A simple question to county officials about how much taxpayer money goes toward buying goods resulted in several answers and a scathing rebuke by the San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury.
The question was: “How much was spent on goods for FY 2013-14?”
Answer A: $56 million.
Answer B: $87 million to $100 million.
Answer C: $45.9 million.
The answer is $45.9 million, a figure that stunned the civil grand jury since it was $10 million less than was reported by the county Controller’s Office in 2009.
The report, “Review of the County of San Mateo’s Procurement of Goods,” finds that the county’s Procurement Division lacks experienced leadership and does not follow best practices.
“While the grand jury was unable to quantify the impact of the county’s failure to develop and adhere to best practices, such impact is likely in the millions of dollars,” according to the report.
Released Monday, the report questions whether a new effort to improve how the county buys its goods will be meaningful since most of the recommendations made by the civil grand jury in 2004 and county Controller’s Office in 2009 were never implemented despite the Procurement Division agreeing to do so.
The county’s expenditures for goods and services was $299.8 million for fiscal year 2013-14, according to the report.
Exactly how much was spent on goods, however, came into question because the county lacks an accounting system to clearly segregate amounts paid for services from amounts paid for goods, according to the report.
The Procurement Division buys goods such as furniture, paper clips, computers and other office equipment for all county departments.
The civil grand jury investigation also found that the Procurement Division has lost key personnel in recent years and that there is no training for new buyers.
In January 2015, the County Manager’s Office formed a “Purchasing Compliance Committee” to begin to address the issues related to the procurement of goods. This effort coincides with a new review of the Procurement Division’s purchases by the Controller’s Office that has yet to be completed, according to the report.
“Whether either of these efforts will result in substantive changes is questionable,” according to the report.
After investigating the county’s procurement practices in 2003 and 2004, the civil grand jury made nine recommendations. The current report notes that only two of the recommendations were implemented, four partially implemented and three not implemented at all.
“No matter how good the Controller’s Office’s recommendations ... are, there must be a process in place to ensure that they will actually be implemented. Such a process should include an implementation schedule and close monitoring by the County Manager,” according to the report.
County officials were not ready to respond to the report Tuesday.
“The county appreciates the grand jury’s detailed evaluation of its Procurement Division. As we’ve only just received the report, we are still reviewing its findings and feel it would be premature to comment at this time. However, we will submit a complete written response as required,” according to a written statement from the county.
The report including the prior recommendations from the civil grand jury can be found at www.sanmateocourt.org/documents/grand_jury/2014/procurement.pdf.
bill@smdailyjournal.com
The Daily Journal
No comments:
Post a Comment