Mendocino County Grand Jury
• 2006-2007
One Ceo for the Price of Two a Report on the Ceo Termination Process June 7, 2007
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 31 findings
F1
The initial draft CEO ordinance was approved by a vote of 4/1.
No recommendations for this finding
F2
The final draft CEO ordinance was approved by a vote 3/2.
Related Recommendations (2)
R8
the BOS revert to the original CEO ordinance. (Findings 2, 4-5, 25, 27)
R29
6. the BOS conduct periodic reviews of any new CEO, regardless of performance. (Findings 5, 13, 20-21) 7. the BOS put personal agendas aside for the good of the County and it’s citizenry. (Findings 5, 24) 8. the BOS revert to the original CEO ordinance. (Findings 2, 4-5, 25, 27) 9. the BOS avoid taking on day-to-day managerial duties of staff or department heads. (Findings 23, 25-28) 10. the BOS avoid temptation to interfere with CEO responsibilities. (Findings 23, 25-28) 11. the BOS embrace positive change, and a willingness to relinquish direct control. (Findings 23, 25-28) 12. the BOS support a chain of command as defined by the Mendocino County Organizational Chart. (Findings 23, 25-27) 13. the BOS avoid any circumvention of the established line of authority and/or reporting as defined by the Mendocino County Organizational Chart. (Findings 23, 25-27) 14. the BOS be totally transparent in conducting the citizen’s business. (Findings 17, 31) COMMENTS For an elected official to fail to initiate an action when warranted is to neglect their duty to County citizens. Before hiring the CEO there was no effort by the BOS, as a body, to determine a clear direction which any CEO would be charged with implementing. Prior to the CEO arrival, there was no formal discussion between the BOS and County employees, to address or discuss their concerns and anxieties. For the first two and a half months of the CEO tenure a clear line of authority was not established, due to BOS reluctance to accept an executive organizational structure. This resulted in heightened anxieties within all levels of County government. The persistence of the BOS to conduct business as usual, by ignoring the CEO’s authority, further complicated the role of the CEO. Issuance of individual policy directives instead of a majority vote is common practice by most BOS members, resulting in fragmented policy and frustration among executive staff. Insistence by individual Supervisors that the CEO insert increased funds for Board use, has the appearance of an attempt to bypass the fiduciary duties of the CEO. The process of termination “had no process.” REQUIRED RESPONSE Board of Supervisors (All Findings; All Recommendations) County Executive Office (All Findings; All Recommendations) Human Resources (Finding 12-16, 19, 22; Recommendation 4) REQUESTED RESPONSE Mendocino County District Attorney (All Findings; All Recommendations) California State Attorney General (All Findings; All Recommendations)
F3
Search for the new CEO started in February 2005.
No recommendations for this finding
F4
The CEO ordinance was adopted unanimously via the consent calendar.
