2

ARVIN COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT

PURPOSE OF INQUIRY: On August 19, September 15, and September 24, 2009, an Ad Hoc Committee (Committee) of the 2009-2010 Kern County Grand Jury visited the Arvin Community Services District (ACSD) to inquire into the management and operation of ACSD in accordance with California Penal Code §933.5. PROCESS: The Committee met with the General Manager (GM) and two members of the Board of Directors (Board members) on August 19 to inquire into the current conditions of the ACSD and whether the findings and recommendations of the 2006-2007 Kern County Grand Jury have been resolved. The Committee also inquired into the federal compliance of the ACSD in respect to the legal eligibility of employees to work in the United States as per Form I-9. On September 15 the Committee met again with the GM and the two members of the Board of Directors to discuss the findings and recommendations from the Performance Audit completed in August of 2007 the Committee also met with two office employees and the foreman. On September 24 the Committee attended an ACSD Board of Directors special meeting attended by all five members of the Board, the General Manager, the Board Secretary and the ACSD Attorney. A phone interview was conducted on September 28 with the ACSD Attorney. Several complaints concerning actions of a member of the Board of Directors were received by the 2009-2010 Kern County Grand Jury and assigned to the Committee during the process of the inquiry of the ACSD. BACKGROUND: The ACSD was formed on November 26, 1956, to provide water service for the residents of Arvin and the surrounding county area. The ACSD operates five active wells and has two inactive wells. FINDINGS:

1. Following a recommendation in the 2006-2007 Kern County Grand Jury report the ACSD Board of Directors contracted with a Communication Consultants firm to conduct a performance audit, completed in August of 2007. The Committee was provided a draft copy of the performance audit by the President of the Board of Directors which turned out to be the only copy in existence within the ACSD. To date none of the recommendations in the performance audit have been implemented.

2. The Committee was informed the ACSD is not maintaining a stockpile of critical parts needed for emergency repairs.

3. The Committee was informed during a meeting that the backhoe tractor belonging

to ACSD was recently inspected and declared inoperative for safety reasons. The GM was asked if there is a provision in writing that addresses a need for back up equipment for emergencies. Currently no provision exists.

4. The Committee was given a copy of the ACSD Code of Conduct, adopted by the

Board of Directors on October 22, 2008. The document clearly addresses in Section 8.03: Conduct of Official Business. “The primary responsibility of the Board of Directors is the formulation and evaluation of policy. Routine matters concerning the operational aspects of the District are delegated to ACSD staff members.”

5. Throughout the process of the Committee’s investigation of the ACSD, all

members of the Board of Directors, the GM and several employees of the ACSD were interviewed. During several of the interviews complaints were made that a member of the Board of Directors appeared to be micro managing many aspects of the day to day operations of ACSD in violation of section 8.03 of the ACSD Code of Conduct.

6. During the investigation the question of certified employees arose. There appears

to be a misunderstanding between management and employees as to how many employees need to be certified when working on the water distribution system. The Committee called the Kern County Water Agency to get a clarification on the issue. The Committee learned while it is not mandatory to have all workers certified the recommendation is at least one person be certified on each job site and at least one certified employee be on-call at all times during closed hours. Currently three employees are scheduled to take the certification test next year.

7. Prior to the 2006-2007 Kern County Grand Jury visit the expenditures for legal

services were dramatically lower than what is currently being spent. A review of bills for attorney services revealed phone calls were made on the sole initiative of one member of the Board of Directors to the ACSD Attorney and are being billed to the ACSD without the knowledge of other Board members. While the Committee understands some legal issues did arise during the past year, the increase appears to be too extreme. During the ACSD Board meeting attended by the Committee the Attorney was present to handle legal issues however; the Attorney appeared to be involved in a great deal of the discussions with the Board of Directors and at times was dominating the meeting.

8. The Committee noted that between the first visit and the last visit the cleanliness

of the district building had deteriorated noticeably.

