Heeeeeere's Johnny: policies in "shambles," "out-of-control" practices, ineffective and inefficient functioning—and more!

Better call the "guardian," eh?

Recently (May 6, 2009), an OC grand jury issued a scathing report regarding the operation of the county “public administrator/public guardian” (PA/PG) office. (See OC grand jury to John Williams: you stink.)

Owing, it seems, to political connections that materialized after trustee Tom "Mr. GOP" Fuentes’ back-door arrival to the SOCCCD board in 2000, long-time trustee John Williams, a staunch Republican and former cop, managed to secure (and to create) that combo county position.

Like so many of Mr. Fuentes' political cronies, without benefit of talent or experience or integrity, the newly-connected Mr. Williams quickly went from obscurity to...well, these days, he's sittin’ in high cotton.

Whatever might be said about John qua trustee, qua PA/PG, he’s an unmitigated disaster. That’s the only conclusion possible if one accepts the grand jury report as the product of an honest and competent investigation—and I can see no grounds for supposing otherwise.

You can judge for yourself. The report is available here (as a 12-page pdf file).

The report—entitled “The Guardian of Last Resort”—has been available since May 6. I’ve finally found some time to read it. (I added the highlighting in red.)

WHAT THE PA/PG DOES; WHY THE PA/PG WAS INVESTIGATED; WHAT THE REPORT CONCLUDED:

The report begins with a summary:

…The … [PA/PG] is charged with the task of administering the estates, totaling over $38 million and the lives, or deaths, of over a thousand people each year. These people have the misfortune of being … alone to the degree that they do not have anyone willing or able to care for them when they can no longer care for themselves.

Review of the Public Administrator/Public Guardian resulted in many concerns by the Orange County Grand Jury. Those most evident are in the areas of financial accountability, policies and procedures, personnel administration, information technology and case-load management. The investigation revealed a general need to improve organization and adhere to County policies. While these issues alone are damaging enough, the additional workload being placed on the employees has created a morale problem prompting letters to the Grand Jury.

This report explains how the agency has failed to keep its promise to the taxpayers of Orange County to cut costs and improve services. The annual base salary of management has increased over 96% since 2005. The policies and procedures are disorganized and outdated, illustrating that this business, which is mandated by law to attend to the details of people’s lives, is not following its own policies. The agency has interpreted the Orange County Human Resources (OCHR) rules and regulations to promote individuals into management positions that were, according to the OCHR, beyond what is accepted policy. Compounding every aspect of the inability of the PA/PG to function fully and efficiently is its aging, inadequate case management software system. It is with these issues in mind that the Grand Jury provides this report. [Boldface in the original.]

REASON FOR THE INVESTIGATION:

The next section of the report provides the “Reason for Investigation,” namely, (1) “information from numerous and varied sources that there were activities within the PA/PG that appeared to be inappropriate”—and (2) the expected rapid increase in the aged population in coming years.

Cats are always watching.

And some have superpowers.

BLOATED AND PROFLIGATE BUREAUCRACY:

Foes of bloated and profligate government will be plenty steamed by Mr. Williams' operation as described by the report. The latter explains

The office of the Public Guardian was a department of the Orange County Health Care Agency. The PA was a department of the Coroner’s Office until 1965. A proposal by the PG on May 3, 2005, in an Agenda Staff Report, requested that the office be combined and the PG separated from the Health Care Agency. According to the report, this action would save the taxpayers of Orange County $300,000 over the next three years. This separation was approved by the Board of Supervisors.

…At the time of separation, there were seven employees with management responsibilities including the agency head and one at-will employee. As of November, 2008, this number had risen to ten, an increase of over 40%. The total hourly base salaries, without fringe benefits or pension payouts, were calculated using information received from Orange County Human Resources (OCHR). In 2005, the combined hourly wages for the seven employees was $254.71. These wages calculated for one full year totaled $529,796. In November, 2008, the combined hourly wages for the ten individuals in the same category was $501.36. The total payroll for these ten individuals now amounts to $1,042,828. This is an increase [payroll] of 96.8% during the three years that the PG projected to save Orange County $300,000. The increase is attributable not only to the additional 40% now in management positions but also to the numerous promotions made by the PA/PG. Several of these promotions were called unwarranted by OCHR due to the limited size and scope of the agency. This calculation does not include two additional individuals in at-will clerical positions that have added at least $100,000 a year to management overhead or employees classified as supervisor. During this period, while the number of managers and their payroll increased, the number of total employees has remained approximately the same. [Boldface in the original.]