Related Recommendations (2)
R8
the BOS revert to the original CEO ordinance. (Findings 2, 4-5, 25, 27)
R29
6. the BOS conduct periodic reviews of any new CEO, regardless of performance. (Findings 5, 13, 20-21) 7. the BOS put personal agendas aside for the good of the County and it’s citizenry. (Findings 5, 24) 8. the BOS revert to the original CEO ordinance. (Findings 2, 4-5, 25, 27) 9. the BOS avoid taking on day-to-day managerial duties of staff or department heads. (Findings 23, 25-28) 10. the BOS avoid temptation to interfere with CEO responsibilities. (Findings 23, 25-28) 11. the BOS embrace positive change, and a willingness to relinquish direct control. (Findings 23, 25-28) 12. the BOS support a chain of command as defined by the Mendocino County Organizational Chart. (Findings 23, 25-27) 13. the BOS avoid any circumvention of the established line of authority and/or reporting as defined by the Mendocino County Organizational Chart. (Findings 23, 25-27) 14. the BOS be totally transparent in conducting the citizen’s business. (Findings 17, 31) COMMENTS For an elected official to fail to initiate an action when warranted is to neglect their duty to County citizens. Before hiring the CEO there was no effort by the BOS, as a body, to determine a clear direction which any CEO would be charged with implementing. Prior to the CEO arrival, there was no formal discussion between the BOS and County employees, to address or discuss their concerns and anxieties. For the first two and a half months of the CEO tenure a clear line of authority was not established, due to BOS reluctance to accept an executive organizational structure. This resulted in heightened anxieties within all levels of County government. The persistence of the BOS to conduct business as usual, by ignoring the CEO’s authority, further complicated the role of the CEO. Issuance of individual policy directives instead of a majority vote is common practice by most BOS members, resulting in fragmented policy and frustration among executive staff. Insistence by individual Supervisors that the CEO insert increased funds for Board use, has the appearance of an attempt to bypass the fiduciary duties of the CEO. The process of termination “had no process.” REQUIRED RESPONSE Board of Supervisors (All Findings; All Recommendations) County Executive Office (All Findings; All Recommendations) Human Resources (Finding 12-16, 19, 22; Recommendation 4) REQUESTED RESPONSE Mendocino County District Attorney (All Findings; All Recommendations) California State Attorney General (All Findings; All Recommendations)
F5
The CEO ordinance set forth clear guidelines concerning CEO authority.
Related Recommendations (5)
R5
the BOS provide clearly defined policy direction by majority vote. (Findings 5, 24, 28- 29)
R6
the BOS conduct periodic reviews of any new CEO, regardless of performance. (Findings 5, 13, 20-21)
R7
the BOS put personal agendas aside for the good of the County and it’s citizenry. (Findings 5, 24)
R8
the BOS revert to the original CEO ordinance. (Findings 2, 4-5, 25, 27)
R29
6. the BOS conduct periodic reviews of any new CEO, regardless of performance. (Findings 5, 13, 20-21) 7. the BOS put personal agendas aside for the good of the County and it’s citizenry. (Findings 5, 24) 8. the BOS revert to the original CEO ordinance. (Findings 2, 4-5, 25, 27) 9. the BOS avoid taking on day-to-day managerial duties of staff or department heads. (Findings 23, 25-28) 10. the BOS avoid temptation to interfere with CEO responsibilities. (Findings 23, 25-28) 11. the BOS embrace positive change, and a willingness to relinquish direct control. (Findings 23, 25-28) 12. the BOS support a chain of command as defined by the Mendocino County Organizational Chart. (Findings 23, 25-27) 13. the BOS avoid any circumvention of the established line of authority and/or reporting as defined by the Mendocino County Organizational Chart. (Findings 23, 25-27) 14. the BOS be totally transparent in conducting the citizen’s business. (Findings 17, 31) COMMENTS For an elected official to fail to initiate an action when warranted is to neglect their duty to County citizens. Before hiring the CEO there was no effort by the BOS, as a body, to determine a clear direction which any CEO would be charged with implementing. Prior to the CEO arrival, there was no formal discussion between the BOS and County employees, to address or discuss their concerns and anxieties. For the first two and a half months of the CEO tenure a clear line of authority was not established, due to BOS reluctance to accept an executive organizational structure. This resulted in heightened anxieties within all levels of County government. The persistence of the BOS to conduct business as usual, by ignoring the CEO’s authority, further complicated the role of the CEO. Issuance of individual policy directives instead of a majority vote is common practice by most BOS members, resulting in fragmented policy and frustration among executive staff. Insistence by individual Supervisors that the CEO insert increased funds for Board use, has the appearance of an attempt to bypass the fiduciary duties of the CEO. The process of termination “had no process.” REQUIRED RESPONSE Board of Supervisors (All Findings; All Recommendations) County Executive Office (All Findings; All Recommendations) Human Resources (Finding 12-16, 19, 22; Recommendation 4) REQUESTED RESPONSE Mendocino County District Attorney (All Findings; All Recommendations) California State Attorney General (All Findings; All Recommendations)
F6
On April 12, 2005 the BOS announced the selection, but not the hiring, of a new CEO.