9. During an interview the Committee was told the Board of Directors decided to stop paying the Secretary a separate salary for janitorial services done after office hours stating the work amounted to double dipping. Since the Secretary was no longer being paid to do the work, the work was no longer being done. Recently the Board of Directors has attempted to rewrite the Secretary’s job description to include janitorial duties.

10. The Committee spoke with a Union Representative on October 6, 2009; the

representative confirmed the ACSD Board of Directors had not forwarded to the union, for their review, the changes to the Secretary’s job description to add janitorial duties.

11. The Water rates of ACSD are very favorable when compared to other surrounding

water districts.

12. The Committee noted meetings of the ACSD Board of Directors are not being recorded. The Committee recorded the meeting attended on September 25. As the Committee was leaving the meeting, an individual approached stating the meeting was the best run meeting in several years, attributing the reason for the good meeting to the presence of the Committee and the recorder.

13. The ACSD does not have a Web-site that could serve the customers thereby

providing the ACSD and customers an efficient way of communicating and conducting daily business.

COMMENTS: While efforts to address the recommendations outlined in the 2006-2007 Kern County Grand Jury were well meaning, the Board of Directors has allowed one member to exceed the authority of a Board member. The Board of Directors has failed to adhere to the ACSD Code of Conduct section 8.03 by failing to censure the inappropriate and disruptive actions of one Board member. All members of the Board of Directors and employees should remember the mission is to serve the citizens of Arvin and the surrounding area. RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. The Board of Directors should adhere to and take action as needed to enforce the ACSD Code of Conduct particularly the ability to censure members of the Board of Directors.

2. The ACSD management should insist all communication between any member of

the Board of Directors and the ACSD employees be directed to or channeled through employee management as allowed by the ACSD Code of Conduct.

3. The Board of Directors should address the dramatic increase of legal costs since the 2006-2007 Kern County Grand Jury visit. The ACSD Board of Directors should adopt rules prohibiting any member of the Board of Directors contacting the ACSD attorney without the consent of at least one other Board Member. A reduction of the legal costs could free up funds to cover the costs of the following four recommendations.

4. The Board of Directors should address the need to have the ACSD Office cleaned

on a regular basis by looking into the feasibility of hiring a local janitorial service.

5. The ACSD should explore the feasibility of developing a Web-site to better serve the customers of the ACSD.

6. The ACSD should invest in a recording device to record all future Board of

Director’s meetings. (One similar to the recording device used by the Committee at the September 24, ACSD Board meeting would cost between $450.00 and $600.00)

7. ACSD should to develop a written protocol to have necessary equipment and

parts available for emergencies. The Arvin Community Service Water District should post a copy of this report where it will be available for public review. Note: Present and past Kern County Grand Jury Final Reports and Responses can be accessed through the Kern County Grand Jury website: www.co.kern.ca.us/grandjury Persons wishing to receive an email notification of newly released reports may sign up at www.co.kern.ca.us/grandjury, click on: Sign up for early releases. RESPONSE REQUIRED WITHIN 60 DAYS TO: PRESIDING JUDGE KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT 1415 TRUXTUN AVENUE 2ND FLOOR BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301 cc: FOREMAN

KERN COUNTY GRAND JURY 1415 TRUXTUN AVENUE, SUITE 600 BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301

AD HOC ART AWARENESS FOR 2009-2010 PURPOSE: To develop and initiate an Art Awareness Program/“We The People” Art Contest along with promoting Grand Jury Awareness month (February) for Kern County students. PROCESS: The Art Awareness Ad Hoc Committee (Committee) met and gave information regarding the Art Awareness Contest to the Bakersfield Superintendent of Schools, Kern County High School District and the Bakersfield City School District. The Committee received monetary and other contributions from various business and private parties to provide the prizes. . BACKGROUND: The Kern County Grand Jury has sponsored yearly Art Awareness Contests in the past, each starting in the fall and concluding at the Grand Jury Awareness Program held in February each year. FINDINGS:

1. The Committee was able to collect $1,280 from various contributors for the winners in the Art Contest.

2. The Committee received approximately 550 entries from schools throughout Kern

County.

