Proposed Council Response to County Proposed Council Response to - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Office of the Independent Budget Analyst

Proposed Council Response to County

Office of the Independent Budget Analyst

Proposed Council Response to County Grand Jury Report

“Say What You’ll Do and Then Do What You Say: Say What You ll Do and Then Do What You Say: Past Grand Jurors Association Implementation Review Committee” Presentation for the Economic Development & Intergovernmental Relations Economic Development & Intergovernmental Relations Committee July 30, 2014 Item #4

IBA Report 14-30

Overview

• The Grand Jury filed this report, directed to

the City Council on May 21 2014 the City Council, on May 21, 2014.

• City Council and the Mayor are required to

y y q provide response to Presiding Judge by October 17, 2014 – extended due date.

Office of the IBA

Overview

• The report discusses ensuring transparency

and accountability with respect to the and accountability with respect to the implementation of Grand Jury recommendations that have been accepted recommendations that have been accepted by the City. Th i l d 1 fi di d 1

• The report includes 1 finding and 1

recommendation specific to the City.

Office of the IBA

Format for Responses

Prescribed Grand Jury responses include:

• For each Finding:
• For each Finding:

– Agree – Disagree wholly or partially g y p y

• For each Recommendation:

– Has been implemented p – Has not yet been implemented, but will be – Requires further analysis – Will not be implemented because it is not warranted

• r is not reasonable

Office of the IBA

Proposed Response to Finding

Grand Jury report contains only one finding specific to the City: specific to the City: Finding 02: The City of San Diego failed to ak th G a d J I pl tati R i make the Grand Jury Implementation Review Committee permanent in 2009 despite its success in insuring that Grand Jury recommendations in insuring that Grand Jury recommendations were implemented.

P d R P ti ll di

–Proposed Response: Partially disagree

Office of the IBA

A h h G d J I l i

Proposed Response to Finding

• Agree that the Grand Jury Implementation

Review Committee was not made permanent in 2009 in 2009.

• No additional information is included in the

Grand Jury report supporting the statement Grand Jury report supporting the statement regarding the Review Committee’s success in ensuring Grand Jury recommendations were g J y implemented.

• The City believes a better use of resources

y would be to utilize a different approach - as

• utlined in the alternative proposed responses

h G d J d i

Office of the IBA

to the Grand Jury recommendation.

Recommendation 14-81

Recommendation 14-81: Establish an Implementation Review Committee similar to the one established in 2007- 2009 d p d f h S Di C P 2009 and patterned after the current San Diego County Past Grand Jury Implementation Review Committee. Proposed Response: The recommendation will

• Proposed Response: The recommendation will

not be implemented because it is not warranted. warranted.

– The City believes there are more efficient and

effective approaches for providing transparency pp p g p y and reviewing the implementation status of previously accepted Grand Jury d i

Office of the IBA

recommendations.

Recommendation 14-81

Proposed response includes two alternatives:

Al i 1 C il C i i

• Alternative 1: Council Committee review process

to assess the implementation status of accepted recommendations for past Grand Jury reports recommendations for past Grand Jury reports

• Alternative 2: Direct website posting by

d t t l t bli h d G d J departments, on newly established Grand Jury Reports webpage (suggested by Councilmember Sherman’s Office) Sherman s Office)

Office of the IBA

P d R Alt ti 1

Recommendation 14-81

Proposed Response–Alternative 1

Council Committee review of implementation status:

• Avoids additional support expenses associated

with a separate Committee process

• Provides a more widely know public platform
• Council Committees have authority to direct

f ll follow-up

• Could be implemented via one central Council

C itt lt ti l b i di id l Committee or, alternatively, by individual Committees based on the subject matter

Office of the IBA

Proposed Response Alternative 2

Recommendation 14-81

Proposed Response–Alternative 2

Direct posting by departments of implementation status to a new Grand Jury Reports webpage: status to a new Grand Jury Reports webpage:

• Avoids additional support expenses associated

with a separate Committee process with a separate Committee process

• Implementation would include creation of a

Council Policy and Administrative Regulation to y g

• utline:

– Roles and responsibilities – Timeframe and frequency for posting of status

updates to the new webpage Wh t t i l ld b t d t th b it

Office of the IBA

– What materials would be posted to the website

Summary and Next Steps

• Either Alternative 1 or Alternative 2 would

provide more transparency and p p y accountability regarding implementation of Grand Jury recommendations that have been d b h Ci accepted by the City.

• A combination of elements in the two

alternatives could also be considered.

Office of the IBA

Summary and Next Steps

• The IBA has had discussions with the

Mayor’s Office, with the idea of submitting a y g joint Council/Mayoral response to the Grand Jury report.

– We have drafted the proposed alternatives as

joint responses, but final determination ld d d th lti t iti f would depend on the ultimate composition of the response.

We request the Committee provide feedback

• We request the Committee provide feedback

and direction and move this item forward to the full City Council for consideration

Office of the IBA

the full City Council for consideration.