No recommendations for this finding
F7
Through the consent calendar the BOS unanimously approved the appointment and “terms of employment” of the new CEO.
No recommendations for this finding
F8
The CEO “terms of employment” was a binding contract, effective May 8, 2005, and was agreed upon and signed by both parties May 9, 2005. The contract was accepted by the BOS on May 10, 2005
No recommendations for this finding
F9
June 7, 2005 was the first BOS meeting attended by the new CEO.
No recommendations for this finding
F10
The CEO contract set forth clear conditions and resulting consequences in the event of termination.
No recommendations for this finding
F11
The BOS could have terminated the CEO, by majority vote anytime prior to February 8, 2006, with minimal monetary penalty to the county.
No recommendations for this finding
F12
The BOS could have declared a “breach of contract” by written notice prior to May 8,
Related Recommendations (2)
R3
the BOS inform themselves fully before entering into any contract. (Findings 12-16, 19, 22)
R4
Human Resources Department review all “at-will” and contract employees to ensure all contract conditions are met. (Findings 12-16, 19, 22)
F13
The BOS could have held a performance review of the CEO prior to February 8, 2006, leading to a discussion of termination of the CEO’s services at minimal cost to the county.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3
the BOS inform themselves fully before entering into any contract. (Findings 12-16, 19, 22)
R4
Human Resources Department review all “at-will” and contract employees to ensure all contract conditions are met. (Findings 12-16, 19, 22)
F14
The contract provided for automatic renewal for one year, if the BOS did not take action prior to February 8, 2006.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3
the BOS inform themselves fully before entering into any contract. (Findings 12-16, 19, 22)
R4
Human Resources Department review all “at-will” and contract employees to ensure all contract conditions are met. (Findings 12-16, 19, 22)
F15
Some BOS members indicated they did not fully read the CEO contract, but instead relied on advice from others.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3
the BOS inform themselves fully before entering into any contract. (Findings 12-16, 19, 22)
R4
Human Resources Department review all “at-will” and contract employees to ensure all contract conditions are met. (Findings 12-16, 19, 22)
F16
Most Supervisors indicated they had no knowledge of the three month termination clause in the CEO contract.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3
the BOS inform themselves fully before entering into any contract. (Findings 12-16, 19, 22)
R4
Human Resources Department review all “at-will” and contract employees to ensure all contract conditions are met. (Findings 12-16, 19, 22)
F17
According to California Government Code §54950 “that the public commissions, boards and councils and the other public agencies in this State exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business. It is the intent of the law that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly. The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.”
Related Recommendations (2)
R14
the BOS be totally transparent in conducting the citizen’s business. (Findings 17, 31) COMMENTS For an elected official to fail to initiate an action when warranted is to neglect their duty to County citizens. Before hiring the CEO there was no effort by the BOS, as a body, to determine a clear direction which any CEO would be charged with implementing. Prior to the CEO arrival, there was no formal discussion between the BOS and County employees, to address or discuss their concerns and anxieties. For the first two and a half months of the CEO tenure a clear line of authority was not established, due to BOS reluctance to accept an executive organizational structure. This resulted in heightened anxieties within all levels of County government. The persistence of the BOS to conduct business as usual, by ignoring the CEO’s authority, further complicated the role of the CEO. Issuance of individual policy directives instead of a majority