3. Winners of the contest were selected by the Kern County Grand Jury members and Superior Court officials.

4. There were twelve winners: 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th place in each of three levels of

school — elementary, junior high and high school.

5. Winners received monetary prizes: 1st place $175 each; 2nd place $125 each; 3rd place $75 each and 4th place $25 each. In addition the first place winners from the elementary and junior high levels each received an $85 gift certificate for art lessons from a local art studio. All other participants received a certificate of participation from the Kern County Grand Jury. Certificates were given to the schools which participated in the contest as well as those who made donations.

6. The winners’ art work was exhibited in the first floor display case of the Kern

County Superior Court Building for the month of February 2010.

7. Awards were given out by the Superintendent of Schools at the Grand Jury Awareness Program February 18, 2010 in front of the Liberty Bell at the Superior Court Building.

COMMENTS: The Committee would like to thank all those who helped make this a successful program. Special thanks goes to the Superintendent of Schools and to those who made donations. . RECOMMENDATIONS: In the future the Kern County Grand Jury should continue to sponsor the Art Awareness contest. NO RESPONSE REQUIRED

MAXIMIZE YOUR MEDIATION PURPOSE: Six members of the 2009-2010 Kern County Grand Jury accepted an invitation from the Kern County Superior Court (Court) and the Kern County Bar Association to attend an all-day presentation by the American Institute of Mediation (AIM) on March 17, 2010, entitled Maximize Your Mediation. The purpose of this report is to inform the readers (general public) of the little-known availability of mediation services in Kern County, to discuss how the mediation process differs from that of arbitration and to highlight some of the advantages of mediation over arbitration. BACKGROUND: It is the policy of the Kern County Superior Court that all general civil cases be submitted to some form of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) process prior to trial (Local Rule 3.16.1). Although mediation has been available as an alternative to arbitration or going directly to trial, it was used so little that mediated court cases were not tracked until after 2008. Mediation tracking currently occurs in the area of small claims, unlawful detainer, probate and civil harassment cases. Mediation in limited and unlimited civil cases is not currently tracked; a recent grant will be used to develop a tracking system for general civil cases. In June of 2006 the Kern County Superior Court and the Better Business Bureau of Central California Foundation, Inc. (BBB), entered into an agreement for the provision of mediation services in small claims, unlawful detainer and civil harassment cases pursuant to the Dispute Resolutions Programs Act (DRPA). The BBB is a source of professionally trained mediators. This program has proven successful in not only reducing judicial case load, but providing increased litigant awareness and willingness to participate in the mediation process resulting in increased satisfaction with the overall court experience. The Kern County Superior Court is now enforcing Local Rule 3.16.4.4 with emphasis on mediation in lieu of arbitration. The Court ADR Committee, reconstituted in December 2008, is currently reviewing the implementation of a mediation program whereby mediators selected from the court’s mediation panel would be paid the same rate as an arbitrator from the court’s arbitration panel, making the mediation process free to the litigants for a designated period of time and which satisfies Local Rule 3.16.1. The training of judges and staff is vital to effectuate a more permanent shift toward mediation. The basic difference between arbitration and mediation can be shown in “The Orange Story”. If a parent came home and found his/her young son and daughter fighting over the last orange the logical solution would be to determine that each child wanted the orange, then cut it in half and give each child one half of the orange. This is an example of arbitration (albeit without much discussion). If the parent were to ask each child exactly why he and she should get the orange, the parent might find that the daughter wanted the orange rind for a cookie recipe and the son just wanted the orange to eat. Knowing this, each child could get exactly what he/she wanted without impacting the other. This would be an example of a successful mediation.

FINDINGS:

1. Mediation can often produce a resolution in a civil dispute that is more equitable and more satisfying to the parties involved than arbitration or going to trial. The actual desires and needs of each of the individuals are determined and considered in the resolution process rather than, for example, a mathematical division of disputed assets.

