Tag Cloud
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
City Council unanimously agrees to hire consultant for audit
by Kathleen Haley, published on April 22, 2010 at 10:06 PM
Storyline: Sacramento City Hall / Politics
Loading images
Sacramento consulting firm Sjoberg Evashenk Consulting Inc. will audit the city’s Community Development Department, the City Council decided Thursday.
The vote to hire the firm was unanimous. Four candidates were interviewed by city staff for the job.
Jorge Oseguera, city auditor, wrote in a report to the council that Sjoberg was the “highest ranking competitor and most responsive bidder.”
The city will pay Sjoberg as much as $66,424 for the audit, according to Oseguera’s report. That amount is within the auditor’s budget, Oseguera said.
The idea of hiring Sjoberg drew criticism from some of Mayor Kevin Johnson’s critics.
In recent comments on The Sacramento Press, the mayor's critics claimed that the audit would be compromised because the law group Bell, McAndrews and Hiltachk has been a client of Sjoberg’s firm. Thomas Hiltachk, managing partner at Bell, McAndrews and Hiltachk, wrote the strong mayor initiative.
Johnson led the campaign in support of the initiative, which was thrown out in a January ruling by Sacramento County Superior Court.
But Oseguera said in an interview Tuesday that Sjoberg does not have a conflict of interest.
After reading the comments by Johnson's critics, Oseguera talked to Kurt Sjoberg and Marianne Evashenk. They said their work for Hiltachk’s law firm was not related to the strong mayor initiative and was completed years before Hiltachk worked with Johnson on the measure, according to Oseguera.
Earlier this week, Sjoberg said his firm had not worked with Hiltachk’s group since 2004.
Kathleen Haley is a staff reporter for The Sacramento Press.
Flag Article As:
Conversation Express your views,
debate, and be heard with those in your area closest
to the issue.
Leave a Comment
2) I watched the session. Two council members were going to speak. Cohn, when it appeared no one was in the audience on the matter, decided not to speak. And Hammond asked how they came to the decision. No other council member spoke or asked questions. And since the auditor was vague, to say the least, on how he reached the decision and didn't share how he conducted the interviews simply saying he interviewed, I wasn't satisfied. Nor am I satisfied with the article since we don't know How Sjoberg had the highest ranking? Ranked on what? How was he the most responsive? Responsive to what?
4) Ms Haley, I asked you on the previous article how you are defining critic and since you use the term "critic" three times in this article, I'm again asking you and this time I'd appreciate an answer, how exactly are you using the term critic since the responses to the last article were not an attack on Johnson but an attack on the possible conflict of interest? Why is “Johnson’s critics” used three times? For the record I am a FAIR critic of deceit and/ or trickery and not specifically "Johnson’s critic" unless his actions, and yes they often do, fall into a deceit / trickery category. At the moment I'm not so much a critic of Johnson's. I'm becoming a critic and fairly I might add, of Kathleen Haley. Is their a reason you are continuously using the term Johnson’s critics when the criticism was on the firm considered for the audit? Please answer.
He can't keep dodging the law and simple human decency forever...
Thank you for your comments. I don’t view the word “critic” as an insult. I interpret the word to apply to someone who frequently challenges another person’s actions and statements. I have also identified you in a story as a “community activist.”
The claims about the consulting firm’s objectivity in a department audit are connected to claims that the firm is linked to Johnson through Thomas Hiltachk. For that reason, I referred to you as a “Johnson critic” in articles on this issue.
--Kathleen
This decision was wrong, corrupted by the mayor and a silent council.
and apparently even HE has a compromised history, per a little bird's message this morning....
I'm sure there'll be more to come....
It would appear that now that the contract has been awarded, all 8 of the proposals are non-confidential...it begs the question....Why confidential up until award of the contract? Council and the public are usually privy to a staff report that outlines the firms, rankings, proposed fees etc...prior to the award of the contract, thus allowing for a public hearing on the merits of the selection process.
For those so inclined to CRITIQUE that process...it allows for thoughtful discourse.
My 2 cents RE: Title of previous article-Critical thinkers should not be "pigeon holed" as solely negative to any one individual. Questions raised by community members are just that...as the Front page Header Area indicated "Questions raised about CDD Audit". Unfortunately the main title of that article was polarizing to say the least.
