Table of Contents

General Information

Inside Front Cover

Members of the 2006- 2007 Kern County Grand Jury

Photograph of 2006- 2007 Kern County Grand Jury

Presiding Judge for the Superior Court, Assistant Presiding Judge

Support Staff

Officers of the Grand Jury

Grand Jury Foreman John Mainland

Grand Jury Foreman’s Letter to the Judge

Grand Jurors’ Oath

Formal Statement of Position 2006- 2007 Kern County Grand Jury

Board of Supervisor’s Proclamation

Oversight Responsibilities of the Grand Jury Committees

2006- 2007 Kern County Grand Jury Organization and Committees Chart

Administration and Audit Committee

Mission Statement

Summary of Year’s Work

Kern Council of Governments

Kern County Elections System

Response

Response by Board of Supervisors ( Web site only)

Grand Jury Letter ( Web site only)

Kern County Mental Health Department ( Revenue Collections)

Response by Board of Supervisors

Kern County Personnel Department and Civil Service Commission

Response by Personnel Department

Response by Board of Supervisors ( Web site only)

Kern County Resource Management Agency, Roads Department

Response by Board of Supervisors ( Web site only)

Cities and Joint Powers Committee

Mission Statement

Summary of Year’s Work

Arvin Community Services District

Response

City of Arvin

City of Bakersfield

Response ( Web site only)

City of California City

City of Delano

City of Maricopa

Response

City of McFarland

Response

City of Ridgecrest

Response ( Web site only)

City of Shafter

Response

City of Taft - 1

Response

City of Taft - 2

Response

City of Tehachapi

Wasco Recreation and Park District

Response ( Web site only)

City of Wasco

City of Wasco Perceived Brown Act Violation ( Web site only)

Response ( Web site only)

Housing Authority of the County of Kern

Wasco Housing Authority

Government Code Section 1099 ( Web site only)

County Services and Special Districts Committee

Mission Statement

Summary of Year’s Work

The Glennville Groundwater Situation

Response by Board of Supervisors ( Web site only)

Lamont Public Utilities District ( Web site only)

Response ( Web site only)

Response - Amended ( Web site only)

Kern County Children and Families Commission

( First 5 Kern) ( Web site only)

Health, Education, and Social Services Committee

Mission Statement

Summary of Year’s Work

Bakersfield City School District ( Web site only)

Response ( Web site only)

Bakersfield City School District Department of Food Services

Caesar Chavez High School

El Tejon Unified School District

Response ( Web site only)

Environmental Health Services Department

Response

Response by Board of Supervisors ( Web site only)

Kern County Department of Aging and Adult Services

Response by Board of Supervisors ( Web site only)

Law and Justice Committee

Mission Statement

Summary of Year’s Work

Arvin Police Department

Response ( Web site only)

Bear Valley Springs Police Department

California Correctional Institution

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Medical Facility at

Mercy Hospital

Camp Erwin Owen

Central Valley Modified Community Correctional Facility

Delano Community Correctional Facility

Response

Delano Police Department

James G. Bowles Juvenile Hall

Response by Board of Supervisors

Kern County District Attorney’s Office Forensic Science Division

Response

Response by Board of Supervisors

Kern County Probation Department Adult Field Services Division

Response by Board of Supervisors

Kern County Probation Department Juvenile Field Services Division

Response by Board of Supervisors

Kern County Public Defender ( Web site only)

Kern County Sheriff’s Office ( Web site only)

Response ( Web site only)

Response by Board of Supervisors ( Web site only)

Kern County Sheriff’s Department Central Receiving Facility

Response

Response by Board of Supervisors

Kern County Sheriff’s Office Coroner/ Public Administrators Division

Response by Board of Supervisors ( Web site only)

Kern Valley State Prison

Larry J. Rhoades Kern Crossroads Facility

Maricopa Police Department

McFarland Community Correctional Facility

Response

Mesa Verde Community Correctional Facility

Response

North Kern State Prison

Shafter Community Correctional Facility

Response

Stallion Springs Police Department

Taft Community Correctional Facility

Response

Taft Correctional Institution

Wasco State Prison Reception Center

AD HOC COMMITTEE

Mission Statement

Summary

Bakersfield Police Department Traffic Division

Response ( Web site only)

Kern County Waste Management Department and City of Bakersfield

Department of Public Works, Solid Waste and Recycling Division

Response by Board of Supervisors

City Response ( Web site only)

Kern County Fire Department Emergency Medical Services

Planning Department Development Moratorium ( Web site only)

PUBLIC RELATIONS COMMITTEE

Mission Statement

Public Relations Summary

List of Speakers

CONTINUITY AND TRACKING COMMITTEE

Continuity Mission Statement

Summary

Tracking Mission Statement

Tracking Summary

Tracking 1

Tracking 2

OPERATIONS:

Edit Mission Statement

Edit Summary

Final Report Mission Statement

Final Report Summary

Library Mission Statement

Library Summary

2006- 2007

Kern County Grand Jury

Name Terms Served City Nominating Judge

Duquette, Doris A. 2006- 2007 Bakersfield Richard Oberholzer

Gardiner, Robert J. 2006- 2007

2005- 2006 Bakersfield Arthur E. Wallace

Granucci, Peter 2006- 2007 Bakersfield Lee P. Felice

Haymaker, Stanley W. 2006- 2007 Bakersfield Gary T. Friedman

Heath, Bridget 2006- 2007 Tehachapi Michael B. Lewis

1994- 1995

1996- 1997

Jackson, Donna 2006- 2007 Kernville Michael G. Bush

Macy, Richard 2006- 2007 Bakersfield Gary T. Friedman

Mainland, John 2006- 2007 Bakersfield Lee P. Felice

2004- 2005

McCarthy, Michael S. 2006- 2007 Shafter Michael B. Lewis

McDougle, Bill R. 2006- 2007 Bakersfield Michael G. Bush

Miller, Lois 2006- 2007 Bakersfield Gary T. Friedman

2005- 2006

Mitchell, Dennis 2006- 2007 Bakersfield Richard Oberholzer

Pilkington, Bill 2006- 2007 Bakersfield Michael B. Bush

Porter, Guy 2006- 2007 Bakersfield Richard Oberholzer

Ramsdell, Bonnie 2006- 2007 Bakersfield Arthur E. Wallace

Richardson, Ruth A. 2006- 2007 Bakersfield Michael B. Lewis

Walker, Lawrence J. 2006- 2007 Bakersfield Richard Oberholzer

Yurkes, George 2006- 2007 Bakersfield Lee P. Felice

Also served:

Ost, David, 2006 Bakersfield Gary T. Friedman

2006- 2007 KERN COUNTY GRAND JURY

Back row: Michael McCarthy, Bonnie Ramsdell, Bridget Heath, Donna Jackson, Lois

Miller, Bill McDougle, Peter Granucci, Stanley Haymaker, Guy Porter, George Yurkas,

Foreman, John Mainland; Front Row: Robert Gardiner, Bill Pilkington, F. Richard Macy,

Dennis Mitchell, Lawrence Walker, Ruth Richardson, Doris Duquette

ADVISOR JUDGES

Honorable Jerold L. Turner

Presiding Judge

Honorable Lee P. Felice

Assistant Presiding Judge

SUPPORT STAFF

Bernard C. Barmann, Sr. Steven M. Katz, Supervising Allan Rogers, Investigator

County Counsel Deputy District Attorney District Attorney

Deanna Maxwell Lillie Davis

Sr. Office Services Specialist Grand Jury Liaison

Grand Jury Superior Court

OFFICERS

Robert Gardiner, Pro tem, Stanley Haymaker, Sgt.- at- Arms, Lois Miller, Parliamentarian, Doris Duquette,

Recording Secretary, John Mainland, Foreman, not pictured, Bridget Heath, Asst. Sgt.- at- Arms

2006- 2007 KERN COUNTY

GRAND JURY

JOHN C. MAINLAND, FOREMAN

June 21, 2007

The Honorable Jerold L. Turner

Presiding Judge

Kern County Superior Court

1415 Truxtun Avenue

Bakersfield, California 93301

Dear Judge Turner:

One year ago today, thirty- one citizens of Kern County were administered the

Grand Jury Oath. Twelve of these became alternates and nineteen were

sworn as the sitting 2006- 2007 Kern County Grand Jury.

Among the many tasks of the Grand Jury is the objective investigation of all

aspects of county government, city governments within the county and

special districts to ensure these entities are effectively managed and that our

tax dollars are handled judiciously.

All of our members have gained a better understanding and appreciation of

the Grand Jury purpose and the value of citizen volunteers.

It is understood that many people are a large part of any success this jury may

enjoy, but a special thank you goes to Mr. Barmann, County Counsel; Mr.

Katz, Deputy District Attorney; Mr. Al Rogers, Investigator; and Deanna

Maxwell, Senior Office Services Specialist.

As the Foreman, I would like to thank every member of this jury for their

hard work and enthusiasm.

Sincerely,

John C. Mainland, Foreman

2006- 2007 Kern County Grand Jury

GRAND JUROR’S OATH

“ I do solemnly swear ( affirm) that I will support

the Constitution of the United States and of the

State of California, and all laws made pursuant

to and in conformity therewith, will diligently

inquire into, and true presentment make, of all

public offenses against the people of this state,

committed or triable within this county, of which

the grand jury shall have or can obtain legal

evidence. Further, I will not disclose any

evidence brought before the grand jury, nor

anything which I or any other grand juror may

say, nor the manner in which I or any other grand

juror may have voted on any matter - before the

grand jury. I will keep the charge that will be

given to me by the court.”

Section 911, Penal Code, Amended June 2, 1983)

FORMAL STATEMENT OF POSITION

2006- 2007 KERN COUNTY GRAND JURY

Last June nineteen citizens of Kern County stood before the presiding judge of the Superior

Court and swore to uphold the Grand Juror’s Oath. These 19 citizens served over 753,000

plus residents of Kern County

All Grand Juries are independent judicial bodies. Responsibilities include investigating all

aspects of County government, Special Districts, and the cities in Kern County to ensure

that these bodies are governed effectively. To fulfill these responsibilities, the Grand Jury

may subpoena persons and/ or records to obtain information on subjects under investigation.

To protect the Constitutional rights of the parties being investigated, the Grand Jury as a

group and as individuals is sworn to complete confidentiality.

Responsibility for serving comes in many forms and must be taken seriously. Our founding

fathers warned us to keep this form of government which requires us to be vigilant and

responsible in order to preserve our society.

The jury is mainly an investigative body into any of the above mentioned areas of county

government. The Grand Jury can also function as a “ criminal” body, conducting hearings

which can lead to an indictment for the District Attorney’s office.

Any action taken during the year is to be considered official Grand Jury business and must

be approved by at least twelve of the nineteen Grand Jurors. In some instances,

investigations cannot be completed in one year so are carried over to the next jury.

The Grand Jury conducts business at a general meeting every Wednesday. The jurors are

expected to be present for committee work. Committees investigate complaints, meet with

city and county officials and visit State, County, and City facilities. All management,

revenue accounts, and records are examined to assure compliance with applicable laws

The following is a summary of how the nineteen citizens who are working together on the

2006- 2007 Grand Jury fulfilled their responsibility to the citizens of Kern County:

• Over 14,548 hours of service.

• Over 80,000 miles traveled.

• 88 Sites visited.

• 55 Final Reports written plus 5 in the process of being written and approved.

• 133 citizen complaints reviewed.

• Jurors as a whole participated in the making of a Public Service Video for future

Grand Jury recruitment to be shown in the petit jury room daily.

• Established a Grand Jury “ Hotline” for complaints and questions.

• Visited and reported on the 16 penal facilities in the County of Kern; 24 Sub-stations/

Police Departments plus eight other facilities involved in law enforcement.

• Visited and reported on the eleven city governments in Kern County.

• Visited and reported on five Special Districts in Kern County.

• Visited and reported on six Governmental Agencies in Kern County.

• Visited six school districts and health facilities in the county.

• Gave 16 public awareness presentations to various organizations.

• Participated in three hearings/ indictments for the district attorney’s office.

• Received training from the California State Grand Jury Association, the Kern

County Grand Jury Association and 40 local county leaders.

• Created and distributed over 1,500 Grand Jury Awareness brochures.

• Presented 45 Certificates of Appreciation and 10 Grand Jury Mugs to individuals,

county leaders and businesses.

• Conducted a county- wide junior and senior high school Grand Jury Essay Contest

that drew many applicants. The Awards were given on Grand Jury Awareness Day

in front of the Liberty Bell.