2. The mediator does not make decisions for the group. The mediator’s role is to encourage

everyone to take turns speaking and keep the problem-solving process moving forward.

3. Mediation or arbitration is required as a first step for civil cases involving less than $50,000.

4. Mediation is available in Kern County from several sources and is becoming more

popular as its advantages become known and the number of qualified mediators increases.

COMMENTS: A personal/business conflict does not have to be on the path to the courthouse to be a candidate for mediation. In fact, mediation early in a conflict may often be the best solution. There are a number of mediators available in Kern County. A list of independent mediators can be found on the Kern County Superior Court website at www.kern.courts.ca.gov. The Better Business Bureau’s staff of mediators can be found at www.cencal.bbb.org. Kern County Superior Court, through its ADR program, should continue to increase the availability and use of the mediation process earlier in civil conflict resolution. Increased successful mediation should lead to an increase in the availability of qualified mediators. Kern County Superior Court could further increase the Court’s effectiveness by considering the use of mediation for civil cases involving more than the current maximum of $50,000 per individual. RECOMMENDATIONS The Kern County Superior Court and The Kern County Bar Association should post a copy of this report where it will be available for public review. Note: Present and past Kern County Grand Jury Final Reports and Responses can be accessed through the Kern County Library system and the Kern County Grand Jury website: www.co.kern.ca.us/grandjury. Persons wishing to receive an email notification of newly released reports may sign up at www.co.kern.ca.us/grandjury, click on: Sign up for early releases. NO RESPONSE REQUIRED

USE OF A COUNTY PURCHASING CARD VIOLATING COUNTY POLICY

PURPOSE OF INQUIRY: An inquiry was made by the 2009-2010 Kern County Grand Jury (Grand Jury) into the possible misuse of a Kern County (County) purchasing card by the 1st District Supervisor. The Grand Jury investigated the use per penal code §925. PROCESS:

An Ad-Hoc Committee (Committee) was formed by the Grand Jury. The Committee examined County Administrative Policies regarding the use of purchasing cards and emails sent/received by various County employees. The Committee conducted numerous interviews with County employees in the Information Technology Department, 1st District Supervisor and staff, Auditor/Controller’s Office, County Administrative Office and the General Services Department which oversees the Purchasing Department of Kern County. The Committee reviewed purchasing card statements regarding the 1st District Supervisor’s purchasing card. The Committee interviewed employees of Media.net, an email exchange service. Subpoenas were issued to the Information Technology Department and to Media.net. Information received from both the Information Technology Department and Media.net, pursuant to the subpoena, was reviewed. The Committee investigated a County purchasing card used by a line staff member of the County Information Technology Department (I.T.) but issued to the 1st District Supervisor. BACKGROUND: A County purchasing card is issued to various employees of the Kern County Government. As of April 1, 2010, there were 626 County purchasing cards issued. Most County purchasing cards are issued in the County employee’s name. A purchasing card is used much the same way as a personal debit card; however, a County purchasing card bill is paid for with taxpayer dollars. A purchasing card may be used by County Employees, Department Heads and Elected Officials in emergency circumstances and for County business when other means may not be available or it is deemed less expensive than other approved ways such as a purchase order. A County purchasing card is not to be used for personal business, fuel, fixed assets, cash advances, meals, travel and/or lodging or personal or professional services. For some of the above referenced items a purchasing card may be used if the County Purchasing Department is contacted and approval given. The County Purchasing Department was not contacted for approval for the charges that were investigated in the case. GroupWise is a Novell computer program that handles email, calendaring, appointments and other applications. It is the approved system used by the County. The issue started

