|
.
Law and Justice Committee
Part 5
V. SAN BENITO COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE - INDEPENDENT
CONTRACTORS
BACKGROUND
In the process of investigating a citizen's complaint, the Grand Jury
reviewed invoices submitted by a number of individuals who worked for the county on a
contract basis. One contractor's invoices, approved for payment by the District Attorney
as contract administrator, appeared to contain various overcharges. The Grand Jury also
became concerned about the District Attorney's approval of invoices billed by a contractor
for "homicide investigation," clearly the purview of the District Attorney's
Office Investigators, as well as the use of his Investigators as transport for the
contractor during his work for the District Attorney's Office.
With regard to this matter, the Grand Jury made requests for an
interview with the District Attorney. He informed the Grand Jury and the Presiding Judge
that he was unable to meet with the Grand Jury due to the loss of personnel at his Office.
Because the District Attorney was unable to meet with the Grand Jury, and because of time
constraints imposed by publication of this Final Report, the Grand Jury used only those
document entries, which were unlikely to be subject to interpretation as the basis for
this report.
METHOD OF REVIEW
During the investigation, the Grand Jury selectively reviewed invoices
submitted to the county by individuals doing work for the county on a contract basis.
These records were not all the records submitted by the contractors. The records reviewed
were randomly-selected invoices submitted to, and approved by, the District Attorney's
Office as the contract administrator for work done by contractors for the District
Attorney's Office as well as work done for court-appointed criminal defense counsel.
OBSERVATIONS AND FINDINGS
| 1. |
Most of the contractors, if anything, underestimated the mileage
reported and their charges appeared to be reasonable.
|
| 2. |
Unlike the majority of claims, one set of invoices appeared to
contain inaccurate mileage figures in that the mileage figures appear inflated and
billings for work done in a number of instances appear inflated.
|
| 3. |
The invoices of concern were submitted by one individual (hereafter
referred to as "VENDOR.")
|
| 4. |
VENDOR works for both court-appointed defense counsel and for the
District Attorney’s Office under a written contract, approved by the Board of
Supervisors and administered by the District Attorney's Office.
|
| 5. |
VENDOR's office is one-tenth of a mile from the District Attorney's
Office.
|
| 6. |
In every invoice reviewed, the VENDOR charged the county for 10
miles when traveling to the District Attorney's Office, a two-tenths of a mile round trip
by car.
|
| 7. |
In at least six instances, the VENDOR charged the
county 10 miles for traveling from his own office to defense
counsel's office, both of which are located within the same
building.
|
| 8. |
On one invoice, there was a charge for 44 miles when the actual
travel appeared 12.8 miles based on the description of services provided by VENDOR.
|
| 9. |
Each mileage charge which appeared to be inaccurate was inflated to
the VENDOR’s benefit when the mileage charged in each invoice is compared against an
Internet mapping service in accordance with the description of services provided by
VENDOR.
|
| 10. |
Although the sums on each invoice are not large and although it
appears that the VENDOR was using a rate less than the rate that the IRS would accept, the
possible total amount of reimbursement for mileage could be significant given the
potential number of invoices submitted by VENDOR over a substantial period of time.
|
| 11. |
The District Attorney’s Office as Contract Administrator for
services rendered to its office consistently approved the apparently inaccurate claims.
|
| 12. |
In one court-appointed case, the VENDOR charged the county $45.00
for one hour's work which, according to the work described on the invoice, consisted of a
telephone call to a person who was not at home so that the VENDOR made an appointment to
speak to this person on another day. It is difficult to understand how this event could
have taken 60 minutes.
|
| 13. |
On several claims, the VENDOR also described work that appeared to
be work that should have been done by District Attorney's Office
Investigators.
|
|
(a) |
One invoice contained a seven-hour charge at $45.00/hour to attend
an autopsy conducted in Monterey.
|
|
|
-The invoice was for "crime scene reconstruction and homicide
investigation."
|
|
|
-The VENDOR's contract with the county specifies that his work is to
consist of "crime scene reconstruction and/or accident reconstruction," not
"homicide investigation."
|
|
|
-"Homicide investigation" is within the purview of DA's
Investigators.
|
|
|
-It appears that a District Attorney's Office Investigator and/or a
deputy or police officer must have transported the VENDOR and attended the autopsy because
the VENDOR should be accompanied at the autopsy by a sworn officer.