• Released all the Final Reports to the media and Grand Jury internet site as soon as

the reports were approved.

• Had two public displays in the Superior Courthouse building lobby showcase.

The 2006- 2007 Grand Jury has received 133 complaints from the citizens of Kern County

relating to real or perceived grievances. The Jury investigates complaints as part of its

duties. The number of complaints investigated by each committee is:

Administration and Audit Committee 5

Cities and Join Power Committee 11

Special Districts 6

Health, Education, and Social Services 27

Law and Justice Committee 82

Ad Hoc Committees 2

At the end of the Grand Jury’s year, a Final Report is presented to the presiding judge

containing all of the reports and responses that the Grand Jury has written and received.

This report concludes the duties to the court of the Grand Jury. Grand Jurors must not

disclose information obtained as Grand Jurors; disclosure is a misdemeanor.

The 2006- 2007 Kern County Grand Jury anticipates that the citizens of Kern County have

learned how a Grand Jury functions and the meaning of the Grand Juror’s Oath from

reading this report. Grand Jury service is a personally enriching experienced and a

significant public service. Applicants are recruited throughout the year at County functions,

speaking engagements, and through the Grand Jury Web Site and Hot Line

( www. co. kern. ca. us/ grandjury). The formal recruitment period is February 1 through April

15th each year. The Grand Jury encourages citizens of Kern County to apply to serve on the

Grand Jury.

OVERSIGHT RESPONSIBILITIES OF GRAND JURY COMMITTEES

BY COUNTY DEPARTMENT, AGENCY, CITY, & SPECIAL DISTRICT

ADMINISTRATION & AUDIT COUNTY SERVICES &

SPECIAL DISTRICTS

HEALTH, EDUCATION, &

SOCIAL SERVICES

LAW & JUSTICE CITIES & JOINT POWERS

Admin. Office ( CAO) Resource Mgt. Agency Aging & Adult Services District Attorney ( E) Cities

General Services Environmental Health Child Support Services D. A. Crime Lab Arvin

Construction Services Animal Control Emergency Med. Services Probation Bakersfield

Communications Engineering & Survey Employers’ Train. Resources Public Defender California City

Information Tech. Building Inspection Farm & Home Advisor Sheriff/ Coroner ( E) Delano

Insurance Programs Code Compliance Human Services Dept. Maricopa

Property Management Planning Dept. Kern Medical Center City Police Depts. McFarland

Purchasing Division Roads Dept. Libraries Jails & Prisons Ridgecrest

Revenue Sharing Prog. Mental Health Shafter

Taft

Agriculture Commissioner Parks & Rec. Dept. Public Health Dept. Tehachapi

Airports Dept. Waste Management Veterans Services Wasco

Airport Districts

Air Quality Districts Special Districts Hospital Districts Joint Powers

Assessor/ Recorder ( E) Cemetery School Districts County/ City Fire

Auditor/ Controller ( E) Comm. Service Dist. County Supt. of Schools Housing Authorities

County Clerk – Elections Irrigation Dist. Museum KernCOG

Board of Supervisors ( E) Mosquito Abatement Local Agency Form Comm.

( LAFCO)

Clerk of the Board Public Utility Districts Redevelopment Agencies

Board of Trade Park & Rec. Districts

County Counsel Resource Conservation

Risk Management Sanitation Districts

Economic Development Water Districts

GRAND JURY

OPERATIONS

COMMITTEE

Water Storage Districts Tracking

Misc. Districts Continuity/ Manual

Public Relations LIBRARY COMMITTEE

County Service Areas 2005- 2006

Training Manual

Maintain/ Update

Final Reports & Responses for

current & past Grand Juries

Personnel Dept. Lamont Recruitment

Retirement Assoc. Oildale Fair

Treasurer/ Tax Collector ( E) Rosedale Exposure

Rosamond Online

Non- Profit Corps. Edit

Final Report

Grand Jury Budget

( E) Elected 06/ 02/ 06

2006- 2007 KERN COUNTY GRAND JURY

ORGANIZATION AND COMMITTEES CHART

OFFICERS:

John C. Mainland - Foreman

Robert J. Gardiner – Foreman Pro Tem

Doris A. Duquette, Recording Secretary

Stanley W. Haymaker – Sergeant- at- Arms

Bridget Heath, Asst. Sergeant- at- Arms

Lois C. Miller – Parliamentarian

David Ost *

COMMITTEES:

Administration & Audit Operations

Finance, audits, and administration concerns Encompasses the coordination and administration of:

Robert J. Gardiner – Chairperson • Continuity

Stanley W. Haymaker Maintains contact with Board of Supervisors

Dennis Mitchell Donna Jackson

David Ost *

• Library

Cities & Joint Powers Organizes research material

Cities and Joint Powers Agency Reviews Donna Jackson

Lawrence J. Walker – Chairperson

Lois Miller • Public Relations

Bonnie Ramsdell Informs the public of the Grand Jury and its mission

Richard Macy

Special Districts Doris Duquette

Reviews Special Districts and County Services Donna Jackson

Peter Granucci – Chairperson John C. Mainland

Michael McCarthy Michael McCarthy

Bill Pilkington

Edit

• Tracking

Tracks reports and responses

Format and grammatical review of final reports and jury

correspondence

Doris A. Duquette

Bill McDougle – Chairperson

Peter Granucci

Ad Hoc

Special Investigations

Stanley W. Haymaker • Bakersfield Police Department Traffic Division

David Ost * Doris A. Duquette

Lawrence J. Walker Bonnie Ramsdell

• Curbside Recycling

Health, Education, and Social Services

Monitors health, education, and social services agencies

Stanley W. Haymaker

Donna Jackson

Bridget Heath – Chairperson Michael McCarthy

Doris A. Duquette Lawrence J. Walker

Bill McDougle • Child Support Services

George Yurkas Peter Granucci, Chairman

Doris A. Duquette

Law & Justice John C. Mainland

Investigates criminal justice agencies Michael J. McCarthy

Ruth A. Richardson - Chairperson Bill Pilkington

Stanley Haymaker Bonnie Ramsdell

Michael S. McCarthy Ruth A. Richardson

Guy Porter

Doris Duquette

* Resigned December 2006

MISSION STATEMENT

ADMINISTRATION & AUDIT COMMITTEE

The Administration and Audit Committee of the Kern County Grand Jury is responsible

for reviewing and overseeing Kern County governmental entities in their management,

performance, and execution of financial responsibilities to Kern County taxpayers. The

Committee investigates complaints from citizens who allege managerial or fiscal

irresponsibility. The Committee also assists other Grand Jury committees with

managerial and fiscal matters.

Administration and Audit Committee

Summary

The Administration and Audit Committee ( Committee) conducted five major investigations

during the year. These investigations resulted in five reports that appear in this Final Report. The

topics covered in these reports came to the attention of the Committee in various ways.

• The topic for the first report, entitled “ Kern County Elections System,” developed from

the wide- spread concern expressed by the electorate of the United States concerning the

accuracy of the results of elections held at all levels across the Country. The

investigation focused on such topics in Kern County as the design of the election

department and the processes used by that department in the conduct of elections, the

selection and use of elections techniques and equipment by the County, the selection and

purchase of voting machines by the County, the techniques and procedures used by the

County to evaluate the accuracy of the results of elections, etc.

• The topic for the second report, entitled “ Kern County Personnel Department and Civil

Service Commission,” arose from many perceived and possibly imagined complaints

which came to the attention of the Committee during many interviews conducted by the

Committee in the course of its activities. The investigation focused on the procedures

used by the Personnel Department in the hiring process in Kern County, the requirements

set for the Civil Service Commission and the Personnel Department in the Kern County

Ordinance Code, the length of time required for hiring an employee after a request for

such employment is made by a department to the Personnel Department, the latitude of

discretion allowed by the Ordinance Code, and the Commission Rules based thereon, to

the Personnel Department in its activities to find a candidate to meet the needs expressed

by the hiring department in its request, etc.

• The topic for the third report, entitled “ Kern County Mental Health Department ( Revenue

Collection),” came to the attention of the Committee through a question posed to the

Committee by a citizen of Kern County. The concern expressed in this question was

partially validated through other interviews to the extent that the Committee saw in this

question a valid area for investigation. This investigation focused on the funding sources

for the Department, the procedures for cost recovery from such funding sources, the

status and present degree of success for such revenue collection, etc.

• The topic for the fourth report, entitled “ Kern Council of Governments,” arose from

interviews and research conducted by the Committee. While this topic does not involve

subject matter usually examined by this Committee, it was felt by the members that it

involved information vital to the citizenry and their understanding of the workings of the

Kern Council of Governments in the interactions of various governmental entities.

• The topic for the fifth report, entitled “ Kern County Resource Management Agency,

Roads Department,” resulted from some complaints received by the Kern County Grand

Jury. The Committee conducted a number of interviews concerning the topic and

reviewed relevant portions of the Kern County Ordinance Code.

The reader is invited to read the findings, conclusions and recommendations contained in these

reports and any responses thereto which appear in this Grand Jury Final Report.

Other activities of the Committee during the 2006- 2007 Grand Jury year consisted of the

investigation of and response to individual complaints filed with the 2006- 2007 Grand Jury.

These complaints are confidential and no final report is filed for most of the complaints.

Investigations of these complaints consisted of interviews of the complainants and research into

the bases of these complaints. A response is sent to the complainant containing whatever

assistance, if any, the Grand Jury was able to provide or suggestions as to other steps the

complainant may be able to take.

KERN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS

PURPOSE OF INQUIRY:

The Administration and Audit Committee ( Committee) of the 2006- 2007 Kern County

Grand Jury conducted an informational inquiry into the operations of the Kern Council of

Governments ( Kern COG), with emphasis on the Transportation Planning Policy

Committee. The focus of the inquiry concentrated on the allocation of the County’s share

of funds from Proposition 1B, “ The Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and

Port Security Bond Act of 2006.” On behalf of the citizens of Kern County, the

Committee’s inquiry was prompted by concern that an inability of the members of Kern

COG’s Transportation Planning Policy Committee to agree on the allocation of

Proposition 1B funds may potentially result in a loss of a portion of the funds identified

by the California Transportation Commission ( CTC) as being available to the County for

projects in the State Transportation Improvement Program ( STIP).

PROCESS:

After obtaining and reviewing the agenda for the March 15, 2007 meeting of Kern

COG’s Transportation Planning Policy Committee, members of the Committee attended

the meeting, located at the offices of Kern COG, 1401 19th Street, Suite 300, Bakersfield,

CA 93301. Thereafter, on March 27, 2007, a conversation was conducted with the

Executive Director of Kern COG. Financial information for fiscal years 2005- 2006 and

2006- 2007 were obtained from the Executive Director, along with brochures on the

subjects of transportation and air quality, describing the activities of Kern COG.

BACKGROUND:

Per information given to the Committee by the Executive Director, Kern COG is an inter-governmental

body representing multiple agencies within Kern County. It is a voluntary

association, not statutorily created, whose primary focus is on transportation and air

quality. Kern COG coordinates its activities with seven other county councils of

governments within the San Joaquin Valley, as well as similar agencies east of Kern

County.

The Kern COG Board of Directors is comprised of 13 voting members, including one

member from each of the 11 incorporated cities in the County and two members from the

County Board of Supervisors. Officers within the 13 members of the Board of Directors

consist of a chairman and vice chairman. Kern COG’s Executive Director, a contract

employee, also functions as secretary to the Board, a non- voting position. In addition to

the Executive Director, there are 18 at- will staff employees of Kern COG. Kern COG

conducts open monthly meetings on the third Thursday of each month, with notice of

such meetings publicized on their website: www. kerncog. org

The Transportation Planning Policy Committee is the primary committee within Kern

COG. It consists of the 13 Kern COG Board of Directors, plus one member each from

Golden Empire Transit ( GET), Transportation Department of California ( CALTRANS),

and Edwards Air Force Base, for a total of 16 members. The GET and CALTRANS

members are voting members of the committee, while the Edwards Air Force Base

member has no vote. Chairmanship of the committee is rotated annually.

In addition to the Transportation Planning Policy Committee, Kern COG includes a

Technical Advisory Committee to the state transportation commission and a Social

Services Advisory Committee with approximately 25 members, as well ad hoc

committee( s) as necessary.

Kern COG receives its funding 70% from federal agencies, including the Department of

Transportation, 20% from state agencies, through a one- quarter percent sales tax, and

10% from special grants. There is no direct funding from either the county or the cities,

aside from some minimal expenses. Kern COG’s anticipated budgeted revenues for

fiscal year 2006- 2007 total $ 3,307,874, and anticipated budgeted expenditures total

$ 3,303,157.