when the 1st District Supervisor, who had been using the County system for years, requested an electronic communication system (Media.net) other than GroupWise. Media.net is a professional service which charges a fee. The 1st District Supervisor requested the I.T. Department of the County to interface the Media.net system with GroupWise. The I.T. Department handles the GroupWise system. An I.T. staff member opened a private email exchange account through a business called Media.net. The account was opened in the I.T. employee’s personal name but using the 1st District Supervisor’s purchasing card. Media.net then sent monthly invoices to the I.T. employee electronically via email. The I.T. employee would then forward the invoices to the 1st District Supervisor’s Office. The invoices were paid through the Auditor/Controller’s office with taxpayer dollars. To accommodate the 1st District Supervisor’s request the County I.T. Department spent approximately 160 man-hours in the year 2007 to interface Media.net with the County Group Wise system and an additional 24 man-hours to patch the system in the year 2010. An I.T. employee was pulled from a critical incident to help work on the patch. The Grand Jury found no other County employee, Department Head or elected official using the Media.net system and paying for it with taxpayer dollars during the investigation. FINDINGS:

1. Policies are in place outlining the use of County purchasing cards; however, there are definite gaps in the oversight of the actual use of the cards to insure charges are made within the law and County policies.

2. A County I.T. employee may have violated County Administrative Manual

procedures in opening up a private email exchange for the 1st District Supervisor and the 1st District Supervisor’s Staff. The Administrative Manual procedures in question are 5:8 518, 5:9 first paragraph, 5:13.3, 5:14 first paragraph second sentence, 5:14 526, 5:15.7. All Codes represent the use of County purchasing cards and entering into County contracts. See attached.

3. A County I.T. employee used a County purchasing card to set up an account

through Media.net. The purchasing card was not assigned to the I.T employee.

4. A County I.T. employee agreed to a contract with Media.net without County Counsel approval.

5. A County I.T. employee receives monthly invoices electronically from Media.net.

6. Media.net billed the County through the 1st District Supervisor’s County purchasing card electronically for the amount of $1,368.28 in 2009. The Committee did not calculate for the years 2007, 2008 and 2010 due to the lack of accessible documentation. The County was billed on a monthly basis by debiting the purchasing card of the 1st District Supervisor as a recurring charge. The charges on the purchasing card were paid by the Auditor/Controller each month.

7. The 1st District Supervisor used County employees to set up a Media.net

exchange on County time. 8. The I.T. Department of the County spent approximately 160 man-hours to set up

the exchange in the year 2007 at I.T. staff pay costing the taxpayers approximately $7,100.

9. The County I.T. Department spent another 24 man-hours in February 2010 to

develop a forwarding rule for the County Servers costing the taxpayers approximately $1,100.

10. In the year 2007 an I.T. employee at the bottom step had an hourly compensation

including benefits of approximately $45 an hour. In the year 2010 the hourly wage increased to approximately $46 an hour.

11. The 1st District Supervisor’s staff was unable to provide the Committee with

receipts of all charges asked to be reviewed from the purchasing card in question.

12. The Auditor/Controller is responsible for the auditing of purchases from County purchasing cards.

13. The Purchasing Department is responsible for placing blocks on certain types of

charges using County purchasing cards. A block may be lifted if the County Purchasing Department is contacted and the charge is deemed within policy and the law.

14. If an email is sent from the 1st District Supervisor’s or any staff member’s cell

phone through Media.net it will bypass the County system.

15. It appears the 1st District Supervisor uses Media.net for official County business and personal emails. It appears the 1st District Supervisor also uses the GroupWise system for official County business and personal emails.

16. The taxpayers of Kern County are paying for the Media.net service.

17. The official County GroupWise email system will accomplish the same tasks as

Media.net, i.e., calendaring, appointments and using a cell phone for emails at no additional cost to taxpayers.

COMMENTS: The Committee was alarmed by the lack of awareness of policies, procedures and laws governing the use of taxpayer dollars when using a County purchasing card. It appears there are sufficient policies in the County Administrative Manual covering the use of County purchasing cards; however, some of them seem to have been ignored in the present instance. The Auditor/Controller’s Office now has in place an electronic system making it easier to track and flag inappropriate charges on a County purchasing card. County Counsel was not involved by the Grand Jury in the investigation due to the conflicting nature of the role of County Counsel representing both the County Board of Supervisors and the Grand Jury. RECOMMENDATIONS: Auditor/Controller

1. The Auditor/Controller should audit the 1st District Supervisor’s purchasing card for the past five years. In particular the Auditor/Controller should inquire whether or not the expenditures for the private email exchange account were within County policy.