vote is common practice by most BOS members, resulting in fragmented policy and frustration among executive staff. Insistence by individual Supervisors that the CEO insert increased funds for Board use, has the appearance of an attempt to bypass the fiduciary duties of the CEO. The process of termination “had no process.” REQUIRED RESPONSE Board of Supervisors (All Findings; All Recommendations) County Executive Office (All Findings; All Recommendations) Human Resources (Finding 12-16, 19, 22; Recommendation 4) REQUESTED RESPONSE Mendocino County District Attorney (All Findings; All Recommendations) California State Attorney General (All Findings; All Recommendations)
R29
6. the BOS conduct periodic reviews of any new CEO, regardless of performance. (Findings 5, 13, 20-21) 7. the BOS put personal agendas aside for the good of the County and it’s citizenry. (Findings 5, 24) 8. the BOS revert to the original CEO ordinance. (Findings 2, 4-5, 25, 27) 9. the BOS avoid taking on day-to-day managerial duties of staff or department heads. (Findings 23, 25-28) 10. the BOS avoid temptation to interfere with CEO responsibilities. (Findings 23, 25-28) 11. the BOS embrace positive change, and a willingness to relinquish direct control. (Findings 23, 25-28) 12. the BOS support a chain of command as defined by the Mendocino County Organizational Chart. (Findings 23, 25-27) 13. the BOS avoid any circumvention of the established line of authority and/or reporting as defined by the Mendocino County Organizational Chart. (Findings 23, 25-27) 14. the BOS be totally transparent in conducting the citizen’s business. (Findings 17, 31) COMMENTS For an elected official to fail to initiate an action when warranted is to neglect their duty to County citizens. Before hiring the CEO there was no effort by the BOS, as a body, to determine a clear direction which any CEO would be charged with implementing. Prior to the CEO arrival, there was no formal discussion between the BOS and County employees, to address or discuss their concerns and anxieties. For the first two and a half months of the CEO tenure a clear line of authority was not established, due to BOS reluctance to accept an executive organizational structure. This resulted in heightened anxieties within all levels of County government. The persistence of the BOS to conduct business as usual, by ignoring the CEO’s authority, further complicated the role of the CEO. Issuance of individual policy directives instead of a majority vote is common practice by most BOS members, resulting in fragmented policy and frustration among executive staff. Insistence by individual Supervisors that the CEO insert increased funds for Board use, has the appearance of an attempt to bypass the fiduciary duties of the CEO. The process of termination “had no process.” REQUIRED RESPONSE Board of Supervisors (All Findings; All Recommendations) County Executive Office (All Findings; All Recommendations) Human Resources (Finding 12-16, 19, 22; Recommendation 4) REQUESTED RESPONSE Mendocino County District Attorney (All Findings; All Recommendations) California State Attorney General (All Findings; All Recommendations)
F18
There were clear indications of dissatisfaction with the CEO by members of the BOS, as early as December 2005, as shown by testimony and public records.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
prior to hiring a new CEO there be a candid discussion between the BOS and the candidate to determine compatibility of views and a philosophical understanding. (Findings 18, 25, 27)
F19
Failure by the dissatisfied Supervisors to act prior to February 8, 2006, resulted in the automatic renewal of the CEO contract. This automatic renewal ultimately cost the citizens of the County at least $167,000 in termination penalties.
No recommendations for this finding
F20
Testimony given indicates that a performance review, as agendized, was not actually carried out on June 27, 2006. Testimony indicated that a motion was made 3½ minutes into the meeting to fire the CEO. Counsel advised that the action could not be taken at that time, so it was decided to give a 24 hour notice to the CEO “to resign or else”; the vote was 3/2.