FINDINGS:

Proposition 1B authorized $ 2 billion statewide in general obligation bond proceeds to be

available for projects in STIP. The first priority of CTC is to advance construction of

projects that can be completed in the next five years. The CTC identified a target

maximum of $ 99 million for Kern County. Kern COG is responsible for making

recommendations to CTC for the projects that are anticipated to be constructed with the

funds.

Kern COG is responsible to ensure an equitable distribution of STIP funds. Generally,

Kern COG oversees $ 80 million per year of transportation funding. In the absence of

specific project approvals by Kern COG, the default policy to ensure an equitable

distribution of STIP funds is 60% of the funds are made available for projects in the

metropolitan Bakersfield area and the remaining 40% of the funds are made available for

projects outside the metropolitan Bakersfield area. The usage of funds can be flexible for

specific projects, as long as the 60%/ 40% policy balance is maintained over the long

term.

In 1998, Kern COG established a construction project priority list, which included 66

projects within the County. Within the project priority list were six projects being

considered at the March 15, 2007 meeting of the Transportation Planning Policy

Committee, as well as one previously not included project. The projects are as follows,

by project name, cost, and priority number:

• Westside Parkway $ 170,400,000 Priority # 1

• State Route 46 – Segment 3 $ 24,900,000 # 2

• Seventh Standard Road $ 22,500,000 # 6

• State Route 46 ( in Wasco) $ 51,000,000 # 10

• West Ridgecrest Boulevard $ 15,750,000 # 13

• Dennison Road $ 20,000,000 # 61

• Laval Road at Interstate 5 $ 2,500,000 None

These seven projects require in excess of $ 300 million in funding and are all considered

to be ready for construction within the next five years, consistent with CTC requirements

for funding. The Westside Parkway ( previously known as the Kern River Freeway/ State

Route 58) project is within the Bakersfield metropolitan area and is expected to resolve

what is considered to be the biggest traffic problem in the County. This project far

exceeds the target maximum of $ 99 million available for Kern County. The remaining

six projects, all outside the Bakersfield metropolitan area, require funding of

$ 136,650,000 and also far exceed the funds available. As a result, it was necessary for

Kern COG staff to develop a recommended option for presentation to CTC that would be

acceptable to the Kern COG Board of Directors. The deadline for the proposal to CTC

was April 2, 2007, with a decision to be adopted by CTC at their June 7, 2007 meeting.

Option 1 included submitting to CTC only the Westside Parkway project. Option 2

included submitting a project list to CTC strictly implementing the 60%/ 40% policy.

Option 3 included submitting a project list to CTC including the Westside Parkway

project but with several less expensive projects ahead of that project. Option 3 was the

recommendation of Kern COG staff, and includes the following projects:

• State Route 46 – Segment 3 $ 24,900,000

• Seventh Standard Road N/ A*

• West Ridgecrest Boulevard $ 15,750,000

• Laval Road at Interstate 5 $ 2,500,000

• Westside Parkway $ 170,400,000 ( full funding amount)

* The Seventh Standard Road project funding is available from previously- approved

“ Thomas” money and is not a part of the Proposition 1B target maximum of $ 99 million

for Kern County.

The three less expensive projects in Option 3 ahead of the Westside Parkway project ( not

including the Seventh Standard Road project) require $ 43,150,000 in funding, leaving

$ 55,850,000 of the $ 99 million target maximum available for the Westside Parkway

project, a shortfall of $ 114,550,000 for completion of that project. Full funding for the

Westside Parkway project would require the CTC to approve an amount greater than the

Kern County target maximum share of Proposition 1B funds. The CTC permits the

County to identify one project, and one project only, which would need additional out-year

funding to complete. The Westside Parkway was identified as that project. For that

reason, it was listed last on the Option 3 list. It is noted that Option 3 would delay the

funding of other projects until about 2015. The cost of such delayed projects would

increase significantly by that time, due to construction- cost inflation, estimated at 4% per

year.

After considerable audience input and discussion of the three options at the March 15,

2007 meeting, the Kern COG Board of Directors voted unanimously for Option 3. It was

recognized that if the CTC did not approve the amount greater than the Kern County

target maximum share of Proposition 1B funds, Option 2 would be the alternative, using

the 60%/ 40% policy.

COMMENTS:

While Kern COG has been in existence for many years, the majority of Kern County

residents are unaware of its activities. As a means of educating the public, Kern COG is

setting up a number of “ Blueprint” meetings in eight sub- areas of the County. These

meetings are intended to provide a “ visionary” process of education and feedback of the

County’s 40 to 50 year plan, including such things as land use, air quality, zoning, and

quality of life. In addition, through the input of the representatives of the 11 cities and

the County, future transportation issues will continue to be prioritized.

While Kern COG is not supported by either County or city funds, the use of open forums

should prove to be beneficial for the future of the residents of Kern County as well as the

San Joaquin Valley. It is in the interest of all residents of the County to attend these

“ Blueprint” meetings.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

None.

Kern Council of Governments should post a copy of this report where it will be available

for public review.

Note: Present and past Kern County Grand Jury Final Reports and Responses can be

accessed through the Kern County Library system and on the Kern County Grand Jury

website: www. co. kern. ca. us/ grandjury

NO RESPONSE REQUIRED.

1

KERN COUNTY ELECTIONS SYSTEM

PURPOSE OF INQUIRY:

Pursuant to Penal Code Section 925, the Administration and Audit Committee

( Committee) of the 2006- 2007 Kern County Grand Jury reviewed the policies,

procedures, and documentation of the Kern County elections process.

PROCESS:

The Committee met with and interviewed the Kern County Registrar of voters as an

initial starting point of this inquiry and was provided background information concerning

the County election process ( policies and procedures), the voter data base management

system used by the County of Kern, and the voting machines used in the County. The

Committee did a historical review of the 20- year contracting process for the voter data

base management system and all policies and procedures concerning the running of

elections. A visit was made to Kings County to see a demonstration of their electronic

voting machines and to discuss issues of the election system. In addition, the Committee

members did phone interviews with election personnel from five other counties and the

California Secretary of State’s office to obtain costs and comparisons of the various

election system capabilities.

BACKGROUND:

The “ Background” section of this report is divided according to activities of the

Committee and the related information gathered.

Kern County Auditor- Controller- County Clerk

The Committee visited the office of the Kern County Auditor- Controller- County Clerk,

located in the Registrar of Voters’ Office at 1115 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield,

California, on August 16, 2006. The Committee met with the Auditor- Controller- County

Clerk who also serves as the Registrar of Voters and Elections. The Registrar conducts

county- wide federal, state, city, school and special district elections. The Registrar of

Voters’ Office maintains master voter lists, precinct records, and maps. In addition, the

Registrar maintains candidate/ committee campaign contribution/ expenditure statements

and election documents. As an elected official, the Registrar of Voters is able to provide

an operation of independence from other activities. The mission statement is simple:

“ Do our work with excellence.”

Although the functions of the Auditor- Controller- County Clerk and Elections are

combined, the Elections Office ( EO) tends to stand alone. All facets of the operations of

EO are independent of the other units of the Auditor- Controller- County Clerk

responsibilities except for information technology ( IT) support. The IT unit provides

support to all components of the office. The EO has its own computer server which runs

2

all election- based programs in isolation from other software. There is some overlap in

the audit functions as individuals from Audit are involved in testing the integrity,

security, and accuracy of the elections system. Some personnel are cross- trained in

different functions of the unit thus increasing staff flexibility. Keeping the staff in the EO

at a minimum, temporary help is used, as necessary, such as in the staging and

deployment of the “ touch screen” voting machines for an election.

The Elections Office is engaged in two major contracts with external vendors. The

contract with DFM Associates for the Election Information Management System ( EIMS)

provides for the maintaining of the voter registration data base. ( The State of California

requires that each county’s election data base must interface with the State’s data base in

a compatible manner.) A second contract with Diebold Election Systems Inc. ( DESI)

provides the maintenance of the AccuVote TSX touch screen voting machines.

Due to the election problems encountered during the Primary Election on June 6, 2006,

DESI. will reimburse the County of Kern approximately $ 2000 for additional expenses

incurred.

EO currently has a pending law suit from the US Department of Justice concerning

accessibility of polling places. The law suit centers on the accessibility of the disabled to

use the technology for voting.

The Committee requested the following information be made available for analysis

within ten days:

- The current budget for the operations of the Registrar of Voters;

- Copies of any audits that have been made of the procedure and operations;

- An organizational chart illustrating the staffing of the unit;

- Any written material that demonstrates the budgetary benefit of consolidating the

three departments ( Audit, Controller, and County Clerk); and,

- Copies of written materials for the training of election personnel, for the preparation

of support for elections ( staging, transportation, and safeguards), concerning the

conduct of the elections, the process for collection and processing of votes, and

definition of the roles and responsibilities of official on- site observers.

Alternative Software for Voter Data Base Management

The Office of the California Secretary of State provided the Committee a list of the

approved software for managing the voter data bases used by the various counties in the

State. It was ascertained that there are five different vendor- provided data base programs

in use: twenty- seven ( 27) counties use the DFM software, nineteen ( 19) counties use

DIMS, three ( 3) make use of the Election Systems & Software ( ES& S), four ( 4) employ

3

the Diverse Integrated Systems ( DIS) program, three ( 3) use the Sequoia Voting Systems

while two ( 2) counties have developed their own programs. These data bases are used for

a variety of purposes such as maintaining a complete record of the voter information

( address, party affiliation, identity documentation, etc.), generation of the ballots for

different districts, data source for the Jury pool and, simply maintaining mailing lists.

The data base in use must be compatible with the state- wide system data base for

purposes of up- loading data electronically.

Alternative Electronic Voting Equipment

The website for the Secretary of State lists seven electronic voting systems certified for

the June 6, 2006 Primary Election: 1) Diebold Election System’s AccuVote- TSX, 2)

Sequoia Voting Systems’ Pacific AVC Edge, 3) the Election Systems & Software’s

model iVotronic ( subsequently decertified), 4) HART Intercivic’s ESlate DRE, 5)

Advanced Voting Solutions’ WINVote, 6) Avante International Technology’s Vote-

Trakker, and 7) Unilect’s Patriot system. However, California counties only used four ( 1

through 4 of the above systems) of the seven systems. Three of the counties that used

electronic voting systems and voter data base management systems other than the ones

used by the County of Kern were identified for follow- up interviews.

Contracts

The Elections Office maintains two contracts of significant value for the election process.

The Diebold AccuVote- TSX touch screens were purchased for a total of $ 4,993,695 with

an on- going contract to provide maintenance, GEMS software, and other final acceptance

services for a cost of $ 3,699.03 per machine. Kern County was defined as a Beta test site

in 1999. A second contract with DFM for the Election Information Management System

( EIMS) has been in place for nearly 20 years. A thorough comparison of two data base

management systems was done during the initial procurement process in 1987.

History of the EIMS Contract

The original agreement was approved, “ on- consent,” by the Board of Supervisors ( BOS)

as documented by BOS # 551- 87, executed on October 27, 1987 for a three- year term at a

monthly maintenance cost of $ 8,419 after a competitive bidding process. It was

determined that labor intensive tasks such as petition signature verification, issuance of

absentee ballots, absentee voter signature checks, voter registration, and many other

election functions would be accomplished much more rapidly with the system. The Kern

County Data Processing Department concurred with the County Clerk- Recorder’s office

that the long term data processing needs of the Election Division would best be met by

the software.

The contract was in effect until October, 1990. For the next six- month period there

apparently was no contract or agreement in force and the 1991 contract was not made

retroactive.

4

In 1991, the County was presented with a Lease Agreement Modification ( LAM) to

extend the contract for five years from March 1, 1991 to June 30, 1996. This document

was approved by County Counsel as to form and was executed by the Purchasing

Division Chief at no increase in cost. In as much as Purchasing was not involved in the

initial contract, Purchasing does not seem to have had the authority to execute the Lease

extension or knowledge of the gap in contract coverage during the period of time from

October, 1990 through February, 1991.

In 1996 the County of Kern was presented with a LAM to extend the contract for two

years ( July 1, 1996 to June 30, 1998). The BOS approved this agreement September 10,

1996 ( BOS # 522- 96). The maintenance cost was increased to $ 8,750 per month. There

was apparently no involvement of the Purchasing Agent.

