Yolo County Grand Jury Report Uncovers a Troubling Contract and Questionable Ethics in Probation Department

Did Chief Probation Officer Rist Resign Due to This Scandal? – In response to a citizen’s complaint, the Yolo County Grand Jury investigated the Yolo County Probation Department.

The Grand Jury determined that a dual relationship existed between the high-level manager and the CEO of ADC.

“This relationship made it difficult for the manager to be impartial in the administration of the ADC contract and created, at a minimum, an ethical conflict of interest,” the report says.  “As the administrator of the ADC contract, the manager was the sole receiver of invoices and had sole approval for payment. This relationship could impair professional judgment in the administration of the ADC contract and the interests of Yolo County.”

The Grand Jury is now recommending an audit of the contract be performed to ensure that there were no improper invoice payments that occurred.  They also note that the Chief Probation Officer, Marjorie Rist, resigned near the conclusion of this investigation.

In late June, Yolo County Chief Probation Officer Marjorie Rist announced she would be resigning to pursue consulting opportunities as a subject matter expert in the criminal justice arena, and to continue with her education.

Chief Rist has been with Yolo County since September 2004.

The Vanguard has been unable to determine if there was a causal relationship between this investigation and her resignation.

The County quickly responded to the Grand Jury report.

“We value the oversight process offered by grand juries and certainly find the issues highlighted in this report troubling,” said Yolo County Administrator Patrick Blacklock.  “To the extent our policies and procedures need strengthening; we will apply the most modern practices accordingly.”

According to the county’s press release, the “contracts in question were entered into with Assessments.com in March of 2010, as part of ongoing implementation of evidence-based programming to develop and maintain a risk screening and needs assessment system for the management, supervision and treatment of offenders, as well as evaluation of the system’s efficacy.”

They continue: “A non-competitive bid process was utilized, under provisions allowed for in the law, and based on Yolo County’s past experiences and the experiences of others in the field throughout the state and nation.  At the time, there were very few alternative firms that produced such risk screening and needs assessment tools, and Assessments.com was a recognized leader and innovator in the industry.  As a result, many counties in California contracted with Assessments.com, including the Northern Consortium of 15 counties.”

The county now maintains, with the advent of AB 109 in 2011, there is more funding and there are additional firms entering the field of risk screening and needs assessment.  As a result the county claims that “there is now a greater opportunity to cast a broader net and use a competitive bid process in contracting for these tools and services going forward.”

“Upon resignation of former Chief Probation Officer Marjorie Rist in July 2012, Yolo County contracted with retired Calaveras County Chief Probation Officer Michael Kriletich to review the organizational climate in the Probation Department and advise the county on leadership qualities needed in the next Chief Probation Officer,” the release continues. “At the same time, Interim Chief Probation Officer Marlon Yarber was appointed. “

As part of an overall review of the Probation Department’s management and business practices, including contract procedures, Interim Chief Probation Officer Yarber recently asked the Auditor-Controller to audit payroll practices, another area highlighted in the Grand Jury’s report.

Additionally, County Administrator Blacklock has requested that the audit be expanded to ensure appropriate procurement and contract administration practices are in place.

The Grand Jury report identified a number of what they called “concerns and irregularities.”

Specifically, the Grand Jury cites: “Administration of the Assessments.com (AOC) contract and other contract issues,” “Inappropriate relationship between a high level YCPD manager and the ADC CEO,” “Irregular compensation package for MIT trainers,” and “MIT trainers’ payroll time sheet irregularities.”

In 2009, the Department entered into a contract with Allvest lnformation Services, Inc., dba Assessment.com (ADC), to establish the juvenile risk, needs and detention assessment tools. The contract also established the adult needs assessment and sex offender risk assessment.

The Grand Jury found that the Yolo County Board of Supervisors (BOS) approved three Non-Competitive Bid contracts (NCB) with Utah-based ADC for a total amount of $325,000 at the May 11, 2010 meeting. The Grand Jury determined that a high-level YCPD manager submitted the contract to the BOS for approval and also wrote the NCB justification.

That contract was approved on May 11, 2010 as a consent item, it was funded by state and federal funds and had no general fund impact.  The item lists Marjorie Rist as the submitter – as it was a consent item, there was no presentation.

The NCB justification statement reads, in part, that “Assessments.com broad based clientele and their ongoing relationship with leading researchers in the criminal justice field, the Yolo County Probation Department believes they have the necessary qualifications to successfully implement an adult risk/needs tool.”

The statement further noted that YCPD had a high probation failure rate.

Moreover, there were serious problems with the CEO of ADC who would conduct training for a group of Probation Department Employees to become trainers.