2. If the expenditures were not within County policy, then the Auditor/Controller

should calculate all of the fees charged and paid to Media.net through the use of the 1st District Supervisor’s purchasing card. The calculations should be forwarded to the Purchasing Department and the 1st District Supervisor.

3. If the expenditures were not within County policy, then the Auditor/Controller

should calculate the hourly rate of I.T. personnel to implement and maintain the Media.net account. This should be done using the low end of the pay scale plus benefits of an I.T.-3 pertinent to Findings #8, #9 and #10 of the report. The results should be forwarded to the 1st District Supervisor.

4. The Auditor/Controller should implement a software program to flag ongoing

purchases from a County purchasing card to prevent any abuses from taking place.

1st District Supervisor

1. If it is determined the use of the private email exchange account was outside County policy then the 1st District Supervisor should consider personally reimbursing County taxpayer dollars in the amount designated by the Auditor/Controller for purchases on the purchasing card outside of County policy. Any such reimbursement should be done without the use of the 1st District Supervisor discretionary account which is also taxpayer dollars.

2. If it is determined the use of the private email exchange account was outside

County policy then the 1st District Supervisor should consider personally reimbursing County taxpayer dollars expended by I.T. personnel to achieve and maintain the Media.net service. Any such reimbursement should be done without the use of the 1st District Supervisor discretionary account.

3. The 1st District Supervisor should adhere to the County Administrative Manual in

regards to the use of County purchasing cards.

4. The 1st District Supervisor should contact the County Purchasing Department to obtain training for himself and all of the 1st District Supervisor’s staff in regards to the use of County purchasing cards.

5. The 1st District Supervisor should maintain all purchasing card receipts in the 1st District Office for auditing purposes for a period of seven years as required by the California State Controllers Office.

6. Whether or not the expenditures for the private email exchange account were

outside of County policy any further use should be terminated if it merely duplicates the tasks performed by the County system.

Purchasing Department

1. The Purchasing Department should revise the Purchasing Procedures Manual to require reimbursement of taxpayer funds to the County if charges on a purchasing card are found to be against the law or County policies.

2. The revision should be sent to the County Administrative Officer for approval.

3. The Purchasing Department should clarify the acceptable usage of a purchasing

card by another on behalf of the holder of the card.

Information Technology Department

1. The I.T. Department management staff should be more aware as to what jobs the I.T. staff is performing.

2. The I.T. Department should require a “job ticket” or other written record when

any Department requests services. The records should be retained for a period of at least five years for auditing purposes.

3. The I.T. Management and Staff should attend training on the California Public Information Act and legal requirements for retention of all electronic media including emails for Government Agencies.

4. The entire I.T. Management and Staff should follow and abide by the County

Administrative Manual along with the I.T. Procedures Manual specifically when dealing with the use of County purchasing cards.

5. The I.T. Department should obtain all emails sent, received and stored on the Media.net servers, if possible, that are not on County servers for the 1st District Supervisor and staff to meet public retention requirements and requirements of the I.T. Department policies and procedures. After obtaining and securing the emails if it merely duplicates the tasks performed by the County system the Media.net contract should be cancelled.

County Administrative Office

The County Administrative Officer should review all current policies as to the use of county purchasing cards and ensure proper training is being received by all employees of the County and Elected Officials in the use of the cards.