In 1998 the County was offered a LAM to extend the contract for five years. It is of

interest to note that the agreement was back- dated to July 1, 1996 with an expiration date

of June 30, 2001. However, there is no record that this extension was ever executed. On

August 18, 1998 the BOS retroactively approved a one- year extension for the period July

1, 1998 to June 30, 1999 ( BOS # 654- 98). There is no record of the involvement of the

Purchasing Agent in either of these contract extensions.

On March 9, 1999, the BOS approved an extension ( BOS # 108- 99) for five years through

June 30, 2004. It was at this time that the EIMS software was converted from main-frame

operation to a PC- based system. The monthly maintenance charge was decreased

to $ 8,100. Again, the Purchasing Agent was not included in the discussions of the

extension.

In 2004, at the end of the five- year contract, a three- year extension at an increased cost of

$ 10,617 per month was initiated to run through 2007. Although the Purchasing Division

is reviewing the extension of sole- source contracts, this extension was not run through the

screening process for justification.

History of the Diebold AccuVote- TSX Contract

In 2002, County of Kern entered into a ten- year sole- source contract agreement with

Diebold Election Systems Inc. ( DESI) to purchase the AccuVote- TSX touch screen voting

machines. The agreement is to provide hardware, software, and maintenance as part of

the County’s effort to respond to the Help America Vote Act ( HAVA). This Act was to

furnish Federal money to assist states with the modernization of their respective voting

systems. HAVA, through the State allocation provided the County of Kern $ 3,216,897 to

purchase the approved voting system. The County of Kern’s contribution was

$ 1,776,800 to purchase 1350 AccuVote- TSX machines and associated equipment,

software, training, and supplies. The total cost for the system for Kern County was

$ 4,993,695.

It is of interest to note that DESI designated the County of Kern as a “ most favored

customer” and agreed to give the County prices and other terms that are “ equivalent to or

5

better than those contractor offers to other customers of similar size and configuration”

for a period of five years from the contract signing.

If within five ( 5) years CONTRACTOR enters into a future agreement

providing another customer of similar size and configuration with more

favorable terms, CONTRACTOR agrees this Agreement will be amended,

pursuant to Section 32, to provide the same terms to COUNTY to include any

refunds or credits thereby created. ( Purchase Agreement, 12th day of November,

2002, p. 1)

Purchasing Manager Interview

The Administration and Audit Committee members interviewed the County of Kern’s

Purchasing Manager to review the contracting procedures and processes as related to the

EO. Traditional classifications of “ Sole- source” and “ Single- source” contracts are

considered the same entity by the Purchasing Division. The goal of the Purchasing

Division, as related to the bidding process, is to maintain an open and fair competition.

Since 2003, all sole- source contracts proposed by departments must demonstrate a

process of justification when requesting services or equipment. Renewals or addenda to

the original sole- source contract do not go through a justification process.

The Purchasing Division has had no oversight or responsibility for the DFM EIMS

contract. The contract was initiated in 1987 through the County of Kern Registrar of

Voters and approved by the Board of Supervisors ( BOS). The evaluation of available

stand- alone software systems was accomplished by the County Clerk- Recorder in office

at the time with recommendation for approval submitted directly to the BOS ( BOS # 551-

87).

Typically a Review Panel is established to review responses to a Request for Proposal

( RFP) with experts from departments, other cities/ counties, or private consultants

reviewing the proposals/ bids and making their recommendations. It is useful to note that

“ Best Value” is a fundamental criterion for selection to account for sunk costs, upgrading

the technology that is needed, known quality of the support services, and allows for

analyses of aspects of comparative systems.

As a follow- up to the interview/ discussion, the Purchasing Manager provided information

concerning the Elections Code as related to purchasing of equipment and services. This

portion of the Code allows exemption in the purchase of services related to elections.

The county elections official, in providing the materials required by this

division ( Division 14 of the Elections Code) shall not be required to utilize the

services of the county purchasing agent ( § 14100).

It is unclear whether or not this portion of the Code was used to circumvent the

competitive bidding process at any point in the 20- year history of the EIMS contract or

the purchase of the touch screen voting machines.

6

Comparisons of Voter Systems

The Administration and Audit Committee determined that it would be fruitful to compare

alternative voter management systems and technology to demonstrate that other viable

systems exist in the market place and are in use by a number of counties. An effort was

made to review a range of voter data management systems and voting machines that are

available in California. A summary of the costs of the data management systems is

provided in Table 1.

Table 1 – A Comparison of the Cost of Voter

Data Base Management Systems

County System Total Voters Cost/ mth. Cost/ year Cost/ year/ voter

Kern DFM/ EIMS 286,393 $ 10,617 $ 127,404 $ 0.45

Fresno DFM/ EIMS 325,000 9,333 112,000 0.34

Kings DIMS 50,000 2,500 30,000 0.60

Imperial DIS 2,415 583 7,000 2.90

Inyo Sequoia 10,682 625 7,500 0.70

Merced ES& S 91,000 4,117 49,400 0.54

San Mateo ES& S 350,000 13,333 160,000 0.46

Note: These data are calculations based on information provided by the various counties and may

include or reflect different services within the costs.

The data illustrate the declining cost per year per voter as the total number of registered

voters in the county increases. Thus, while the smaller counties have a lower cost per

month their respective cost per voter increases. In general, the comparative costs per year

per voter of the different systems are relatively similar with the exception of the small

counties.

A comparison of the costs of State- certified voting machines is provided in Table 2. In

addition to the initial cost of the machines, a cost for maintenance and software updates is

also incurred.

Table 2 – A Comparison of the Costs of Three Voting Machines

Maintenance

County Machine Cost/ Machine Cost/ Month

Kern Diebold TSX $ 3,699 $ 5,700

Fresno Diebold TSX 2,995 2,080

Inyo Sequoia Edge 5,125 2,167

Kings Sequoia Edge 6,000 2,500

San Mateo Hart ESlate 4,904 2,750

Note: These data are calculations based on information provided by the various counties

and may include or reflect different services within the costs.

7

The data in Table 2 illustrate that the comparative monthly cost of the Diebold TSX

system paid by the County of Kern is more than double the cost paid by the County of

Fresno for similar services.

The Sequoia Edge and DIMS System

The Administration and Audit Committee members visited the County Elections Office

at Hanford, CA to observe a demonstration of the election system of hardware and

software employed by Kings County. The touch screen voting system that is used is the

Sequoia, Pacific AVC Edge which is functionally similar to the Diebold AccuVote- TSX

used by Kern County. Logic and accuracy tests are done on all machines before every

election. The units can run on batteries for only three hours. Should a power failure

occur during an election the County Fire Department supplies emergency electrical

generators on a notice of one hour. Further, the batteries of all machines must be

regularly charged through out the year.

The Sequoia system has the capability of multiple ballot usage with 44 ballots generated

for the past June Primary Election. An interesting feature of the machine is that the paper

ballot is printed with a bar code that can be scanned should a recount be necessary.

Two hundred machines were initially purchased for a cost of $ 1.2 million which included

training and support for the first year of elections. The on- going maintenance agreement

with Sequoia is approximately $ 2,500 per month.

Kings County employs the Data Information Management System ( DIMS) as the voter

registration management software since converting from software running on a

mainframe computer to a PC- based system. The annual license of $ 5,000/ month was

charged for the initial two years. At present, the monthly maintenance cost of $ 2,500 was

considered an “ Evergreen contract”-- goes as long as the monthly costs are paid. The

initial selection of the DIMS software was driven by compatibility of the interface with

the State of California voter management system. The long association with staff at

Sequoia/ DIMS influenced the selection decision. ( This is considered a critical criterion

since it based on confidence in people.)

The Hart eSlate Voting Machine and ES& S

It was determined that San Mateo County was the most recent California County to

compare and review the “ certified” electronic voting machines. After a couple of years

in the process of making the decision the County chose the Hart eSlate machine. The

rationale for the selection was that the machines electronically record votes in triplicate,

as well as on paper should a recount be necessary. In addition, Hart is the only electronic

voting machine company that files its software program with the National Science

Foundation so that it can be compared for tampering at any time. San Mateo County was

also concerned with the current controversy surrounding “ touch screen” voting machines.

Their primary concern was the need to continually re- align screen overlays to avoid

errors in recording votes.

8

Hart eSlate uses a track wheel and click system instead of a touch screen. This system is

fully compliant with the State mandate for electronic voting machines. A total of 2,100

machines were purchased by San Mateo at a cost of $ 10 million which includes ongoing

maintenance. The voter management data base system used by San Mateo County is the

ES& S system.

FINDINGS:

1. The information provided by the Elections Office, included two pages that were

purported to be procedures for election on- site observers. The material did not

provide direction to the observers as to what their responsibilities and roles were to be

during the election period.

2. The review of the 20- year contract period for the EIMS software and system reveals

that the contract was systematically amended and extended after the initial review, for

the 20- year period, without competitive bidding or a review of new available systems

and software.

3. The review of the 20- year contract period for the EIMS software and system

documents that there is a six- month period of time in 1990- 1991 when no contract

was in place and no records of any kind to support any contractual agreement

between the County and a vendor.

4. Since 2003, all sole- source contracts proposed by departments must demonstrate a

process of justification when requesting services or equipment. Renewals or addenda

to the original sole- source contract do not go through a justification process.

5. The election offices of counties are in a partial bind. Each office must respond to

state and federal election mandates and at the same time deliver an efficient and

effective election. To this end, the Elections Code § 14100 which was intended to

allow for expediency in the purchase of supplies and services by exempting Elections

from going through the County Purchasing Division and the competitive bidding

process does not always serve the best interests of the public. For some 20 years the

EIMS contract has been continued without issuing a request for proposals ( RFP) for

new bids thus depriving the County of new market place innovations and pricing

strategies.

6. For the recent primary election, the Elections Office did not conform to the minimum

requirement for paper ballots for each precinct. The Elections Code § 14102 states:

For each statewide election, the elections official shall provide a sufficient

number of official ballots in each precinct to reasonably meet the needs of

the voters in that precinct on election day using the precinct’s voter turnout

history as the criterion, but in no case shall this be less than 75 percent of the

registered voters in the precinct, and for absentee and emergency purposes

shall provide the additional number of ballots that may be necessary.

9

It is unclear whether the use of electronic voting machines, in place of traditional

voting systems, changes the intent of this section or if an exemption is in place.

7. The costs of the Kern County Elections Office for maintaining the voter data base and

the electronic voting machines are generally comparable to those of other counties of

comparable size and population. However, the comparative monthly cost of the

Diebold TSX system shows that the County of Kern is paying more than the County

of Fresno for services.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. The Elections Office should define a clear set of procedures for election observers

that delineate and define the County’s expectations for meaningful participation in the

election.

2. The Elections Office should competitively bid the Voter Data Base Management

system in 2007 when the current contract with DFM EIMS expires.

3. An effort should be made to document the period of time in 1990- 1991 where no

supporting materials can be found for the contractual agreement with DFM EIMS.

4. The Elections Office should take full advantage of the expertise offered through the

County Purchasing Division to ensure that competitive and sole- source procurements

meet all standards and fair practices requirements. Overall, the Elections Office

should comply with all applicable state and county laws and regulations regarding

procurement of county products and services. The exemption provided under

Election Code § 14100 should be exercised only under special circumstances.

5. The Elections Office should ensure that each precinct is provided with the appropriate

number of ballots for absentee and emergency purposes per Election Code.

6. The Elections Office should continue to be cost- effective and efficient in providing

the citizens of the County of Kern the opportunity to vote.

7. Given that Diebold designated the County of Kern as a “ most favored customer” and

agreed to give the County prices and other terms that are “ equivalent to or better than

those contractor offers to other customers of similar size and configuration” the cost

of the contract should be reviewed before renewal.

The Elections Office should post a copy of this report where it will be available for public

review.

NOTE: Present and past Kern County Grand Jury Reports and Responses may be

accessed through the Kern County Library system and on the Kern County Grand Jury

website: www. co. kern. ca. us/ grandjury.

10

RESPONSE REQUIRED WITHIN 60 DAYS TO:

PRESIDING JUDGE

KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

1415 TRUXTUN AVENUE, 2nd FLOOR

BAKERSFIELD CA 93301

cc: FOREMAN

KERN COUNTY GRAND JURY

1415 TRUXTUN AVENUE, SUITE 600

BAKERSFIELD CA 93301

PLEASE STRUCTURE YOUR REPONSE IN ACCORDANCE WITH PENAL

CODE SECTION 933.05, SUBSECTIONS A AND B.