Related Recommendations (2)
R6
the BOS conduct periodic reviews of any new CEO, regardless of performance. (Findings 5, 13, 20-21)
R29
6. the BOS conduct periodic reviews of any new CEO, regardless of performance. (Findings 5, 13, 20-21) 7. the BOS put personal agendas aside for the good of the County and it’s citizenry. (Findings 5, 24) 8. the BOS revert to the original CEO ordinance. (Findings 2, 4-5, 25, 27) 9. the BOS avoid taking on day-to-day managerial duties of staff or department heads. (Findings 23, 25-28) 10. the BOS avoid temptation to interfere with CEO responsibilities. (Findings 23, 25-28) 11. the BOS embrace positive change, and a willingness to relinquish direct control. (Findings 23, 25-28) 12. the BOS support a chain of command as defined by the Mendocino County Organizational Chart. (Findings 23, 25-27) 13. the BOS avoid any circumvention of the established line of authority and/or reporting as defined by the Mendocino County Organizational Chart. (Findings 23, 25-27) 14. the BOS be totally transparent in conducting the citizen’s business. (Findings 17, 31) COMMENTS For an elected official to fail to initiate an action when warranted is to neglect their duty to County citizens. Before hiring the CEO there was no effort by the BOS, as a body, to determine a clear direction which any CEO would be charged with implementing. Prior to the CEO arrival, there was no formal discussion between the BOS and County employees, to address or discuss their concerns and anxieties. For the first two and a half months of the CEO tenure a clear line of authority was not established, due to BOS reluctance to accept an executive organizational structure. This resulted in heightened anxieties within all levels of County government. The persistence of the BOS to conduct business as usual, by ignoring the CEO’s authority, further complicated the role of the CEO. Issuance of individual policy directives instead of a majority vote is common practice by most BOS members, resulting in fragmented policy and frustration among executive staff. Insistence by individual Supervisors that the CEO insert increased funds for Board use, has the appearance of an attempt to bypass the fiduciary duties of the CEO. The process of termination “had no process.” REQUIRED RESPONSE Board of Supervisors (All Findings; All Recommendations) County Executive Office (All Findings; All Recommendations) Human Resources (Finding 12-16, 19, 22; Recommendation 4) REQUESTED RESPONSE Mendocino County District Attorney (All Findings; All Recommendations) California State Attorney General (All Findings; All Recommendations)
F21
Prior to February 8, 2006 any BOS member whether dissatisfied or not with the CEO’s performance, could have initiated any of the options available to the BOS, by having an appropriate item placed on the agenda.
Related Recommendations (2)
R6
the BOS conduct periodic reviews of any new CEO, regardless of performance. (Findings 5, 13, 20-21)
R29
6. the BOS conduct periodic reviews of any new CEO, regardless of performance. (Findings 5, 13, 20-21) 7. the BOS put personal agendas aside for the good of the County and it’s citizenry. (Findings 5, 24) 8. the BOS revert to the original CEO ordinance. (Findings 2, 4-5, 25, 27) 9. the BOS avoid taking on day-to-day managerial duties of staff or department heads. (Findings 23, 25-28) 10. the BOS avoid temptation to interfere with CEO responsibilities. (Findings 23, 25-28) 11. the BOS embrace positive change, and a willingness to relinquish direct control. (Findings 23, 25-28) 12. the BOS support a chain of command as defined by the Mendocino County Organizational Chart. (Findings 23, 25-27) 13. the BOS avoid any circumvention of the established line of authority and/or reporting as defined by the Mendocino County Organizational Chart. (Findings 23, 25-27) 14. the BOS be totally transparent in conducting the citizen’s business. (Findings 17, 31) COMMENTS For an elected official to fail to initiate an action when warranted is to neglect their duty to County citizens. Before hiring the CEO there was no effort by the BOS, as a body, to determine a clear direction which any CEO would be charged with implementing. Prior to the CEO arrival, there was no formal discussion between the BOS and County employees, to address or discuss their concerns and anxieties. For the first two and a half months of the CEO tenure a clear line of authority was not established, due to BOS reluctance to accept an executive organizational structure. This resulted in heightened anxieties within all levels of County government. The persistence of the BOS to conduct business as usual, by ignoring the CEO’s authority, further complicated the role of the CEO. Issuance of individual policy directives instead of a majority vote is common practice by most BOS members, resulting in fragmented policy and frustration among executive staff. Insistence by individual Supervisors that the CEO insert increased funds for Board use, has the appearance of an attempt to bypass the fiduciary duties of the CEO. The process of termination “had no process.” REQUIRED RESPONSE Board of Supervisors (All Findings; All Recommendations) County Executive Office (All Findings; All Recommendations) Human Resources (Finding 12-16, 19, 22; Recommendation 4) REQUESTED RESPONSE Mendocino County District Attorney (All Findings; All Recommendations) California State Attorney General (All Findings; All Recommendations)
F22
The failure of some Supervisors to be familiar with the conditions of the CEO contract is demonstrated by the suggestion to schedule the CEO performance evaluation in mid-September 2006.