The Auditor/Controller, 1st District Supervisor, Purchasing Department, Information Technology Department and the County Administrative Officer of the County of Kern should post a copy of this report where it will be available for public review. Note: Present and past Kern County Grand Jury Final Reports and Responses can be accessed through the Kern County Library system and on the Kern County Grand Jury website: www.co.kern.ca.us/grandjury

AS TO THE 1st DISTRICT SUPERVISOR, RESPONSE REQUIRED WITHIN 60 DAYS TO: AS TO ALL OTHERS RESPONSE REQUIRED WITHIN 90 DAYS TO: PRESIDING JUDGE KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT 1415 TRUXTUN AVENUE, 2ND FLOOR BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301 cc: FOREMAN KERN COUNTY GRAND JURY 1415 TRUXTUN AVENUE, SUITE 600 BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301

Kern County Administrative Policy and Procedures Manual 5:8 518. County Contracts. The power to make contracts lies with the Board of Supervisors and the Purchasing Agent. It is the requisitioning department’s responsibility to have the agreement reviewed by County Counsel. If County Counsel finds that the agreement requires the County to assume any unusual or unreasonable risk or liability, Board of Supervisors approval is required. For additional information on Purchasing Agent agreements see Section 523. (Rev. 03/02) .1 Department Responsibility. The department head is responsible for the content of contracts handled by the department. The department head must be able to explain and defend the business terms and conditions in the contract, especially those that impose unreasonable and unusual liability on the County. Kern County Administrative Policy and Procedures Manual 5:9 The department head is fully responsible for preparation and negotiation of business terms, conditions, and substantive content of all contracts for specialized services provided to or managed by the department, e.g. agreements of sale, software license agreements, professional service agreements. The substantive content includes, but is not limited to, total cost, per unit costs, deliverables, delivery dates, performance specifications, warranties, termination provisions, insurance and indemnification provisions, and County audit requirements. County Counsel will review and comment on statutory compliance, adequacy and accuracy of terms, and enforceability of all contracts. The Purchasing Division is charged with the responsibility of reviewing, and approving as to content, all technology related contracts for services, software licensing and equipment, for compliance with County standards and contract terms and conditions. The Purchasing Division is also available to provide assistance with contract negotiations and reviewing contract deliverables after a contract has been approved. In negotiating with vendors, providers, consultants, experts, and any contractor, the department shall inform the contractor of the standard County terms and conditions or use a standard form contract that contains such terms and conditions. Negotiated terms and conditions must be favorable to the County, insure delivery of specialized services in a timely manner, and protect the County’s interests. If a contractor insists that the County use the contractor’s standard form contract, the department shall forward the contract to County Counsel for review. If the contract is approved by County Counsel it may be submitted to the Purchasing Division for execution, otherwise the department head must submit the contract to the Board of Supervisors for approval. (Rev. 03/02) The department head is responsible for ensuring that the contractor is performing and complying with the terms and conditions of the contract prior to payment being made. A process/procedure for monitoring contracts for compliance must be established. (Rev. 02/03) .2 Authority to Enter into Contracts on Behalf of the County. With few exceptions, only the Board of Supervisors or the Purchasing Agent may contract on behalf of the County. (Rev. 03/02) .3 Common Contract Types and Purchasing Agent Authority. The following are the most common kinds of County contracts. a. Purchase of Personal Property. The Purchasing Agent has authority to purchase all materials, supplies, furnishings, equipment, livestock, and other personal property (except election supplies), without Board of Supervisors’ approval. County officers may spend money from revolving funds and other special funds for the acquisition of personal property consistent with Board of Supervisors’ resolutions authorizing such expenditures. b. Leasing Goods for County Use. The Purchasing Agent has authority to rent the furnishings and equipment for County offices without Board of Supervisors’ approval. c. Service and Training Agreements. The Board of Supervisors has authorized the Purchasing Agent to execute personal/professional services agreements up to $20,000. (Refer to Section 523) d. Sale of County Personal Property. If a department finds that personal property owned by the County and controlled by their department is no longer required for public use, the Purchasing Agent may sell that property or trade it in on the acquisition of other property. .4 Retroactive Approval of Board Contracts and Personal/Professional Service Agreements—General. Departments must formally notify the Board of Supervisors of each contract that will be brought to the Board for approval after the contract’s effective date. The notification shall be placed on the Board’s agenda prior to the effective date of the contract and prior to the commencement of services required by the contract. The item may be placed on the agenda as a consent item. (Rev. 11/09)