December 6, 2006

The Honorable Jerold Turner, Presiding Judge

Kern County Superior Court

1415 Truxtun Avenue, 2nd Floor

Bakersfield, CA 93301

Subject: Grand Jury Report on Elections

We would like to thank the Grand Jury for its thorough review of the contracting process. In

responses to the seven findings and recommendations offered by the Grand Jury, we offer the

following:

Finding One: The two pages of purported procedures for on- site observers did not provide

direction to the observers as to what their responsibilities and roles were to be during the

election period ( rephrased).

We agree with the finding. The Elections Office does not provide direction as to roles and

responsibilities for observers ( see response to Recommendation One).

Finding Two: The EIMS contract was in place for 20 years without competitive bidding or a

review of new available systems and software ( rephrased).

We partially agree with the finding. The agreement with DFM was a sole source agreement.

Although much of the documentation has been destroyed due to age, we still have employees

with institutional knowledge. The County contracted with DFM for a system called Data

General for many years. In about 1992, the industry was moving to client server application

based systems. A thorough review of the two major management systems available at that time

( DFM and DIMS) was performed. Because DFM offered the system upgrade for using Kern

County as a beta site, and because their support at that time was outstanding, the sole source

agreement was recommended to the Board for approval.

Kern County's Voter Data Base Management system is functioning well. Twice a year we attend

conferences where we have the opportunity to compare the features, flexibility, accuracy of

EIMS, and support by DFM, to that of other systems and other companies. We believe that

EIMS currently is the best product for our County.

Finding Three: There is a six- month period of time in 1990- 1991 when no contract was in

place and no records support a contractual agreement ( rephrased).

We agree with the finding.

Responses

Page Two

Finding Four: Since 2003, all sole- source contracts proposed by departments must demonstrate

a process of justification when requesting services or equipment. Renewals or addenda to the

original sole- source contract do not go through a justification process.

We agree with the finding.

Finding Five: Elections Code § 14100 was intended to allow for expediency in the purchase of

supplies and services by exempting Elections from going through the County Purchasing

Division and the competitive bidding process does not always serve the best interests of the

public. For some 20 years the EIMS contract has been continued without issuing a request for

proposals for new bids thus depriving the County of new market- place innovations and pricing

strategies.

We partially agree with the finding. County policy was followed with respect to the EIMS

contract and renewals. Although it is sometimes necessary to invoke Elections Code § 14100,

that section was not used with respect to the EIMS system.

As in many fields, systems must keep pace with technological advances. Upgrades are included

in the cost of maintenance, and as customers needs and demands change, so must the product

that is maintained. Our observation is that DFM is keeping pace with the election market place.

Finding Six: For the recent primary election, the Elections Office did not conform to the

minimum requirement for paper ballots for each precinct...

We disagree with the finding. Elections Code § 14102 does not apply to touch screen voting

precincts. See response to Recommendation Five.

Finding Seven: The comparative monthly cost of the Diebold TSX system shows that the County

of Kern is paying more than the County of Fresno for services.

We agree with the finding.

Recommendation One: The Elections Office should define a clear set of procedures for

election observers that delineate and define the County's expectations for meaningful

participation in the election.

We disagree with the recommendation. The entire election process is open to observers. The

Elections Office provides written boundaries for observation. The Elections Office cannot define

“ meaningful participation” to observers as expectations and purpose may vary by observer.

Recommendation Two: The Elections Office should competitively bid the Voter Data Base

Management system in 2007 when the current contract with DFM ( EIMS) expires.

Responses

Page Three

We partially agree with the recommendation. The State is in the process of developing a

statewide voter database management system. Kern County has volunteered to participate in the

analysis and implementation of that system. Until such system is in place, and we see what is

required of the counties in order to meet the requirements of such a database, and what each

vendor can offer, a change in the county's voter database would be inadvisable. The process of

changing voter database management systems is massive and should not be done until specific

standards have been established.

Recommendation Three: An effort should be made to document the period of time in 1990-

1991 where no supporting materials can be found for the contractual agreement with DFM

( EIS).

We disagree with the recommendation. We appreciate the Grand Jury's concern about

supporting documentation. However, the referenced documentation is 16 years old; fell under

the authority of a different County Clerk; and relates to a version of the system no longer in use.

To the best of our knowledge, there is nothing to document that period.

Recommendation Four: The Elections Office should take full advantage of the expertise

offered through the County Purchasing Division to ensure that competitive and sole- source

procurements meet all standards and fair practices requirements. Overall, the Elections Office

should comply with all applicable state and county laws and regulations regarding procurement

of county products and services. The exemption provided under Election Code § 14100 should be

exercised only under special circumstances.

The Auditor- Controller- County Clerk did follow county protocol in selecting both a voter data

base management system and voting system. The sole source agreement with DFM

was approved by the Board. An RFP was issued for a voting system; bids were accepted. Systems

offered by vendors responding to the RFP were evaluated based on pre- established criteria. Both

ITS and County Counsel were involved in the RFP and subsequent contract.

Elections Code § 14100 exists to ensure that the bureaucracy of government does not inhibit the

preparation and conduction of elections. It is to that purpose that we invoke the use of that

section. It is our policy to follow normal County purchasing procedures unless it is necessary to

exercise Election Code § 14100.

Recommendation Five: The Elections Office should ensure that each precinct is provided with

the appropriate number of ballots for absentee and emergency purposes per Election Code.

The Elections Office does provide the appropriate number of ballots for absentee and emergency

purposes. To our knowledge there has never been a shortage of absentee ballots. Paper ballots at

the polls are not required by the Elections Code. However, we do comply with procedural

standards established by the Secretary of State, which are as follows:

Responses

Page Four

. . . all county election officials shall have an adequate supply of paper ballots, as

determined by the election official, available at polling locations for use in the event of a

temporary loss of the ability to use electronic equipment, of if a voter chooses not to vote on

electronic equipment.

Recommendation Six: The Elections Office should continue to be cost- effective and efficient in

providing the citizens of the County of Kern the opportunity to vote.

We agree with the recommendation. The Elections Office is ever conscious of their responsi-bility

to both the taxpayers and the voters of Kern County.

Recommendation Seven: Given that Diebold designated the County of Kern as a " most

favored customer” and agreed to give the County prices and other terms that are " equivalent to

or better than those contractor offers to other customers of similar size and configuration” the

cost of the contract should be reviewed before renewal.

The operative words in the above recommendation are " similar size and configuration". While

Fresno is similar in size, their " configuration" is different. Fresno uses touch screens to fulfill

the HAVA requirement for voting systems accessible to the disabled. Optical scan is their

primary voting method. However, the Grand Jury's reminder of " most favored customer"

designation is well taken. We will ensure that Diebold complies with the terms of the agreement.

Once again, we thank the Grand Jury for their interest in elections and their hard work on behalf

of the citizens of Kern County.

cc: Foreman, Kern County Grand Jury

Board of Supervisors

County Administrative Office

Clerk of the Board

Kern County Board of Supervisors

Response to Grand Jury Final Report

KERN COUNTY ELECTIONS SYSTEM

Response to Findings:

The Board of Supervisors notes that the findings are substantially correct.

Response to Recommendations:

The Board of Supervisors concurs with the Auditor- Controller- County Clerk’s response.

POLGJ_ ELECTIONSB

KERN COUNTY MENTAL HEALTH

DEPARTMENT ( REVENUE COLLECTIONS)

PURPOSE OF INQUIRY:

Pursuant to Penal Code Section 925, the Administration and Audit Committee

( Committee) of the 2006- 2007 Kern County Grand Jury reviewed the methods and

procedures of the Kern County Mental Health Department ( Department) for collection of

revenues. This inquiry was prompted by a growing concern among Department

employees and County administration officials that the recent procurement and

implementation of an automated management and records system called “ Anasazi” may

introduce significant delays in the collection of Department revenues, which in turn could

impact planned Department expenditures. Specifically, concern had been expressed to

this Committee that the filling of open positions within the Mental Health Department

were being delayed to account for expected delays in revenue collections.

BACKGROUND:

The Kern County Mental Health Department expects to receive $ 85,459,040 in revenues,

plus an additional $ 6,711,426 in special purpose funds during fiscal year 2006- 2007.

With a current fiscal year operating budget of $ 92,941,591, the County Mental Health

Department needs only $ 771,125 in appropriations from the Kern County general fund.

Since 99% of the Department’s operating budget comes from revenue collections and

special purpose funds, timely receipt of these revenues is of paramount concern when

planning Department expenditures.

PROCESS:

Two major factors affected collections during fiscal year 2006- 2007. First, as with the

implementation of any large system and procedural change, the installation of the

Anasazi system introduced significant delays in billing for services. Secondly, during

fiscal year 2005- 2006, Medi- Cal experienced a funding shortfall and the California State

Legislature had not approved the necessary funds to meet last fiscal year’s commitment.

Until the automated billing element of the Anasazi system is fully implemented and the

Mental Health Department is able to recover the delinquent Medi- Cal funds, timely

revenue collections will certainly be impacted.

FINDINGS:

Under the Federal Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, Medi- Cal claims must be received

within six months following the month in which services were rendered to avoid payment

reduction or denial of payment for late billing. Claims received seven to nine months

after services were rendered can result in a 25% reduction, and if not received for ten to

twelve months can be reduced by 50%. The entire claim can be denied if submittal

occurs one year or longer after the services have been rendered. The Mental Health

Department recognized the potential risk to revenues during the implementation of

Anasazi and negotiated with Medi- Cal and other significant revenue providers in advance

of implementation to avoid incurring penalties.

By mid- December 2006, the billing element of the Anasazi system had been fully

implemented. As of the end of February 2007, all the delayed billings resulting from the

Anasazi implementation had been submitted and future billings should occur on a routine

basis.

There are unresolved issues pertaining to billings submitted through the Anasazi system

to the State Department of Mental Health. The Department Director met recently with the

Director of the State Department of Mental Health and was assured that these outstanding

issues will be resolved soon. These issues are unrelated to the Anasazi implementation.

As of the end of February 2007, all but $ 899,000 of the Medi- Cal shortfall funds from

fiscal year 2005- 2006 had been recovered from the State.

Annual revenue typically consists of 90% fee- for- service payments and 10% from special

grants.

According to the Department Director, the delays in revenue collections have not

impacted recruitment for open positions within the Department.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

None

The Kern County Mental Health Department should post a copy of this report where it

will be available for public review.

NOTE: Present and past Kern County Grand Jury Reports and Responses may be

accessed through the Kern County Library system and on the Kern County Grand Jury

website: www. co. kern. ca. us/ grandjury.

NO RESPONSE REQUIRED

Kern County Board of Supervisors

Response to Grand Jury Final Report

KERN COUNTY MENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT

REVENUE COLLECTIONS

Response to Findings:

The Grand Jury’s findings are substantially correct.

Response to Recommendations:

The department will post a copy of the Grand Jury’s report.

POLGJ _ MENTAL_ HEALTHB

Attachment

KERN COUNTY PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT

AND CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

PURPOSE OF INQUIRY:

Pursuant to Penal Code Section 925, the Administration and Audit Committee

( Committee) of the 2006- 2007 Kern County Grand Jury reviewed the policies,

procedures, documentation of the Kern County personnel hiring and promotion process.

This inquiry was prompted by a growing concern among operating department heads and

county administration officials regarding the large number of anticipated retirements and

the resulting personnel turnover expected over the next three to five years.

PROCESS:

The Committee met with, and interviewed, several operating department heads, staff

member of the Personnel Department, members of the Board of Supervisors and county

employee union representatives to gain their perspective on the overall hiring process.

The Committee focused on if current hiring processes and practices meet the needs of the

operating departments, a second focus was to assess the ability of the Personnel

Department in meeting the challenges of replacing staff expected to retire within three to

five years.

BACKGROUND:

The “ Background” section of this report is divided into three sections according to

activities of the Committee and the related information gathered.

California State Association of Counties

The Committee interviewed representatives of the California State Association of

Counties ( CSAC) in an effort to better understand how the 58 counties in the state

manage their hiring, compensation and retirement processes. During the discussion the

CSAC county liaison and the CSAC labor law expert made the following points.

• Generally, California Counties are under no obligation to have a Civil Service

Commission. However, if federal funds are used to fund a position, that position

must be filled through a Civil Service Commission.

• Thirty of the state’s 58 counties do not have their own Civil Service

Commissions. They do utilize services from the California State Civil Service

Commission such as testing, discipline appeals, position descriptions, etc.

• Twenty- eight of California’s 58 counties have their own Civil Service

Commissions.

• Two counties ( Kern and Placer) are the only counties to have the Personnel

Director report directly to the county Civil Service Commission.