The report also describes “questionable” pension practices:

The Grand Jury reviewed the case wherein an employee was promoted to a top management position within a year of retirement. The position was at will and there were no education and experience requirements. That one year of promotion is costing the taxpayers of Orange County an additional $56,674 per year in pension benefits and … the taxpayers of Orange County will pay at least $1,453,100 in additional pension benefits. This figure does not include statutory cost of living increases.

POLICIES AND PROCEDURES: CONFUSION

The report finds serious problems with the existing PA/PG “policies and procedures.” When asked for the P&Ps, Williams produced two manuals, both labeled P&Ps. The older manual (pre-Williams) is complete and well-organized. The second, Williams-era, manual is profoundly disorganized.

The grand jury found several examples of confusion re these newer P&Ps:

Jurors, attending a decedent’s home during a final property inventory, observed that the agency’s own procedures were not being followed. They were informed that this was a second and final search for documents possibly revealing the names and addresses of heirs. During this search there was a surprise discovery of a wallet containing a driver’s license and cash under a pile of mail on a counter top. The Jurors were informed that the search concluded the PA/PG’s handling of the personal property of this estate and it would now be turned over to a sub-contractor. At the time of their departure, papers remained throughout the house, such as the ones that had been concealing the wallet on the counter top. The PA/PG has a policy instructing the deputies to remove the papers from the home. That policy contains a procedure instructing the reader to refer to yet a second policy. The second policy gives clear directions for the Deputy to sort, label and box important papers and destroy junk mail. It goes on to also describe the process for storing the boxed papers so they can be delivered to an heir or used when settling the estate. However this policy contained a purple “sticky” note stating that it had been deleted and the reader should now refer to yet a third policy. Complicating matters even further, this third policy does not address the sorting, storing or discarding of papers at all; it only addresses warehouse security.
…
Interviews with management revealed that there was no one authorized to make serious life and death decisions in the absence of the Public Guardian (PG). When questioned what the procedure was during an emergency situation the Grand Jury was told that the PG could always be reached even while out of the country on vacation. After further investigation into the written procedure, it appeared that management was unaware or did not adhere to its own policy and was placing the conservatee at risk of serious complications or death. The procedure designated to deal with this matter gives this responsibility to the deputy presently on duty, the Officer of the Day and the Supervising Deputy. There is no mention of the Public Guardian having that sole responsibility.

Fiendishly inscrutable

Maddeningly reticent

AN EVER-CHANGING (UNDEFINED?) ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE:

The report portrays Mr. Williams as a bit fuzzy about his agency’s organizational structure:

Four organizational charts were provided to the Grand Jury over a period of four months. These charts were different each time they were produced and the titles of the individuals were constantly changing.

The report describes various “flawed personnel administration policies”:

In March, 2008, a senior management position, although occupied at the time, was removed from the organization chart. In August, 2008, the position reappeared and was filled by a different employee who received a temporary promotion into that same position. Some employees interviewed believed that the temporary promotions were numerous and were often not based on competency. “We never knew a position was even open,” an employee stated. This practice is, according to many, demoralizing.
…
When the time came to fill a permanent non-technical management position, OCHR [Orange County Human Resources] produced a list of over thirty candidates. The individuals were divided into two categories. The PA/PG directed OCHR to refer only applicants from their own organization for potential selection. This action made it impossible for anyone not currently employed by the agency to qualify. The request produced one candidate from the lower classification category. Consequently, other applicants who had scored higher on County placement tests were not referred, because they did not work in the PA/PG office. By doing this, a management position was filled by a PA/PG employee who otherwise may not have been considered.

In addition to the promotion previously mentioned, a surprisingly rapid promotion from an Administrative Manager I position to an Administrative Manager II position in a four-month period was documented. Further, two Administrative Manager III positions were awarded over the objections of OCHR. The Grand Jury learned from OCHR that the promotions to Administrative Manager III in the PA/PG were not warranted due to the level of responsibility within that agency. The PA/PG made one of those positions permanent in spite of the objections of OCHR by finding a budget loophole in the system.

Endless and appalling machinations apaw

I.T. FUBAR:

Re “information technology”:

…At the beginning of the review of the PA/PG, items of interest to the Grand Jury were requested. Very often they responded that they did not have the information readily available. Pertinent information that should have been easily gathered with a few key strokes proved to be beyond their current capabilities.

The current ePAGES computer program used to manage conservatorships and guardianships is no longer supported by the software supplier, and is inadequate for its intended task. As of January, 2009, the PA/PG has failed to correct numerous, serious deficiencies in case management that were identified in a May, 2005, County Internal Audit. These issues were to be corrected by implementation of a replacement computer system.

