FULL PACKET_2010-08-16 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The Honorable Judge Kim Dunning August 16, 2010 Page 3 to be discussed or voted on would involve a bias, said juror should abstain from both discussing and voting on the matter. Appropriate counsel should be asked if there is any question in this matter." This situation is exacerbated by inconsistent statements and contradictory actions of the grand jury in this matter. In late September 2009, a member of the City Council was interviewed by members of the grand jury. At that time, the councilmember expressed concern about participation by the subject member. In response, the councilmember was told that the subject member would not participate due to his potential conflict of interest. In late October 2009, a city staff member and another councilmember were interviewed by members of the grand jury and the subject member actively questioned the city officials in both interviews. Because of the admonition given to witnesses not to disclose their testimony, the city staff member and second councilmember were neither aware that the other councilmember had already been interviewed nor that the subject member was supposedly recused from the investigation. It is worth noting that this grand jury member was removed from the city commission just days before the city staff member and second councilmember were interviewed. Due to grand jury secrecy, we are not able to determine what further involvement the subject member had in the investigation or whether he sought or obtained advice on his participation. But merely based upon the inconsistent and contradictory actions of the Grand Jury recited in this letter and the standards imposed on grand juries in other counties, the Santa Ana City Council believes that this investigation and report are irreparably tainted by the participation by a member with a potential conflict of interest and potential bias. RESPONSES TO FINDINGS FINDING F-1: Inadequate RFP: Santa Ana political leaders and administrative staff followed inconsistent and inadequate guidelines in developing the Request for Proposal and inadequate documentation in support of their final decision. The original RFP stated the scope of the project but did not include the transit vision of the Mayor and Council. RESPONSE: We disagree wholly with the statement that staff followed inconsistent and inadequate guidelines in developing the Request for Proposal and inadequate documentation in support of their final decision. In fact, the City went beyond its normal procedure by first sending out a Request for Qualifications to pre -qualify firms. Request for Proposals were then sent out to those firms that were pre -qualified to perform the work. We also disagree with the statement that the original RFP scope of the project did not include the Mayor and Council Transit Vision. On page 5 of the RFP, under Background, paragraph 3, the Council and the Mayor's Transit Vision is clearly stated.