Safety Officials Call Consultant’s Study Reckless : Government: Outside firm’s investigating practices and suggested cuts are condemned. Company says it is only a preliminary report.

Ventura County government could recoup almost half of its $38-million budget deficit by improving efficiency in several areas, most notably public safety, according to a private consultant’s report.

But public safety officials, who recently won protection from having their budgets cut by county supervisors, vigorously denounced the David M. Griffith & Associates report as “reckless, dangerous and invalid.”

“I think this is probably the worst-compiled document in the history of my department and in the history of county government,” said Undersheriff Richard Bryce. “There’s not even a semblance of validity to it. It’s a horrible piece of work.”

Bryce said that the Cupertino-based consultant, hired by the Board of Supervisors in April to perform the $65,000 study, never met with public safety department heads or sent out questionnaires to gather information. Those departments include the sheriff, district attorney, public defender and corrections services.

“Everything was done over the phone,” Bryce said. “It was completely asinine.”

Michael C. Mount, a Griffith vice president, defended the study, saying it simply identified possible areas of savings within 15 county departments and was not meant as a conclusive document. He said it is up to the county to decide whether further study in those areas is warranted.

“I feel we made it clear up front about what the study wasn’t as well as what it was,” he said. “We said this is the appropriate thing to do as a starting point.”

Mount said the consultant basically took a cursory view of the staffing and budgets of specific operations within each department, compared them with similar statistical information gathered from 14 other California counties, then offered its preliminary findings.

In a two-page letter addressed to supervisors on June 27, Mount cautioned the officials about the limits of the study.

“The results of our analysis [are] not definitive,” he wrote. “It simply states that the county appears on superficial analysis to be out of line with what is possible.”

The letter went on to state: “Overall, including public safety, we believe the areas studied provide the potential for up to $18 million in cost reductions . . . “

Besides public safety, however, no other departments or agencies were mentioned by name. And Mount declined comment on the report, which he considers to be confidential.

*

Bryce questioned why the study focused heavily on public safety agencies when those budgets cannot be cut, thanks to an ordinance passed in May exempting them from future budget reductions.

“It doesn’t make any sense,” he said. “If we can figure out ways to save money, we will. But this is not going to solve the county’s budget problems.”

Mount said the study began a month before the supervisors approved the ordinance protecting public safety budgets, and that much of the information on those departments had been collected by then. He said those agencies were given extra attention because, combined, they make up a significant portion of the county’s overall budget.

Regardless of the fact that their budgets are protected, Mount said, public safety officials should still be concerned about delivering their services in the most cost-effective manner.

“I would think that department heads would want to look at areas where they can improve,” said Mount, whose firm recently conducted a study for the City of Los Angeles that was later used to make cuts in various departments.

He acknowledged that some errors may have been made in the gathering and comparing of information. But Mount said he stands by the initial findings despite complaints from sheriff and district attorney officials.

“They can say whatever they want,” Mount said. “All we said is, ‘Here are some areas you may want to take a look at. It’s up to you to decide what you want to do.’ But it sounds like they’re saying, ‘We don’t want to do anything. We’re perfect.’ ”

*

Mount said he had met with sheriff and district attorney officials recently to discuss the report’s findings.

“They were agitated,” he said of their talks. “They were very frank discussions.”

Bryce and Ventura County Chief Deputy Dist. Atty. Donald C. Coleman said their departments are open to making improvements. But the officials said they object to the implications made in the consultant’s report because they are based on frivolous information.

“They have come to some rather childish conclusions,” Coleman said. “When you think about it, it’s almost laughable.”

As an example, Coleman said the consultant noted that the number of cases handled by each of the county’s deputy district attorneys was lower than those handled by prosecutors in similar-size departments in other counties.

But he said this was based on faulty information, noting that the consultant counted 97 criminal prosecutors, 53 investigators and 92 support staff in the district attorney’s office, when the actual numbers are 84, 31 and 73, respectively.

Coleman, however, said there is a larger issue of concern.

“Our product is not the number of cases we prosecute, but rather the result of the cases we prosecute,” Coleman said. “Based on the consultant, you can prosecute a lot of cases and never convict anyone and still be productive.”

Without divulging any details about his findings, Mount said they were based largely on information gathered from published documents obtained from the county and the state.

In the Sheriff’s Department, Bryce said the report found that some areas, such as personnel, were overstaffed. But he said the report did not take into account that the personnel office includes an internal investigations unit and a regional training academy for deputies, which skews the findings.

*

Mount agreed that the consultant was in error on this issue. “We agree with the sheriff,” he said. “That’s a fair concern.”

He also noted that the study found areas in many departments, including the sheriff’s records division, that were operating well above state standards. The county elections department and the assessor’s office were also among those cited for exceptional work.

Supervisor Susan Lacey, who along with Supervisor Judy Mikels sat on a committee overseeing the study, said the consultant did exactly what it was directed to do. Although declining to comment directly on the public safety issue, Lacey said she believes there is room for improvement in all departments.

She said she could not say whether the board would consider going forward with a more comprehensive study, especially considering that it would cost the county about $500,000.

Mikels could not be reached for comment.

Supervisor Frank Schillo, who questioned the consultant’s methods of gathering information before reluctantly agreeing to the contract, had a mixed reaction to the report.

“I had a bad feeling about the way the data was compiled,” he said. “It was questionable right from the beginning.”

He said he believed that the consultant should not be paid if there are major problems with the report.

On the other hand, Schillo said, he would like to assess the information more closely to see if there is some merit to the preliminary findings.

“I don’t know whether the information is correct or not,” Schillo said. “But if there is a grain of truth in what he has said, then I think we ought to look into it.”

Mount, whose firm does regular consulting work for the Sheriff’s Department, said he is concerned about the future of that relationship.

“It’s very frustrating,” he said, “because no matter what happens now we’re going to have egg on our face.”

Meanwhile, public safety officials are scheduled to go before the Board of Supervisors on Monday to discuss their budget for the current fiscal year. The meeting is part of a series of budget study sessions this month.