No recommendations for this finding
F23
The BOS did not approve the CEO’s proposed County Organizational Chart until 2½ months after submittal by the CEO on June 21, 2005.
Related Recommendations (6)
R9
the BOS avoid taking on day-to-day managerial duties of staff or department heads. (Findings 23, 25-28)
R10
the BOS avoid temptation to interfere with CEO responsibilities. (Findings 23, 25-28)
R11
the BOS embrace positive change, and a willingness to relinquish direct control. (Findings 23, 25-28)
R12
the BOS support a chain of command as defined by the Mendocino County Organizational Chart. (Findings 23, 25-27)
R13
the BOS avoid any circumvention of the established line of authority and/or reporting as defined by the Mendocino County Organizational Chart. (Findings 23, 25-27)
R29
6. the BOS conduct periodic reviews of any new CEO, regardless of performance. (Findings 5, 13, 20-21) 7. the BOS put personal agendas aside for the good of the County and it’s citizenry. (Findings 5, 24) 8. the BOS revert to the original CEO ordinance. (Findings 2, 4-5, 25, 27) 9. the BOS avoid taking on day-to-day managerial duties of staff or department heads. (Findings 23, 25-28) 10. the BOS avoid temptation to interfere with CEO responsibilities. (Findings 23, 25-28) 11. the BOS embrace positive change, and a willingness to relinquish direct control. (Findings 23, 25-28) 12. the BOS support a chain of command as defined by the Mendocino County Organizational Chart. (Findings 23, 25-27) 13. the BOS avoid any circumvention of the established line of authority and/or reporting as defined by the Mendocino County Organizational Chart. (Findings 23, 25-27) 14. the BOS be totally transparent in conducting the citizen’s business. (Findings 17, 31) COMMENTS For an elected official to fail to initiate an action when warranted is to neglect their duty to County citizens. Before hiring the CEO there was no effort by the BOS, as a body, to determine a clear direction which any CEO would be charged with implementing. Prior to the CEO arrival, there was no formal discussion between the BOS and County employees, to address or discuss their concerns and anxieties. For the first two and a half months of the CEO tenure a clear line of authority was not established, due to BOS reluctance to accept an executive organizational structure. This resulted in heightened anxieties within all levels of County government. The persistence of the BOS to conduct business as usual, by ignoring the CEO’s authority, further complicated the role of the CEO. Issuance of individual policy directives instead of a majority vote is common practice by most BOS members, resulting in fragmented policy and frustration among executive staff. Insistence by individual Supervisors that the CEO insert increased funds for Board use, has the appearance of an attempt to bypass the fiduciary duties of the CEO. The process of termination “had no process.” REQUIRED RESPONSE Board of Supervisors (All Findings; All Recommendations) County Executive Office (All Findings; All Recommendations) Human Resources (Finding 12-16, 19, 22; Recommendation 4) REQUESTED RESPONSE Mendocino County District Attorney (All Findings; All Recommendations) California State Attorney General (All Findings; All Recommendations)
F24
Individual Supervisor’s directives, reflecting their personal desires, are often contradictory and are not directives of the Board.
No recommendations for this finding
F25
On October 18, 2005 the BOS voted unanimously to formalize the CEO appointing authority of various department heads and their duties.