Review of Documentation

DMG Maximus Report ( 1999) & Grand Jury Report ( 2000- 2001): In 1998 the Board of

Supervisors commissioned an independent private company, DMG Maximus, to review

Kern County’s human resource management system. DMG Maximus published their

report in June 1999. The Board of Supervisors formed a task force charged with

reviewing the DMG Maximus report and determining what recommendations should be

considered for implementation. The Task Force reviewed the report, was unable to reach

a consensus, and was disbanded without further action.

Recognizing that the human resource system within the County needed improvement, and

that the Task Force had failed to take appropriate action, the 2000- 2001 Kern County

Grand Jury conducted an investigation into the hiring practices of Kern County. This

investigation resulted in 16 recommendations for improving the County’s personnel

system. The Kern County Personnel Department elected to implement only one of these

recommendations, the Nepotism Policy.

Kern County Ordinance A- 126: Four paragraphs within the governing ordinance for

hiring and promotion of County employees address issues presented in this report. These

paragraphs are in Section VII of the code.

SECTION VII

Rules, Eligibility Lists, Examinations, and Dismissals

The Commission shall prescribe rules and regulations for the operation of the civil

service system which shall have the force and effect of law and shall among other things

provide for:

. . . . .

h. The establishment of eligible lists, including lists resulting from competitive

promotional and open examinations and from lay- offs and the granting of re-employment

privileges. Such lists shall remain in force for not less than 6 months

or more than 2 years to be determined by the Civil Service Commission.

. . . . .

j. Certification and appointment from the three eligible’s standing highest on the

eligible list or lists for the class whenever a position in the classified service is to

be filled, provided that eligible’s on promotional lists for any particular class shall

be certified before eligible’s on open lists.

. . . . .

m. Appointment to permanent positions on a provisional basis of persons who meet

the minimum qualifications when there is no eligible list for the class, provided

that such provisional appointments shall be terminated at the end of one calendar

year or within 30 calendar days after certification of eligible’s whichever first

occurs.

n. Appointment to temporary or limited term positions of eligible’s or persons who

meet the minimum qualifications for periods not to exceed 6 calendar months,

provided that there shall be no such reappointment within the same department for

60 days following termination, and provided further that acceptance or refusal to

accept such appointment shall not bar an eligible from certification for permanent

employment.

It will be noted that the Kern County governing ordinance defines the personnel

management and Civil Service Commission relationships, operating structure and

regulations. This report will offer changes that comply fully with the governing

ordinance while providing a more detailed and effective interpretation through changes to

relevant rules and procedures.

Civil Service Commission Rules: This document defines the rules by which the Civil

Service Commission reviews and renders judgments. For the most part, these rules are a

decomposition of Kern County Ordinance A- 126. This Committee feels that certain

definitions and interpretations of the governing ordinance under “ Rule 600” of this

document provides undue restrictions and obligations upon the Personnel Department and

Operating ( hiring) Departments when filling open positions.

Kern County Administrative Procedures Manual: The purpose of this manual is to clarify

and provide implementing procedures covering all aspects of personnel administration in

the County.

MOU, County of Kern & Association of Public Employees: The Memorandum Of

Understanding ( MOU) between Kern County and it’s Public Employee unions “… has as

its purpose the setting forth of the full and entire understanding of the parties regarding

the matters set forth herein, reached as the result of good faith negotiations regarding the

wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment of the employees

covered…”

Strategic Workforce Planning Document: This discussion paper highlights the problems

and issues raised at several meetings held during 2006 between the County

Administrative Office and the Personnel Department to discuss County workforce issues.

It covers issues associated with pending retirements, the reasons the County is having

difficulty recruiting and retaining employees and the impact this is having on

departmental operations. Selected significant statistics derived from this report include:

• One third of all non- safety employees are over 50 years old;

• 68% of all managers are over 50 years old; and,

• 78% of all department heads are over 50 years old.

These statistics are strong indicators that the County can expect very large turnovers in

the next few years and that the need for effective planning to fill management positions is

critical to maintaining leadership continuity.

Perspective of the Stakeholders

Personnel Department Perspective: The Committee worked closely with Personnel

Department staff to document the sequential steps involved in the county hiring process.

The Committee interviewed several key department Directors and reviewed the

documented hiring procedure with them. All of the operating department heads

interviewed agree that this documented process accurately depicted their experience in

hiring personnel for their departments.

Operating ( Hiring) Department Heads/ Directors Perspectives: The Committee

interviewed six department heads and other administrators responsible for recruitment or

had some direct connection to the employment of Kern County employees. Several

themes became apparent as the interviews transpired and more than one individual

expressed concern about each issue listed below. The seven issues are listed in no order

of perceived priority.

1. Salaries: There was consensus that the salaries offered by the County of Kern are not

generally competitive with the pay scale of other counties or the private sector. This

fact makes it extremely difficult to recruit and/ or retain the best employees. An

additional factor is that the current system inhibits promotions with competitive

salary increments ( currently limited to 7%). This leads to an effort to reclassify

positions based upon personality rather than personnel objectives. Furthermore, with

regards to recruitment, Department Heads believe that contingent offers cannot be

made to prospective employees until the candidate meets all minimum criteria such as

college degrees or certification.

2. Marketing and Advertising: The Personnel Department reported that it typically has

an annual recruitment budget of $ 8,000 for advertising for all positions in the County.

Several Departments Heads indicated they spend departmental resources for

recruiting and advertising. Some departments recruit at job fairs and other such

events. However, at least one Department Head suggested that he was unaware that

he could use this strategy of recruitment.

3. Training for Department Heads: A common theme of those interviewed is that

greater level of communication should exist among Department Heads and the

Personnel Department. The lack of communication results in a greater need for

training of Department Heads. One Department Head indicated that he had ten years

of experience yet he was still unaware of many of the subtleties involved in operating

his department. The only training he received was “ on the job.”

4. Rule of Three: ( see Kern County Ordinance A- 126) Department Heads voiced a

concern about the rigidity of the Rule of Three as implemented by the Personnel

Department, some suggesting that, “… it is the biggest problem.” Ranking of

professional applicants is a problem There needs to be greater flexibility in the

application and/ or interpretation of the Rule of Three. The point was made that if

there are 40 openings in a particular job category, the Department will receive 42

names of candidates. The essence of this is that there are only two extra names for 40

positions and thus there is limited flexibility in the hiring process. Further, when the

timeline for the hiring process is long, the three names may be only those candidates

who have not found a job and therefore not the best qualified.

5. Extra Help and Hiring of Retirees: Extra help employment shall not exceed nine

consecutive months with the County, after which there must be at least a 60 day

period before extra help employment may again be authorized for that individual.

The hiring of retirees is possible for 960 hours of temporary duty. The process

requires the approval of the Board of Supervisors for each “ contract.” These two

mechanisms are used throughout the County to fill position vacancies. Department

Heads indicated that although they do not feel it is the best approach to handle their

department needs they are the primary alternative used for filling emergency

vacancies, or when there are inadequate numbers of qualified applicants. This is

necessary in order to maintain the departmental competencies needed to serve the

public. It was pointed out that there are times when an extra help hire goes through

several employment rotations, doing good work on the job but, is unable to pass the

appropriate test( s) administered by the Personnel Department. ( This implies that

there is likely something inadequate in the testing procedure.)

6. Civil Service Commission: There was some general concern expressed about the

Civil Service Commission and its Rules. The Rule of Three, discussed above, was

used as one example of the “ inflexibility” of the civil service process. Another

observation was, “ The Civil Service Commission is personality driven rather than

personnel driven.” The result is the many personalized job classifications have

emerged since the effort to reduce the number of job classification several years ago.

Several individuals lamented that the Department Heads should have greater input

and control over the hiring process.

7. The Personnel Department: It is fair to say that most Department Heads feel that the

Personnel Department takes a conservative approach to solving problems. Analysts

are viewed by at least one Department Head as advocates for the Personnel

Department rather than for the operating departments and thus, shape reports in a

similar fashion supportive of Personnel. This is a natural result of the fact that

Analysts are employees of Personnel and not the operating department. Generally,

the working relationships of the operating departments with Personnel are classified

as “ good” to “ excellent.” Most Department Heads feel that the analysts are as

responsive to their needs as much as they can be given their workload and other

commitments.

County Administration Office: There is no formal relationship between the CAO and the

Personnel Department. Currently there is a Workforce Planning Task Force attempting

to address policy issues and to identify aspects of the overall structure that can be

modified without going to the electorate for changes to the governing ordinance.

The County administrators are concerned about the Personnel Department’s ability to

hire and promote in an increasingly competitive job market. As noted above, they share

the view that the County should have the ability to attend job fairs and make on- the- spot

offers, or at least contingent offers to highly qualified individuals. The County should

have the flexibility to provide prospective employees with benefits that best serve their

economic situation in the community. For example, older employees are generally

interested in retirement accruals whereas younger employees may be more interested in

maximizing take home pay.

Employee Union: Union administration is concerned about the lack of accountability

between the Personnel Department and Kern County administration. The general feeling

is that the current system involving the Civil Service Commission and Personnel

Department is in need of reform.

Union representatives are concerned about employee salaries not keeping pace with

inflation and uncertainties related to funding the retirement plan. The County and

employee unions entered into a contact in 2004 that limits annual salary growth to levels

below expected inflation rates. This contract also specified the methods and rates for

County contributions to the employee retirement plan. Under the current contract, for

every dollar spent on salary, the County pays 36 cents to the employee retirement plan to

fund the “ 3% at 60 rule.” For comparison purposes, CALPERS requires that the State

pay 26 cents for every dollar spent on salary to fund their “ 3% at 60 rule.” Employee

unions and County administrators are currently working cooperatively to resolution.

There is a perception of built- in impediments to County promotions. To fill a position,

an individual from outside County employment could be hired to fill a position with the

County at a competitive salary, while a current County employee would be limited to a

maximum 7% increase. The County has flexibility when hiring from outside the County

employment staff, but limited flexibility for promotions.

Succession Planning is a crucial element to sustaining effective management and legacy

technical knowledge in the County for many years to come. Succession Planning

includes mentoring, training and professional growth by the employee’s manager. As a

cost savings measure instituted in the mid- 1980’ s, many middle management positions

within the County were eliminated. With the large number of management retirements

expected in the next few years, employees expected to fill these vacancies may be ill-prepared

to step up to substantially increased responsibilities.

Board of Supervisors: The Board of Supervisors ( BOS) has formed the Workforce

Planning Task Force based on a County Administrative Officer ( CAO) report entitled

Strategic Workforce Planning Document ( see page 3). As noted, this report focuses on

the high employment turnover expected in the county over the next five years. The

Workforce Planning Task Force is currently focused on amending the Memorandum Of

Understanding ( MOU). When the MOU was developed, strategically it was the wrong

thing to do.

The BOS members interviewed suggested that special legislation could be used to modify

retirement benefits of persons in the existing system. For comparison, retirement benefits

in Los Angeles County are much lower than Kern County. The percentage of total

compensation that goes to retirement is 40% for Kern County safety employees, and 28%

for non- safety employees. Shortening the term of the labor agreement/ MOU would add

additional flexibility and address classifications individually rather than across the board

for salary increments. The County’s goal in this effort is to give employees more options

while the County has the option of modified salary agreements.

The retention issue is at least as important as hiring. Competitive salaries are the basis

for retention. Comparative analyses of wages and benefits are needed on an on- going

basis. The CAO should do this on a continuous basis. Perhaps a few dozen positions can

be analyzed and adjusted annually. Flex schedules for older employees make it less

attractive for people to retire early.

With the County’s current arrangement that has the Personnel Department Director

reporting to only the Civil Service Commission ( CSC), the Board of Supervisors only

method of influence is to replace members of the CSC. Furthermore, it seems there is a

disconnect between CSC/ Personnel Department and the County Operating Departments.

Hopefully all parties can work to resolve some of the issues and the BOS members

interviewed suggested that the CAO be the funnel to bring about greater communications

on issues. The BOS members interviewed believe the County should be able to

recommend and implement needed changes within the constraints of the governing

ordinance. The flexibility in the ordinance seems to be there. It only needs to be codified

in the form of regulations.

FINDINGS:

1. Kern County ordinance A- 126, Section VII, paragraph j requires certification and

appointment from the three candidates standing highest on the eligible list. This

is interpreted very narrowly when there is more than one opening in a particular

job class. The list of certified candidates can prove to be unnecessarily restrictive.

For example, if there are 10 identical openings the Personnel Department will

certify only 12 candidates. This allows the hiring department minimal flexibility

and the leeway to reject a maximum of only two candidates.