1.3 SCOPE OF SERVICES
Consultant shall complete the following scope of work tasks and develop a
comprehensive report with findings and recommendations.
1.3.1. Process Assessment
! Review current building permitting processes to assure they are in accordance
with applicable rules and regulations, and to ensure customers receive
consistent and timely service.
! Assess current permit approval process to identify gaps in controls and appropriate levels of review for approval.
! Determine whether the city consistently issues permits only after conditions of approval are met.
! Evaluate staffing and funding levels to determine if they are adequate to carry out the duties and responsibilities of the division.
1.3.2. Fee Calculation/Assessment/Collection Process
! Evaluate current fee collection processes to identify the key controls in these processes.
! Assess whether the controls are properly designed to prevent, detect or correct irregularities on a timely basis.
! Evaluate whether projects are accurately classified for fee determination purposes.
! Review and analyze building permit fee calculation practices to ensure improvement valuations are calculated correctly.
! Evaluate department’s performance with respect to cost recovery.
1.3.3. Project Specific Audits-
Apparently Those Projects, That Were Administered By DSD, Which Were The Exclusive Subject Of The Previously Released Documents. Remember that "possibility of Quid Pro Quo" statement in the previous report released by the CA's office...is that still under investigation?
! Conduct audits of CDD’s past practices associated with approximately fifteen
specific projects and their associated permits, fees and entitlements to determine
CDD’s compliance with City Code and applicable regulations.
! The audits of these specific projects will include AT LEAST the following issues:
o Conflicting messages to staff arising out of departmental culture
o Deferral, waiver, non-collection and underassessment of fees
o Non-compliance with City’s “Fee Deferral Program”
o Construction unlawfully permitted prior to plan check, fee payment or permit issuance
o Permit transfers allowed between property owners in violation of City Code
o Grading permits issued without HCP fee payment or compliance
o Non-compliance with City’s planning requirements
o Mischaracterization of project or permit and related fee impacts
o Permitting building demolition without CEQA review.
3.7 CONFIDENTIALITY-
Why Prior To Award Instead Of Prior To Opening After Close Of Submittal Period?
Prior to award of the contract, all proposals will be designated confidential to the extent
permitted by the California Public Records Act. After award of the contract, or if not
awarded, after rejection of all proposals, all responses will be regarded as public
records and will be subject to review by the public. Any language purporting to render
all or portions of the proposal confidential will be regarded as non-effective and will be
disregarded.
The vote in favor of the contract was 7-0. Councilmembers Rob Fong and Ray Tretheway were absent from Thursday's meeting. Thank you for asking for more information about the vote.
I believe taking this mayor's corruption and that of his suckups is undesired at this outlet. I'm tired of the uphill battle of trying to expose this...
I guess the SNR is really the only serious game in town when it comes to true investigative reporting and community input about city politics...
Mr Barton: It (hate) was a figure of speech….it’s a slogan and I’m sure you know that. But I should have written I don’t despise the player; I despise the game. But Marion's right! I shouldn’t even despise the game, (or playing the game as long as I play it to win) I'll take Marion's advice and just hate BS why? because it stinks. Which is why I’m taking a break. I truly need to remain in the spirit of love.....Thank you for the opportunity to write, learn, grow in understanding. SacPress has some great folks posting on the site. Blessings to all of you. Take care
Then again, I realize they don't have the Bee's budget to do good, which the Bee uses to do much harm, in my estimation.
I commend SP for its mission, but they need to be more careful about acting as the face of the mayor and his suckups by challenging the veracity and purpose of stories leaked or brought by them...
"This opens the door to posts from self-serving charlatans whose intentions are not brought with clean hands."
And they're so obvious about it. All the more reason some lucid voices remain and shed some light on the muck.
Do you want to post some investigative reporting, if SP doesn't?
As far as the self-serving charlatans you mention, I wonder if you are counting yourself in that number. I always am suspicious of people like you who post anonymously. Have the courage of your convictions and put your name on your comments just like the SacPress staff writers do everyday.