Related Recommendations (7)
R2
the BOS educate themselves on the various forms of executive management. (Findings 25, 28-29)
R9
the BOS avoid taking on day-to-day managerial duties of staff or department heads. (Findings 23, 25-28)
R10
the BOS avoid temptation to interfere with CEO responsibilities. (Findings 23, 25-28)
R11
the BOS embrace positive change, and a willingness to relinquish direct control. (Findings 23, 25-28)
R12
the BOS support a chain of command as defined by the Mendocino County Organizational Chart. (Findings 23, 25-27)
R13
the BOS avoid any circumvention of the established line of authority and/or reporting as defined by the Mendocino County Organizational Chart. (Findings 23, 25-27)
R29
6. the BOS conduct periodic reviews of any new CEO, regardless of performance. (Findings 5, 13, 20-21) 7. the BOS put personal agendas aside for the good of the County and it’s citizenry. (Findings 5, 24) 8. the BOS revert to the original CEO ordinance. (Findings 2, 4-5, 25, 27) 9. the BOS avoid taking on day-to-day managerial duties of staff or department heads. (Findings 23, 25-28) 10. the BOS avoid temptation to interfere with CEO responsibilities. (Findings 23, 25-28) 11. the BOS embrace positive change, and a willingness to relinquish direct control. (Findings 23, 25-28) 12. the BOS support a chain of command as defined by the Mendocino County Organizational Chart. (Findings 23, 25-27) 13. the BOS avoid any circumvention of the established line of authority and/or reporting as defined by the Mendocino County Organizational Chart. (Findings 23, 25-27) 14. the BOS be totally transparent in conducting the citizen’s business. (Findings 17, 31) COMMENTS For an elected official to fail to initiate an action when warranted is to neglect their duty to County citizens. Before hiring the CEO there was no effort by the BOS, as a body, to determine a clear direction which any CEO would be charged with implementing. Prior to the CEO arrival, there was no formal discussion between the BOS and County employees, to address or discuss their concerns and anxieties. For the first two and a half months of the CEO tenure a clear line of authority was not established, due to BOS reluctance to accept an executive organizational structure. This resulted in heightened anxieties within all levels of County government. The persistence of the BOS to conduct business as usual, by ignoring the CEO’s authority, further complicated the role of the CEO. Issuance of individual policy directives instead of a majority vote is common practice by most BOS members, resulting in fragmented policy and frustration among executive staff. Insistence by individual Supervisors that the CEO insert increased funds for Board use, has the appearance of an attempt to bypass the fiduciary duties of the CEO. The process of termination “had no process.” REQUIRED RESPONSE Board of Supervisors (All Findings; All Recommendations) County Executive Office (All Findings; All Recommendations) Human Resources (Finding 12-16, 19, 22; Recommendation 4) REQUESTED RESPONSE Mendocino County District Attorney (All Findings; All Recommendations) California State Attorney General (All Findings; All Recommendations)
F26
Pursuant to the CEO ordinance, the CEO attempted to organize the executive level of County government.
Related Recommendations (6)
R9
the BOS avoid taking on day-to-day managerial duties of staff or department heads. (Findings 23, 25-28)
R10
the BOS avoid temptation to interfere with CEO responsibilities. (Findings 23, 25-28)
R11
the BOS embrace positive change, and a willingness to relinquish direct control. (Findings 23, 25-28)
R12
the BOS support a chain of command as defined by the Mendocino County Organizational Chart. (Findings 23, 25-27)
R13
the BOS avoid any circumvention of the established line of authority and/or reporting as defined by the Mendocino County Organizational Chart. (Findings 23, 25-27)
R29
6. the BOS conduct periodic reviews of any new CEO, regardless of performance. (Findings 5, 13, 20-21) 7. the BOS put personal agendas aside for the good of the County and it’s citizenry. (Findings 5, 24) 8. the BOS revert to the original CEO ordinance. (Findings 2, 4-5, 25, 27) 9. the BOS avoid taking on day-to-day managerial duties of staff or department heads. (Findings 23, 25-28) 10. the BOS avoid temptation to interfere with CEO responsibilities. (Findings 23, 25-28) 11. the BOS embrace positive change, and a willingness to relinquish direct control. (Findings 23, 25-28) 12. the BOS support a chain of command as defined by the Mendocino County Organizational Chart. (Findings 23, 25-27) 13. the BOS avoid any circumvention of the established line of