Humboldt County government spending lacks accountability, transparency and proper oversight, according to the latest report from the Humboldt County Grand Jury.
After investigating the county’s procurement practices for the first time in 15 years, the grand jury found that the county doesn’t have any regular review for the millions of dollars it spends annually. Furthermore, it found, the chief administrative officer is sometimes not included in decision-making, and short-staffing has undermined oversight.
The grand jury “sought simple and straightforward answers” to its questions on county spending, it says in its report, but “was informed by various departments that the answers were unknown and/or unavailable.” The entire system — from identifying potential contractors to awarding bids to monitoring project performance — is “in need of critical evaluation and improvement,” the report finds.
Made up of a rotating membership of 19 local residents, the Humboldt County Grand Jury has subpoena power in its oversight role of county operations. Following each report, the county must respond to the specific allegations and recommendations.
Here’s a press release from the Humboldt County Grand Jury:
Humboldt County’s procurement practices, which include both contracts and purchase orders, have not generated a report from the Humboldt County Civil Grand Jury (HCCGJ) since 2000. With the total County budget now in excess of $319 million, and increasing annually, a review of what and how County funds are expended was deemed essential. In an effort to limit the scope of this investigation, the HCCGJ focused on contracts over $50,000.
The Humboldt County Civil Grand Jury concentrated its investigation on seven issues:
1. Contractor/vendor identification
2. Reliability determination
3. Validation of contractor/vendor representations
4. Award issuance
5. Performance monitoring oversight
6. Non-performance, fraud, waste, and abuse resolution
7. Transparency report and spend analysis oversight
The HCCGJ discovered a systemic lack of accountability. Although certain departments could and should handle their own contract negotiations, the procedures necessary to protect the County’s interests were not always in place or, at the least, were difficult to verify. The County Administrative Office (CAO) was on occasion not included in decision-making and review.
The HCCGJ found a lack of transparency, and no systematic procedure to insure that vendors had met the terms of their contracts. Contract descriptions and job titles were found to be confusing. The HCCGJ also found a duplication of efforts in the contract process and a lack of regular review for millions of dollars of county expenditures.
There is an assumption in standard procurement practices that a “contract administrator” must be the final authority on any given contract to which their name is attached. However, in Humboldt County there is no consistent terminology describing roles in the contract writing or review process. The HCCGJ is concerned that the continuing trend of both department consolidation and the elimination of critical staffing positions has resulted in a lack of oversight.
To this end, the Humboldt County Civil Grand Jury recommends an impartial, experienced group of experts conduct a major review of all aspects of contracts and purchasing across all County departments to improve the benefits of scale, the structure of this process, and result in greater efficiency and cost-effectiveness.
June 28, 2016
Lost Coast Outpost
By Ryan Burns
No comments:
Post a Comment