The Grand Jury reports that it learned that “the CEO often arrived late, lacked focus, and appeared jittery and edgy.”

The Grand Jury writes: “The Grand Jury learned that the CEO arrived very late to one session and was bruised, beaten up, and smelled of alcohol. Another incident occurred at a session in another county when Yolo staff inadvertently forgot some materials. The Grand Jury learned that the CEO became verbally abusive to Yolo staff when this mistake was brought to his attention. These two incidents were reported to the YCPD manager.”

The report adds, “The CEO eventually apologized; however, he was allowed to continue training Yolo staff. No further action was taken.”

The conduct of the CEO’s behavior was considered consistent with drug use.

They write, “Although Yolo County has a no-tolerance drug policy and protocols to follow if an employee is suspected of being under the influence of drugs while on the job, neither the county policy nor the ADC contract addresses consultants or other persons performing work for the County.”

The Grand Jury determined that, although at the time of this investigation no convictions were found, the CEO of ADC has a history of arrests for drug use and alcohol abuse.

Stunningly, “The Grand Jury found that in April 2011 the YCPD manager was with the CEO in Sacramento when he was stopped for a DUI violation.”

They write: “The CEO was arrested and the manager, who was also under the influence of alcohol and unable to drive, was directed by law enforcement to sleep in the car.  The next day, the manager transported the CEO from jail to the airport for his return flight to Utah. This event was not reported to any official within YCPD or Yolo County.”

The Grand Jury reports that the Probation Department manager was in daily contact with “the CEO of ADC either by text, phone or email inquiring about his sobriety and illegal drug use. During this time, the manager was trying to get the CEO into a rehabilitation facility. The Grand Jury found and police records confirmed that he was arrested in Las Vegas, Nevada in December 2011 for unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia, possession of cocaine and driving with a suspended license.”

This information regarding the CEO’s drug and alcohol abuse was fully known by a high-level YCPD manager.

The Grand Jury determined that the high-level YCPD manager continued to breach the boundaries of what is considered to be an acceptable distance in a business relationship, travelling from Sacramento to Utah in order to assess his condition.

The Grand Jury was unable to confirm the use of controlled substance during the time the Probation Department manager accompanied him in his Utah Department, but there was no disclosure of this by the manager and this non-disclosure to the manager’s superior was in violation of professional duties.

The Grand Jury argues that this constitutes a conflict of interest because the dual relationship – with a close personal and business relationship with CEO – created “an ethical conflict of interest, make it difficult to be impartial and create the appearance of impropriety. This conflict could impair professional judgment as it relates to the administration of the ADC contract and the interests of Yolo County.”

The Grand Jury determined that the high-level YCPD manager was the Department’s sole administrator for the ADC contract, which the manager secured as an NCB contract.

The Grand Jury reports it obtained copies of emails “that showed the YCPD manager often instructed ADC on how to complete invoices, what services to invoice, and the amount to bill.”  They find, “This lack of separation of power in the administration of the ADC contract created an opportunity for abuse and misuse of Yolo County funds.”

The Grand Jury determined that the dual relationship dated back at least to 2010; however, the manager did not disclose the relationship to the Yolo County Administrative Officer and the County Counsel until April 2012, after the start of the Grand Jury’s investigation.”

At that time, “the manager volunteered to transfer the contract oversight to someone else in the department. The ‘oversight’ of the contract was verbally transferred to another high level YCPD employee in April 2012.”

The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Section 7.11 for Probation Officers states: “Employees whose job classifications or regularly-assigned duties do not include training of new employees and who are assigned primary responsibility for a training program, in writing, by the Department Head or his/her designee, shall receive a five percent (5%) differential above their base salary during the hours engaged in providing such training.”

The Grand Jury reports, “As an incentive for MIT trainers to travel approximately 2 – 3 days every other week to another county and conduct training, the YCPD manager authorized a strategically complex compensation package.”

Employees receive the overtime rate of time and a half and can also earn “comp time” off for working extra hours.

“The Grand Jury determined through testimony, reviewing timesheets and other documents, that as an incentive to earn additional pay, MlT trainers must conduct training on a day that they are ‘off work’ (ROO or using comp time). The YCPD manager implemented a compensation package, which was not negotiated with the employee union or authorized by Yolo County Human Resources. That package required trainers to conduct training on a day they are ‘off work,’ thereby eligible to earn overtime for working on a ‘non-work day.’ “

The Grand Jury determined that some trainers were instructed by the manager to falsify their time sheets.  While most submitted correct time sheets, “some trainers were told by management to claim hours worked on a Saturday when they did not work on a Saturday. These falsifications allowed some trainers to be compensated overtime for training conducted during the regular work week.”

—David M. Greenwald reporting