The only dog I have in this race is my concern for this community where I was born and was raised -- nothing more. I don't believe this can be said of the wolves who back KJ....
I remain anonymous because I cherish my privacy -- it doesn't take 'courage' to reveal one's name in this type of forum -- at times it just takes stupidity... especially when one is controversial, against the tide of the conventional and thoughtless.
When YOU'VE had YOUR identity stolen, and YOUR phone has received death threats, merely for expressing an opinion in support of the powerless, I'd suggest that this is my remedy for the crazed right wingers who just don't like what I have to say -- and never will...
Until then, you're free to express any damned thing you want. But in doing the same thing, I'm going to protect myself, and my icon and my identity, from people who seek harm against simple, albeit informed and potent, expression.
People who demand identity under such circumstances are usually playing for the other side, with their own covert agendas, and they usually don't play fair...
I may be acerbic, but unlike those who act on their threats, or do so using surrogates, who have plausible deniability for the harm they inflict, I harm no one, and merely intend aid toward those who have no voice who are at the mercy of powerful interests seeking less than honorable goals.
Frankly, I don't give a damn about your 'suspicions' -- they're conventional and pedestrian, and I have bigger fish to fry....
My 2 cents RE: Title of previous article-Critical thinkers should not be "pigeon holed" as solely negative to any one individual. Questions raised by community members are just that...as the Front page Header Area indicated "Questions raised about CDD Audit". Unfortunately the main title of that article was polarizing to say the least.
MM from another article:
"Recent years of illegal and quasi-legal development practices in the city of Sacramento and under the City of Sacramento resulted in: rapid departure of two key players, current investigations, restructuring and renaming of the Development Services Department, the upcoming audit of that department and exposure of corruption in Natomas building permitting, the FPP process and unpaid developers' fees. Oh yeah: and the similarly squirrelly Buzz Box deal with the "nefarious" Nestle corporation to bottle and sell American River water."
http://www.sacramentopress.com/headline/25296/Target_Calls_it_a_Remodel_Is_it
It appears that this 'auditor', who was apparently deep in one helluva mess in his former gig in San Jose, per my 'little birdy', and the firm he was allowed to hire, which sustains a recycled relationship with KJ's lawyers, is thick with the tribe that brought KJ into the political light, and because so many of them are Republicans, they tend to stick together far moreso than do their challengers...
I love Sacramento passionately, and I love my part-time home here. But this cabal sickens me to the point of considering just packing up and leaving permanently.
By comparison, San Francisco is EVER so much more sophisticated, and yet, civil... of course, barring that shoot out 30+ years ago that left Harvey Milk and George Moscone dead. It's still a very pretty place to live, and the mayor is at least HOT, and articulate, and smart, and compassionate, and authentic, so many things KJ is not...
But KJ has introduced new levels of toxicity that already have realized and will eventually manifest an ugliness that is beyond anything what's left of the city of my youth can endure...
I enjoy a good fight -- when there is at least a semblance of equal footing.
But in this battle, the crooks are also the sheriffs, with only a smattering of citizens with mere words to confront them...
I suppose the bad guys will at some point fall on their own swords -- they always do, and this tribe of thieves has almost done just that a number of times....
I'd like to think "oh, fiddle dee dee" and like Scarlett O'Hara quipped, "Tomorrow is another day"... But at this point, I'm more in a mood so aptly put by Rhett Butler -- "Frankly, m'dear, I just don't give a damn..."......
Yes, the audit matters -- an UNBIASED audit not designed to parrot predetermined outcomes sought by KJ's backers...
A council member apparently made the same case in allowing this to move forward (by omission)... perhaps by giving KJ enough leeway to unintentionally expose even more corruption within his camp...
But this should NOT have been a 'test case' to test the veracity of one of KJ's suppliers, even if that supplier's relationship to a current intimate of his dates back to 2004...
This means that we citizens are going to have to be even more vigilant as the audit's results are produced.
But why do we have to work so hard??? I believe the screening process should have disclosed this obvious compromise, and disqualified this contractor. But it didn't, and there's the rub...
I think we're in for a rude awakening as this goes forth.... both in terms of the audit's results, and in terms of the lack of independence of our new independent auditor... whom I am beginning to distrust...