The same County Internal Audit report recommended that the Public Administrator/Public Guardian replace its aged inadequate ePAGES software program. The PA/PG responded by indicating the deficiencies would be corrected and the old software system would be replaced by June, 2008. The Grand Jury was informed by the PA/PG in July, 2008, that this had not taken place; in fact a software provider had just been identified. At this time the PA/PG indicated that project delays were partially caused by a lack of funding. However, County purchasing records revealed that the project was fully funded during this period. For the next several months the Grand Jury observed that steps were taken to initiate this system. At the time of this report, the implementation of the successor program to ePAGES is at least thirteen months behind schedule. It is probable that this project will not be completed in July, 2009, as forecasted.

DOUBLE THE USUAL CASELOAD:

Re “Caseload Management”:

The size of the individual caseloads of the deputies was a concern expressed in complaint letters received by the Grand Jury. The writers pleaded for help for the deputies doing the hands-on work. In response, the Grand Jury made repeated requests for information regarding the number of cases each deputy was assigned. Due to an inadequate computer records system, there was no list of assigned cases that could be retrieved. Repeated attempts to view statistical data from both the PA/PG and Probate Court produced little usable information for the Grand Jury to review. An authoritative study identified that the usual caseload for a Public Guardian Deputy was 45. The PA/PG, though unable to identify the caseload size for each caseworker, has stated that deputies on average handle between 70 and 80 cases each.

Unapologetically arresting

CONCLUSION:

The report’s conclusion:

This investigation revealed that the PA/PG’s ability to provide services according to its mission has been reduced by management’s inability to function effectively and efficiently. They have failed to deliver on their promise to save Orange County taxpayer’s money. The road map for the job at hand, the Policies and Procedures Manual, is in shambles. Out-of-control personnel practices have created an organization top heavy in management and riddled with unhappy workers, required to do much more work than what is considered typical. Additionally, the aged, inadequate software system cannot produce the basic information needed for timely completion of everyday business. The need for change is evident. The Grand Jury’s findings and recommendations provide the Board of Supervisors with what is considered necessary to enable the PA/PG to fulfill its mission.

FINDINGS:

The report issues a series of “findings”:

F.1: The management of PA/PG has become top heavy which complicates communication with employees, increases costs and lowers morale and department performance.
…
F.2: Personnel practices at PA/PG have used temporary promotions and selective exclusion criteria to circumvent standard hiring procedures.

F.3: The current ePAGES computer program is no longer supported by the software supplier, and is inadequate for its intended task. Implementation of a replacement system, recommended by County Internal Audit in 2005, is severely delayed and is now scheduled for release in July 2009.

F.4: Evidence of questionable pension practices was found at the PA/PG, which could cost taxpayers nearly one and one half million ($1,500,000) dollars.

F.5: Public Administrator/Public Guardian policies and procedures are outdated, confusing and are not being adhered to as written making it difficult to effectively implement the PA/PG stated mission.

F.6: The lack of business metrics used to measure the effectiveness of PA/PG internal operations and its delivery of those services described in their mission statement makes it difficult to manage and continuously improve agency operations.

F.7: Management practices used since the separation of the Public Guardian from the Health Care Agency have significantly increased administrative management costs.

F.8: The combining of the PA and PG in 2005 has not produced the anticipated administrative cost reductions. The administrative costs have actually increased without any apparent improvement in decedent estate processing or conservatee care. The agency has made ineffective decisions that have cost Orange County taxpayers and conservatees a significant amount of money.

Annoyingly enthralling

WILLIAMS MUST RESPOND:

According to the report, “Responses to Findings F.1 through F.8 are required from the Public Administrator and requested from the Public Guardian…. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court.”

Page 7 of the report presents 15 “recommendations,” closely tied to "findings."

* * * * *

Incompetence and corruption in government are routine, of course. Typically, however, we never get a clear view of them. Perhaps this time we have that.

In the end, Mr. Williams will have been undone—if he is indeed undone by this stunning report (some are skeptical)—by having angered his employees, no doubt a largely earnest and hard-working crew (unlike Orlando Boy). His employees appear to be the instigators of the GJ investigation.

For many years, I assumed that that would be Chancellor Mathur's undoing also. The best of SOCCCD have long complained about Mathur's ruthlessness and incompetence, which makes life difficult (sometimes hellish) for decent employees who simply want to do their job and to do it well. But Mathur has always been protected in this regard by his "bosses," the dominant trustees, the most powerful of whom prefers that those over whom Mathur has power be as unhappy as possible.

Mr. Fuentes' hatred and contempt for district personnel, especially faculty, is undisguised.

I doubt that any such protection is available to Mr. Williams.

My guess: as the PA/PG, he's toast.

Last week: in Bryce Canyon

(Ever the optimist!)

Laughing at danger and awash in unmitigated felinity in his new "Best Friends" cap

All or most of the cats pictured are available for adoption at Best Friends Animal Sanctuary in lovely Kanab, Utah