Laserfiche WebLink
<br />7A <br />Page 19 <br /> <br />ATTACHMENT. 1 <br /> <br />When the Grand Jury questioned board members as to why elected officials were excluded from <br />the SBWMA Board, the Grand Jury learned that board members .had asked some council <br />members about serving and the council members showed no interest. A SBWMA' Board <br />member mentioned that (s)he acts as a buffer between the council members and the public. <br />However, city council members from different member agencies within the SBWNlAjurisdiction <br />contacted the Grand Jury during the course of this investigation and informed the Grand Jury that <br />it was their goal to get elected officials onto the SBWMA Board. These council members <br />testified that they would be actively pursuing such a goal and have wanted to be on the SBWMA <br />Board for a number of years. When a member agency's staff attends a SBWMA Board meeting, <br />there is a cost and a loss of work hours incurred by member cities. <br /> <br />Investigation <br /> <br />The 2008-2009 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury interviewed South Bayside Waste <br />Management Authority (SBWMA) Board members, staffmembers~ Requests For Proposal <br />competitors, city council members~ consultantst and attorneys. The Grand Jurors read numerous <br />SBWMA reportst SBWMA meeting minutes, newspaper articlest in addition to visiting websites. <br />Jurors attended SBWMA meetings, member agency meetings and watched tapes of SBWMA <br />and city co~ncil meetings. <br /> <br />Findings <br /> <br />The 2008-2009 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury found that: <br /> <br />1. In the proposal process, the requirement that aJI proposers use the same operational <br />assumptions to obtain comparable costs was useful to evaluators but does not apply to the <br />actual costs and contracts that the individual member agencies can negotiate. <br /> <br />2. The process allowed for alternative proposals, yet they were not required to be considered. <br /> <br />3. As a condition of participation, proposers had to agree not to appeal decisions. <br /> <br />4. In the evaluation processt the "reasonableness" points were not distinguished from the <br />. "comp~titiveness" points. <br /> <br />5. Neither the individual members of the Evaluation Committee nor the individual members <br />of the Selection Committee were required to report how many of the overall points <br />assigned to each criterion were based on "reasonableness" or "competitiveness." <br /> <br />6. The South Bayside Waste Management Authority's (SBWMA) consultant reported that <br />NoreaJ's references in San Jose were not checked. . <br /> <br />7. South Bay Recycling (SBR) was the only proposer that did not provide for on-site <br />management in. its original cost proposal. <br /> <br />15 <br />