2. A current Kern County employee seeking a promotion into a higher classification

opening is limited to a maximum 7% salary increase whereas a candidate that is

hired for that position who is not currently a County employee is not subject to

this restriction.

3. There appears to be a consistent pattern with “ extra help” employees in that they

frequently satisfy the job requirements fully and competently and yet cannot pass

the exam( s) for permanent appointment. “ Extra help” hires are the most

frequently used hiring mechanism to fill vacancies quickly.

4. The Personnel Department must rank all candidates for a position. They employ

tests and measurement for this purpose. The Operating ( hiring) Departments are

more concerned with competencies and demonstrated performance rather than

emphasizing test scores.

5. Although the Personnel Department compiles some statistics from application

activities, the data are not completely available for understanding various

elements of the process. For example, it is not known why job candidates turned

down positions offered, or why current employees choose to leave County

employment. Further, it is unclear what the correlation is between the job

position description and the reliability and validity of test, or what the reasons are

for candidates who pass tests but do not appear for interviews.

6. The Personnel Department is reluctant to allow contingent offers as a method to

fill critically needed positions expeditiously or to retain highly qualified

applicants that may not have all the minimum qualifications. For example,

college interns with the County cannot be given contingent employment offers

prior to their graduation.

7. The key element in employee hiring and retention is competitive salaries.

8. The Personnel Department budget for advertising is $ 8,000 annually. This

amount is barely adequate to cover newspaper advertising which reaches only 3%

of the County’s job applicants. There seems to be little relationship between the

advertising budget and the needs of the department in gaining public attention to

open positions within the County. Some operating departments augment the

advertising effort through use of their own budgets.

9. With 68% of County management over 50 years of age and nearing retirement,

Succession Planning has taken on increased significance. It appears that there is

no formal, documented and required process for consistent planning for

promotional development for employees who are under consideration for

advancement to supervisory or management positions.

10. Kern County and Placer County are unique within California’s 58 counties in that

there is no formal business relationship and accountability between the Personnel

Director and the County Administrative Office ( CAO).

11. In an effort to understand the steps involved in the hiring process, this

Committee, working with the Personnel Department, developed the County

Hiring Process Flow chart ( Figure 1). This flow chart maps the sequential process

steps currently used by the Personnel Department in acting on requisitions from

Operating Departments, recruiting, testing, and certifying qualified candidates for

County employment. For example, if a requisition is submitted to the Personnel

Department and a candidate list currently exists, the certification of candidates

can be expedited as shown on Figure 1 in dark blue color. Typically, this process

will take 42 to 44 days from requisition submittal to the first day of work for the

new employee. If a current candidate list has expired or does not exist, the hiring

process will typically take 87 to 115 days if only one exam is needed to qualify

the applicant ( depicted in green on Figure 1). If additional exams are needed the

timeline extends an additional 12 to 20 days for each additional examination

FIGURE 1: COUNTY HIRING PROCESS FLOW

Identify

position

vacancy

Current

candidate list

exists

Draft requisition

1 Determine exam

components 1- 2

Written

Oral

Agility

E& T

Revisions &

SME review

2- 14

Exam scoring,

tabulation and data

entry 2

Job announcement

1- 3

Pursue recruitment

plan

14

Personnel Dept. reviews

employment applications 1- 10

Mail invitations to selected

candidates 7- 10

Develop eligibility list &

certify top three candidates 5

Hiring Dept.

conducts oral

interview.

Hiring Dept.

conducts

additional testing

& background

checks, pre-employment

medical, drug

screens, etc. 26

Hiring Dept.

selects candidate

& makes position

appointment 14

Effective

employment date

Y

Y

N

Certify from existing list

1- 3

N

Analyst &

Dept. interact

Conduct Oral exam 1

Develop exam ( s)

7- 14

Conduct written exam

1

Conduct agility/ ability

exam 1

More

exams? N

Y

Legend

Red numerals

equal days.

Resource

determination &

allocation 7- 14

Exam scoring, tabulation and

data entry 2- 7

1- 3

4

2- 4

( depicted in yellow on Figure 1). Occasionally, requisitions will levy special

requirements or update job descriptions such that the evaluation criteria and/ or the

test( s) must be changed. In such cases, an additional 9 to 28 days for each test

must be added to the timeline to allow the Personnel Department to evaluate and

implement the changes.

12. The shaping of staff reports etc. would be different if the Personnel Department

had some accountability to the CAO rather than solely to the Civil Service

Commission. Position Analysts have no accountability to Operating

Departments.

13. A consistent theme from Operating Department Directors is the lack of timely

support from the Personnel department in finding and certifying sufficient

numbers of qualified candidates for open County positions.

14. There appears to be no feedback mechanism that would foster greater self-assessment

by the Personnel Department of its policies and procedures and its

interaction with Operating Departments. Moreover, the Personnel Department

does not act on concerns and recommendations from Operating Departments and

other County organizations.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. Amend or delete CSC rule 602.21 such that the interpretation of the governing

ordinance Section VII, paragraph j will not restrict the Personnel Department

from providing up to three certified candidates for each opening on the

requisition.

2. Permit existing Kern County employees seeking promotional opportunities to

compete for certification and appointment on equal footing with external

candidates with respect to salary.

3. The design of tests to determine candidate qualifications to perform to job

specifications seems to focus more on the ideal than the real. The Personnel

Department and the Operating Department( s) should reconsider what is relevant

measurement criteria for each position tested. Perhaps opening a dialogue with

the California State Civil Service Commission testing service might provide

additional insights.

4. The Personnel Department should regularly consult with the Operating ( hiring)

Departments in establishing the criteria for ranking and certifying candidates as

an alternative to written tests.

5. The Personnel Department should maintain adequate statistics on success/ failure

of all job applicants taking tests to ensure validity and reliability of tests used for

ranking candidates. Further, exit interviews should be conducted with all

employees leaving County employment so that quantitative and qualitative

analyses could be done to determine causes and trends.

6. Contingent employment offers should be a viable and expeditious means to fill

critical vacancies for positions. The Personnel Department could require enough

information in the job posting for professional positions such as requiring copies

of papers authored, professional and personal references, etc. to quickly qualify

the professional applicant to be certified to the Operating Department.

Furthermore, applicants who are working toward satisfaction of minimum

qualifications should be considered for contingent offers. The offers would be

contingent upon the satisfactory validation of the information provided and

fulfillment of minimum qualifications for the positions. Additionally, internships

could be offered to prospective candidates as early as high school since that is the

source for the bulk of County positions.

7. To ensure that Kern County is able to maintain a viable workforce into the next

decade, it is incumbent upon all stakeholders to develop the structure needed to

provide current employees with a salary/ benefits compensation package that is

competitive with city, state and federal governments as well as local private

industry.

8. It is essential to provide adequate financial resources to advertise County position

openings. Most of the advertising budget should reside with the Operating

Departments. Annual budgetary appropriations should be increased to both the

Operating Departments and the Personnel Department. For example, the

Operating Departments should have the flexibility to actively recruit at college

campuses, and other appropriate venues. Consideration should be given to the

development of a comprehensive marketing plan for the County position

openings.

9. Develop a County- wide policy for Succession Planning. Adherence to such a

policy should be a requirement of all County supervisory and management

personnel and should be accomplished annually. The Succession Planning policy

should contain a mentoring plan with clearly defined goals and with assigned

responsibilities and due dates. The purpose is to prepare prospective managers

and supervisors identified in the Succession Plan with the training, resources,

mentoring, guidance and realistic experiences necessary to target the completion

of their preparation to the expected vacancy date of the supervisory or

management position.

10. Recently, the BOS, CSC and CAO agreed to meet semi- annually to form a nexus

between these organizations. This Committee recommends that these

organizations meet on a more frequent and regular basis with a joint agenda and a

commitment to implement changes necessary to improve the County’s hiring and

retention practices.

11. The Personnel Department should continually review the hiring process flow to

remove inefficiencies and realign as necessary to meet the changing needs of

County Operating Departments. For example, a single notification of all test

dates required for the position would shorten the timeline from 12 to 20 days for

each additional test required. Communication with applicants could be further

improved by utilizing e- mail and telephone to notify applicants of testing

appointments and other information required from them.

12. The Personnel Department and Operating Departments should work

cooperatively to increase the efficiency of the hiring process. Personnel Analysts

assigned to work with one or more Operating Departments should have greater

accountability to those Operating Departments.

13. Operating Departments should assume a greater leadership role in recruiting

candidates for hard to fill positions. They should participate directly in

coordinated recruiting efforts with the Personnel Department at Bakersfield

College, CSUB and Cal Poly campuses.

14. The Personnel Department should invest in continual self- analysis as a means to

bring about cultural change in the management of the County’s human resources.

The Personnel Department should post a copy of this report where it will be available for

public review.

NOTE: Present and past Kern County Grand Jury Reports and Responses may be

accessed through the Kern County Library system and on the Kern County Grand Jury

website: www. co. kern. ca. us/ grandjury.

.

RESPONSE REQUIRED WITHIN 90 DAYS TO:

PRESIDING JUDGE

KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

1415 TRUXTUN AVENUE, 2nd FLOOR

BAKERSFIELD CA 93301

cc: FOREMAN

KERN COUNTY GRAND JURY

1415 TRUXTUN AVENUE, SUITE 600

BAKERSFIELD CA 93301

PLEASE STRUCTURE YOUR REPONSE IN ACCORDANCE WITH PENAL

CODE SECTION 933.05, SUBSECTIONS A AND B.

February 15, 2007

Honorable Jerold L. Turner

Presiding Judge

Kern County Superior Court

1415 Truxtun Avenue, 2nd Floor

Bakersfield, CA 93301

Dear Judge Turner:

This correspondence serves to transmit the response of the Personnel Department

to the Final Report of the 2006- 2007 Grand Jury concerning the Kern County

Personnel Department and Civil Service Commission. Following is the response to

each of the findings and recommendations enumerated in the report.

Thank you for the time and consideration members of the Grand Jury have shown

us as we continue to explore how to improve our service to County government and

the community.

Response to 2006- 07 Kern County Grand Jury Final Report

Kern County Personnel and Civil Service Commission

FINDINGS:

1. Kern County Ordinance A- 126, Section Vii, paragraph j requires certification and

appointment from the three candidates standing highest on the eligible list. This is

interpreted very narrowly when there is more than one opening in a particular job class.

The list of certified candidates can prove to be unnecessarily restrictive. For example,

if there are 10 identical openings the Personnel Department will certify only 12

candidates. This allows the hiring department minimal flexibility and the leeway to

reject a maximum of only two candidates.

The Personnel Department disagrees with this finding. The Kern County Civil Service

Initiative Ordinance A- 126, Section VII, paragraph I, requires, " certification and

appointment from the three eligibles standing highest on the eligible list or lists for the

class whenever a position in the classified service is to be filled..." Civil Service Rule

602.21 provides that the number of names certified for more than one position vacancy

in a department shall be equal to the number of positions to be filled plus two ( 2) or

more if tie scores are involved. Civil Service Rule 602.22 implements the Ordinance by

providing instruction on the manner in which appointments are to be made. In certifying

two names in addition to the number of vacancies, the hiring department always has the

three eligibles standing highest on the list from which to make a selection. This

procedure ensures compliance with the explicit language of the Ordinance.

2. A current Kern County employee seeking a promotion into a higher classification

opening is limited to a maximum 7% salary increase whereas a candidate that is hired

for that position who is not currently a County employee is not subject to this restriction.

The Personnel Department agrees with the finding. Kern County Ordinance Code

3.08.330 states that any employee who is promoted or reclassified shall be placed in

the salary step which most closely approximates a one step increase from the former

position. The salary step cannot be more than 7.5% higher than the former position,

unless the entire salary range is more than 7.5 % higher. In that case, a current

employee is limited to the " A" ( lowest) step in the salary range. If, for example, a

Department Head has one County employee and two non- County applicants to

consider for a vacancy, he may offer any level in the salary range to the non- County

applicants, while the salary offered to the County employee must conform to the limits

imposed by 3.08.330.

3. There appears to be a consistent pattern with " extra help" employees in that they

frequently satisfy the job requirements fully and competently and yet cannot pass the

exam( s) for permanent appointment. " Extra help” hires are the most frequently used

hiring mechanism to fill vacancies quickly.