The title of the notification is to be: NOTIFICATION OF ANTICIPATED RETROACTIVE APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT WITH (CONTRACTOR NAME) FOR (DESCRIPTION OF SERVICE). The recommendation is to be “receive and file notification”, and the letter shall contain at least the following information: 1) amount of the agreement; 2) the services or products to be provided; 3) the effective date of the agreement; 4) an explanation as to why the services must commence prior to the Board’s approval of the agreement; and 5) a detailed explanation as to Kern County Administrative Policy and Procedures Manual 5:10 why the agreement was not brought before the Board for approval prior to the commencement of services required by the agreement. (Rev. 03/02) If an agreement is not executed within six months of notifying the Board of Supervisors of the anticipated retroactive agreement, a status report must be placed on the Board’s agenda. The item may be placed on the agenda as a consent item. (Rev. 07/06) .5 Retroactive Approval of Board Agreements—Other Government Entities. Agreements with other government entities that are routinely presented to the Board for approval retroactively are to be consolidated in one annual Board notification of the anticipated retroactive approval, with each contract listed within the text of the Board letter and in the departmental subagenda language. (Rev. 11/09) .6 Agreement at a Glance. This form is to be completed by the department and submitted in front of a proposed agreement with the accompanying agenda materials when a contract or an amendment to a contract is proposed for approval by the Board of Supervisors. This document allows for quick review of the contract’s provisions by all parties. The form is available on CountyNet and is at Exhibit C. (Rev. 08/09) Kern County Administrative Policy and Procedures Manual 5:9 The department head is fully responsible for preparation and negotiation of business terms, conditions, and substantive content of all contracts for specialized services provided to or managed by the department, e.g. agreements of sale, software license agreements, professional service agreements. The substantive content includes, but is not limited to, total cost, per unit costs, deliverables, delivery dates, performance specifications, warranties, termination provisions, insurance and indemnification provisions, and County audit requirements. County Counsel will review and comment on statutory compliance, adequacy and accuracy of terms, and enforceability of all contracts. The Purchasing Division is charged with the responsibility of reviewing, and approving as to content, all technology related contracts for services, software licensing and equipment, for compliance with County standards and contract terms and conditions. The Purchasing Division is also available to provide assistance with contract negotiations and reviewing contract deliverables after a contract has been approved. .3 Card Restrictions. Single transactions cannot exceed $2,500. Purchasing cards shall not be used for personal items or services, fuel, fixed assets, cash advances, meals, travel and/or lodging, personal or professional services, items with an associated contract or under a price agreement, or items stocked by the Reprographics Division or duplicating services without obtaining a price estimate from the Reprographics Division. Kern County Administrative Policy and Procedures Manual 5:14 Cards shall not be loaned. Any misuse found by the Auditor-Controller-County Clerk during the auditing process will be reported to the Purchasing Division. 526. Confirming Orders. With few exceptions, only the Board of Supervisors and the Purchasing Agent can obligate the County. Any employee that orders goods or services without following the established procedures for payment has exceeded his/her authority. The Purchasing Division with a written justification may approve confirming orders if the amount is less than $4,999, including tax and shipping, and is not for personal or professional services. Confirming orders over $4,999 or personal or professional services contracts, regardless of the amount, shall be placed on the Board of Supervisors’ agenda by the department for approval. (Rev. 03/06)

Kern County Administrative Policy and Procedures Manual 5:15 .7 Decentralized Purchasing ($2, 500)—Purchasing Cards. The authority to purchase goods or services up to $2,500 with a purchasing card is delegated to departments, except for the procurement of personal professional services. When procuring non-professional services, all normal policies and procedures are to be followed and checked by departments (i.e. obtaining certificates of insurance, paying prevailing wage, and verifying State of California valid contractors license numbers). Payment may be made with a purchasing card. (Refer to Section 524)