|
|
(b) |
A second seven-hour charge on the invoice discussed in (a) above
was for meeting with a Santa Cruz County forensic anthropologist and subsequent debriefing
for the District Attorney.
|
|
|
-The description of these services is work that is normally done by
District Attorney's Office Investigators and such work may be outside the scope of
VENDOR’s contract with the county.
|
|
(c) |
Another of VENDOR’s invoices for work done for the District
Attorney's Office is entitled, "Homicide Investigation."
|
|
|
- The Grand Jury believes that homicide investigations are to be
conducted by the District Attorney's Office Investigators, and that such work specifically
is not described in the VENDOR's approved contract with the county.
|
|
(d) |
The invoice discussed in (c) above contains charges for serving a
"search warrant."
|
|
|
-The Grand Jury believes that only sworn officers are allowed to serve
search warrants and conduct the resulting search,
|
|
|
-Therefore it can be assumed that a sworn officer accompanied the
VENDOR on the service of the warrant and the search.
|
| 14. |
The District Attorney has repeatedly stated that he has hired the
VENDOR for his expertise as a "crime scene reconstructionist and motor vehicle
accident reconstructionist" and has denied that VENDOR is performing the job as a
DA's Investigator.
|
| 15. |
The District Attorney's Office employs two Investigators.
|
| 16. |
District Attorney Investigators are peace officers and should have
the qualifications to conduct homicide investigations, perform crime scene reconstruction,
and help the prosecution prepare for trial and testify in court. |
CONCLUSIONS
| 1. |
The apparent mileage discrepancies could be attributed to
carelessness, especially those entries reporting travel to outlying areas.
|
| 2. |
It is troubling that more exacting review and correction, if
necessary, did not occur.
|
| 3. |
The VENDOR's invoices indicate that VENDOR is performing many of the
tasks appropriate to a District Attorney's Office Investigator. VENDOR’s invoices
describe VENDOR conducting homicide investigations, reporting his findings to the District
Attorney to help prepare the prosecution's case, and testimony about VENDOR’s
homicide investigation at trial.
|
| 4. |
Each time the VENDOR attends an autopsy, serves a search warrant, or
conducts a search, a sworn peace officer must accompany him, either from the District
Attorney's Office or other law enforcement agency, requiring the county, in effect, to pay
two people to do the job one person should be doing. If the District Attorney's Office
Investigators, or personnel from other police departments must accompany the VENDOR to
lend an official presence, public employees are being used to transport VENDOR to and from
the event.
|
| 5. |
The District Attorney refused to meet with the Grand Jury to offer
any explanation about the concerns about VENDOR’s invoices and services. Since the
Grand Jury does not have the benefit of the District Attorney’s opinion, the Grand
Jury can only conclude either that the District Attorney's Office Investigators are not up
to the task or are not necessary because the volume of work is not sufficiently great. If
the VENDOR is the only competent homicide investigator available to the District
Attorney's Office, then investigators at the San Benito County District Attorney's Office
without the necessary skills and expertise to do this work should have been replaced. If
the workload of the office is so light that one Investigator can be spared to escort the
VENDOR when he is performing work for the District Attorney's Office, then the Board of
Supervisors should eliminate one Investigator's position.
|
| 6. |
It appears to the Grand Jury that the District Attorney has approved
invoices submitted to him for work done outside the approved contract by the VENDOR.
|
| 7. |
It also appears that the District Attorney has approved invoices
containing both inflated hours and inflated mileage figures, which were submitted to the
county by the VENDOR.
|
| 8. |
The Grand Jury concludes that at least one District Attorney's
Office Investigator position may be superfluous. |
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Grand Jury recommends that:
| 1. |
The Board of Supervisors audits all invoices submitted to the county
by the VENDOR.
|
| 2. |
The Board of Supervisors orders a management audit of the District
Attorney's Office and consults with the Grand Jury in the choice of an auditor.
|
| 3. |
The Board of Supervisors investigates whether the District
Attorney's Office requires two Investigator positions.
|
| 4. |
The 2000-2001 Grand Jury continues the investigation of this matter. |
AFFECTED AGENCIES
San Benito County Board of Supervisors
San Benito County District Attorney's Office
RESPONSE REQUIRED
California Penal Code, §923, requires that a response to this final report’s
recommendations be delivered to the presiding judge of the Superior Court within 90 days
of the receipt of the report.
|