The Personnel Department disagrees with the finding in part. While it is true that some

extra- help employees do not pass some exams, no pattern is discernible. In some

cases, written exams may be challenging for a person who is performing a job which is

Response to Grand Jury Report

February 15, 2007

Page 2

primarily physical labor. Extra- help employees often perform tasks which are specific to

an assignment within a department, while exams are developed to capture the broad

knowledge required of a classification.

4. The Personnel Department must rank all candidates for a position. They employ tests and

measurement for this purpose. The Operating ( hiring) Departments are more concerned with

competencies and demonstrated performance rather than emphasizing test scores.

The Personnel Department disagrees with the finding in part. The Civil Service Initiative

Ordinance ( A- 126) Section VII, f specifies, " open competitive examinations to test the

relative fitness of applicants in the classified service of the County." The finding implies

that the Personnel Department only uses written exams to comply with this section of

the Ordinance. In fact, Civil Service Rule 403.00 identifies seven ( 7) different

approaches to testing which can be used singly or in combination as appropriate to

assess applicants. Departments are consulted to assist in designing recruitment

strategies and preparing, conducting and grading examinations as necessary. The

hiring department has full responsibility for assessing competencies and demonstrated

performance during the final phase of testing - the probationary period,

5. Although the Personnel Department compiles some statistics from application activities,

the data are not completely available for understanding various elements of the

process. For example, it is not known why job candidates turned down positions

offered or why current employees choose to leave County employment. Further, it is

unclear what the correlation is between the job position description and the reliability

and validity of tests, or what the reasons are for candidates who pass tests but do not

appear for interviews.

The Personnel Department agrees with the finding. Our ability to gather, compile and

maintain this type of information is limited by several factors, including staff levels,

technology and competing priorities. Additional resources are required to improve such

data gathering.

6. The Personnel Department is reluctant to allow contingent offers as a method to fill

critically needed positions expeditiously or to retain highly qualified applicants that may

not have all the minimum qualifications. For example, college interns with the County

cannot be given contingent employment offers prior to their graduation.

The Personnel Department partially disagrees with the finding.

College interns or others who are pending completion of education or other criteria may

be permitted into the testing process if the recruitment is designed to accept applicants

on a contingent basis. In many cases, departments do not have the luxury of waiting

several more months to fill a position and prefer to have only fully qualified candidates

admitted to the recruitment. Some classifications require a state issued license before

Response to Grand Jury Report

February 15, 2007

Page 3

the individual can be a fully functioning employee, and some classifications have a pre-licensed

level into which they may be hired until the license has been received.

7. The key element in employee hiring and retention is competitive salaries.

The Personnel Department agrees with the finding. The County Administrative Office

and Board of Supervisors are responsible for negotiating and approving salaries for

County positions.

8. The Personnel Department budget for advertising is $ 8,000 annually. This amount is

barely adequate to cover newspaper advertising which reaches only 3% of the

County's job applicants. There seems to be little relationship between the advertising

budget and the needs of the department in gaining public attention to open positions

within the County. Some operating departments augment the advertising effort through

use of their own budgets.

The finding states, ". . . newspaper advertising which reaches only 3% of the County's

job applicants." We are not aware of industry statistics that would generally support

this outcome as to the effectiveness of newspaper advertising. A recent survey of

County new hires provides some insight regarding this matter. However, the surveyed

population( s) to date has been very small and the data is a reflection of the recruitment

efforts that have been expended. One might postulate that the percentage is a direct

correlation of the lack of advertising that has been done in accomplishing recruitment

outreach. We agree that more needs to be done in this area.

9. With 68% of County management over 50 years of age and nearing retirement,

Succession Planning has taken on increased significance. It appears that there is no

formal, documented and required process for consistent planning for promotional

development for employees who are under consideration for advancement to

supervisory or management positions.

The Personnel Department agrees with the finding. The County needs to pursue a

more proactive approach.

10. Kern County and Placer County are unique within California's 58 counties in that there

is no formal business relationship and accountability between the Personnel Director

and the County Administrative Office.

All public jurisdictions employ some variation of a Civil Service Merit system with

established regulatory statutes. Kern County's merit system was adopted in 1956 via

initiative ordinance by the voters of Kern County to establish and maintain a

competitive process for County employment. As stated in the Ordinance, the Civil

Service Commission is accountable for certain personnel administration functional

areas. In these matters, the Commission is autonomous and fashions its rules and

regulations to engender the competitive process while adhering to various statutes.

Response to Grand Jury Report

February 15, 2007

Page 4

The Civil Service Commission and the Personnel Department staff maintain an

amicable and professional business relationship with the County Administrative Office.

We cannot delegate to others the authority which the Ordinance has vested in us, but

we do have a strong business working relationship and are accountable to the County

Administrative Office in other ways by business necessity.

11. In an effort to understand the steps involved in the hiring process, this Committee,

working with the Personnel Department, developed the County Hiring Process Flow

Chart ( Figure 1). This flow chart maps the sequential process steps currently used by

the Personnel Department in acting on requisitions from Operating Departments,

recruiting, testing and certifying qualified candidates for County employment. For

example, if a requisition is submitted to the Personnel Department and a candidate list

currently exists, the certification of candidates can be expedited as shown in Figure 1

in blue color. Typically, this process will take 42 to 444 days from requisition submittal

to the first day of work for the new employee. If a current candidate list has expired or

does not exist, the hiring process will typically take 87 to 115 days if only one exam is

needed to qualify the applicant ( depicted in green on Figure 1). If additional exams are

needed, the timeline extends an additional 12 to 20 days for each additional

examination ( depicted in yellow on Figure 1). Occasionally, requisitions will levy

special requirements or update job descriptions such that the evaluation criteria and or

the test( s) must be changed. In such cases, an additional 9 to 28 days for each test

must be added to the timeline to allow the Personnel Department to evaluate and

implement the changes.

The Personnel Department agrees with the finding in part, with the acknowledgment

that the timeframes depicted in the chart can be, and many times are, impacted by

other variables. The flow chart attempts to capture many variables which may affect

recruitment. However, there truly is no " typical" recruitment. That observation was

emphasized during the discussion with Grand Jury members. There appears to be a

typographical error in the finding where it's stated that the process takes " 42 to 444

days from requisition submittal to the first day of work for the new employee." The

actual timeframe depicted in the chart is from 42 to 44 days.

12. The shaping of staff reports, etc. would be different if the Personnel Department had

some accountability to the CAO rather than solely to the Civil Service Commission.

Position Analysts have no accountability to Operating Departments.

The Personnel Department disagrees with this finding. Our mission is to provide

human resource management services to the operating departments in a timely and

professional manner, while adhering to established legal requirements. We make

every effort to be accountable for the quality and timeliness of services to the extent

we are resourced to provide the services. However, the Personnel Department staff

remains accountable to the Civil Service Commission and, in turn, the Commission's

accountability to the initiative ordinance. Without specificity as to what is meant by " the

shaping of staff reports," we cannot respond to this portion of the finding. Personnel

Response to Grand Jury Report

February 15, 2007

Page 5

Department staff reports directed to the Commission generally have County

Administrative Office concurrence and, often times, facilitate organizational or

operational issues advocated by the County Administrative Office.

13. A consistent theme from Operating Department Directors is the lack of timely support

from the Personnel Department in finding and certifying sufficient numbers of qualified

candidates for open County positions.

The Personnel Department agrees with the finding. This is often due to factors beyond

the control of the Personnel Department, such as the labor market, near full

employment, lack of competitive salaries and cost of benefits.

14. There appears to be no feedback mechanism that would foster greater self- assessment

by the Personnel Department of its policies and procedures and its interaction with

Operating Departments. Moreover, the Personnel Department does not act on

concerns and recommendations from Operating Departments and other County

organizations.

The Personnel Department disagrees partially with the finding. Although there does

not appear to be a formal feedback mechanism, the Personnel Department continually

reviews its policies and procedures as necessary and as resources will allow.

Requests by Department Heads to consider modifications to our policies and

procedures are evaluated and changes are made as appropriate.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Amend or delete CSC Rule 602.21 such that the interpretation of the governing

ordinance Section VII, paragraph will not restrict the Personnel Department from

providing up to three certified candidates for each opening on the requisition.

The recommendation will not be implemented because such action would contradict

the Civil Service Initiative Ordinance. The Ordinance is not ambiguous in defining who

departments are to consider for each opening ". . . the three eliqibles standing highest

on the eligible list whenever a position in the classified service is to be filled...

( emphasis added). As eligibles are hired from lists, the individual rankings change.

Civil Service Rule 602.21 ensures that the Ordinance is followed by always providing

the three eligibles standing highest on the list. It would not be appropriate to amend or

delete Rule 602.21 unless the Civil Service Initiative Ordinance from which it is was

changed by the voters.

Response to Grand Jury Report

February 15, 2007

Page 6

2. Permit existing Kern County employees seeking promotional opportunities to compete

for certification and appointment on equal footing with external candidates with respect

to pay.

County Ordinance Code 3.08.330 was adopted by the Board of Supervisors and can

be changed at its will. The Personnel Department administers the code as part of the

payroll function. The impact of this ordinance section on the recruitment and retention

of employees is under study by the Strategic Workforce Planning Task Force and

recommendations to amend it are anticipated. The timeframe for implementing

changes to this ordinance section rests with the Board of Supervisors.

3. The design of tests to determine candidate qualifications to perform to job

specifications seems to focus more on the ideal than the real. The Personnel

Department and the Operating Department( s) should reconsider what is relevant

measurement criteria for each position tested. Perhaps opening a dialogue with the

California State Civil Service Commission testing service might provide additional

insight.

The recommendation is an ongoing practice of the Personnel Department; therefore,

an implementation plan is not pertinent. It is important to remember that testing is

conducted for each classification, not necessarily for each individual position. The

Personnel Department strives to develop tests which evaluate broad concepts which

pertain to all, or to at least the majority, of positions in a given classification, and which

adhere to accepted professional standards of assessment. Test analysts typically meet

with department representatives to review exam components, subjects and questions,

develop new test items and update concepts. When appropriate, the Personnel

Department has also obtained test questions from the Western Regional Item Bank

( WRIB) and has either rented exams from Cooperative Personnel Services ( CPS) or

has used CPS services to develop custom exams.

4. The Personnel Department should regularly consult with the Operating ( hiring)

Departments in establishing the criteria for ranking and certifying candidates as an

alternative to written tests.

The recommendation is an ongoing practice of the Personnel Department; therefore,

an implementation plan is not pertinent. Departments will continue to be consulted

about the nature of examinations in relation to the valid and reliable methods of

evaluating candidates to create eligible lists.

5. The Personnel Department should maintain adequate statistics on success/ failure of all

job applicants taking tests to ensure validity and reliability of tests used for ranking

candidates. Further, exit interviews should be conducted with all employees leaving

County employment so that quantitative and qualitative analyses could be done to

determine causes and trends.

Response to Grand Jury Report

February 15, 2007

Page 7

That portion of the recommendation pertaining to maintaining statistics on the

success/ failure of job applicants is an on- going practice of the Personnel Department.

The effective compilation of those statistics is a matter of improved resourcing. While

the Personnel Department agrees that exit interviews should be conducted with all

employees leaving the County, that practice would also rely on improved resourcing.

Our recent experience in conducting a mail and e- mail survey among applicants about

reasons for refusing job offers suggests that personal contacts by a disinterested third

party such as the Personnel Department can yield candid information about

departments and employees alike. Without additional resources, an effective exit

interview program cannot be implemented.

6. Contingent employment offers should be viable and expeditious means to fill critical

vacancies for positions. The Personnel Department could require enough information

in the job posting for professional positions such as requiring copies of papers

authored, professional and personal references, etc. to quickly qualify the professional

applicant to be certified to the Operating Department. Furthermore, applicants who are

working toward satisfaction of minimum qualifications should be considered for

contingent offers. The offers would be contingent upon the satisfactory validation of the

information provided and fulfillment of minimum qualifications for the positions.

Additionally, internships could be offered to prospective candidates as early as high

school since that is the source of the bulk of County positions.

The practice of providing for contingent hiring is longstanding with the Personnel

Department. A protocol whereby contingent offers may be made in very closely

defined circumstances is being established. Mindful of the need to ensure the integrity

of the competitive process which is demanded by the Civil Service Initiative Ordinance,

the protocol may not completely satisfy the departments who wish to use it, but it is

hoped that it will assist in expeditiously filling vacancies in critical classifications. The

protocol will be provided to departments in April 2007.

7. To ensure that Kern County is able to maintain a viable workforce into the next decade,

it is incumbent upon all stakeholders to develop the structure needed to provide current

employees with a salary/ benefits compensation package that is competitive with city,

state and federal