems could be addressed by training of investigators.
As you are aware, the Department has already established a
training function for investigators which would be used to assist
in this area.
Section Eight of your report addresses a new job
classification of Investigator Aide. The Department disagrees
with this recommendation and is opposed to its implementation. We
have three reasons for this. First, there is no need to create
such a new classification and, in our view, it would not save
money. Already existing job classifications such as Investigator
I, Paralegal and Witness Coordinator could handle many of the
-137-
<:')
o
..
steve Foti
Page 4
August 23, 1989
discreet tasks which you recommend be undertaken by an
Investigator Aide. Further, culling out such tasks from the
overall caseload would require a substantial amount of management
overhead which does not currently exist. Also, Investigator Aides
would probably not possess sufficient expertise to follow up on
leads developed while they were conducting such tasks. Our second
reason is that we fully support the County's policY and Chief
Administrative Office's recommendations against the creation of
new employment classifications. This is an issue pertaining to
personnel management within the context of the County of Los
Angeles. Third, a classification of Investigator Aide would not
meet the statutory requirements of a Public Defender
Investigator. Though having fewer powers than a peace officer, a
Public Defender Investigator has unusual and peculiar authority.
For example, a Public Defender Investigator has power to sign and
issue subpoenas for the attendance of witnesses.
In Section Nine the report describes and recommends the
use of automated timekeeping devices commonly referred to as "bar
code readers". The Department lacks confidence in this
suggestion. Though the use of automatic record keeping mechanisms
is an approach, we do not see it as a significant advance from or
advantage over manual timekeeping mechanisms. In addition, it is
as simple to misuse an automated timekeeping device as it is to
misQse a manual one. Such a device provides no assurance to the
Department that miscreants or malingerers would not continue to
take advantage. As noted in your report the vast majority of
Public Defender Investigation personnel are hard working,
dedicated and productive employees. For those who are not, the
Department has undertaken a variety of measures over the past few
months which it believes are effective and completely adequate.
Further, we are not convinced that such devices are cost
effective. Like other County departments, we operate under a
tight budget. Our capital expenditures must be made at the time
of purchase and may not be spread over the device's useful life.
-138-
.
,.....,
, .
v
w
, '\
'-'
steve Foti
Page 5
August 23, 1989
Further, it does not appear to us that this is a proven
technology for our purposes. We are unaware of any other defender
program which has implemented such devices. Given the cost of
purchase, replacement and maintenance of the bar code readers and
necessary computers, we do not believe that this is a cost
effective approach to the problem.
This response, by its nature, focuses on problem areas
and areas of disagreement which we have found in your audit
report. You should not take from that we are dissatisfied with
your work or with the report. We are committed to undertaking
every effort to improve the effectiveness and service delivery of
our Investigation Unit with the assistance of your audit report.
Again, thank you for your efforts.
Defender
cc: Wilbur F. Littlefield, Public Defender
J. Tyler Mc Cauley, Chief Audit Division
Maria M. Oms, Chief Accountant-Auditor
Enclosure
DM:tc
-139-
^ 0
'.-" ,
.
Q~ ~~
'" -
-. p~
~:I ~ff
-'" ?':I
0'" 0'" ~~
!"~ -0'"
!"~ _0
-'"
, 'B:J:
, gf!
0>
;;::I
~~ =>'"
0'"
~:- ~~
:o:I :o:I -0'
.2l 0 .2l'" !"
::>
g~ g~
, ,
..
.'
.:J:
;g~ .
.... <DO
x. :<D
0 -< O'C
3 , .> ~-c
!!. ~ .1<
'" -0
'" ::> lL'
-
0 '"
'" co '"
'"
. . .st
en en
-c.c;
:s ",'
.-....
o ."t>
-co
"U . fI\>.~
r-
co ~ :0 ,....
, ~ :I:r <()
co -0
~ 0 ., ~~ ~~
<D c:
c;; , ;::: -0 ::>
>'" => :reD B-
0 '" co g-g ..,
"< -....
- :;-<
"U r- ,.,:J:
0 0 f? r- !!8.
3 '" ,., 0
CCl
0 3 !ll '" :00
CD
'" B -0 - "U ,2.g
Q) - 8-
0 '" -c:
:T '" " , 0_
<l> "'-<
:::J c...
lil CO
< _.
<l><
:r::::J _.
g -.<1>
.------ ( CD c)"
,.I.", ;::.........~
:T:Io
I r- I ~:J: (!)::>"
Q) l!a :::J -
I :::J I "U _<l>
~ Q) => Q) .....
I I ~ 00 (n
I ~ -< ",0
- I ,2.g
I CD I 3
, :::J ~ Q) - c:
~_...J Q) 0_
, =>-<