authority and/or reporting as defined by the Mendocino County Organizational Chart. (Findings 23, 25-27) 14. the BOS be totally transparent in conducting the citizen’s business. (Findings 17, 31) COMMENTS For an elected official to fail to initiate an action when warranted is to neglect their duty to County citizens. Before hiring the CEO there was no effort by the BOS, as a body, to determine a clear direction which any CEO would be charged with implementing. Prior to the CEO arrival, there was no formal discussion between the BOS and County employees, to address or discuss their concerns and anxieties. For the first two and a half months of the CEO tenure a clear line of authority was not established, due to BOS reluctance to accept an executive organizational structure. This resulted in heightened anxieties within all levels of County government. The persistence of the BOS to conduct business as usual, by ignoring the CEO’s authority, further complicated the role of the CEO. Issuance of individual policy directives instead of a majority vote is common practice by most BOS members, resulting in fragmented policy and frustration among executive staff. Insistence by individual Supervisors that the CEO insert increased funds for Board use, has the appearance of an attempt to bypass the fiduciary duties of the CEO. The process of termination “had no process.” REQUIRED RESPONSE Board of Supervisors (All Findings; All Recommendations) County Executive Office (All Findings; All Recommendations) Human Resources (Finding 12-16, 19, 22; Recommendation 4) REQUESTED RESPONSE Mendocino County District Attorney (All Findings; All Recommendations) California State Attorney General (All Findings; All Recommendations)
F27
Under the terms of the CEO ordinance there was no longer a direct link between the BOS and department heads; a fact ignored by the BOS. This information was provided to the board by the CEO on January 10, 2006.
Related Recommendations (6)
R9
the BOS avoid taking on day-to-day managerial duties of staff or department heads. (Findings 23, 25-28)
R10
the BOS avoid temptation to interfere with CEO responsibilities. (Findings 23, 25-28)
R11
the BOS embrace positive change, and a willingness to relinquish direct control. (Findings 23, 25-28)
R12
the BOS support a chain of command as defined by the Mendocino County Organizational Chart. (Findings 23, 25-27)
R13
the BOS avoid any circumvention of the established line of authority and/or reporting as defined by the Mendocino County Organizational Chart. (Findings 23, 25-27)
R29
6. the BOS conduct periodic reviews of any new CEO, regardless of performance. (Findings 5, 13, 20-21) 7. the BOS put personal agendas aside for the good of the County and it’s citizenry. (Findings 5, 24) 8. the BOS revert to the original CEO ordinance. (Findings 2, 4-5, 25, 27) 9. the BOS avoid taking on day-to-day managerial duties of staff or department heads. (Findings 23, 25-28) 10. the BOS avoid temptation to interfere with CEO responsibilities. (Findings 23, 25-28) 11. the BOS embrace positive change, and a willingness to relinquish direct control. (Findings 23, 25-28) 12. the BOS support a chain of command as defined by the Mendocino County Organizational Chart. (Findings 23, 25-27) 13. the BOS avoid any circumvention of the established line of authority and/or reporting as defined by the Mendocino County Organizational Chart. (Findings 23, 25-27) 14. the BOS be totally transparent in conducting the citizen’s business. (Findings 17, 31) COMMENTS For an elected official to fail to initiate an action when warranted is to neglect their duty to County citizens. Before hiring the CEO there was no effort by the BOS, as a body, to determine a clear direction which any CEO would be charged with implementing. Prior to the CEO arrival, there was no formal discussion between the BOS and County employees, to address or discuss their concerns and anxieties. For the first two and a half months of the CEO tenure a clear line of authority was not established, due to BOS reluctance to accept an executive organizational structure. This resulted in heightened anxieties within all levels of County government. The persistence of the BOS to conduct business as usual, by ignoring the CEO’s authority, further complicated the role of the CEO. Issuance of individual policy directives instead of a majority vote is common practice by most BOS members, resulting in fragmented policy and frustration among executive staff. Insistence by individual Supervisors that the CEO insert increased funds for Board use, has the appearance of an attempt to bypass the fiduciary duties of the CEO. The process of termination “had no process.” REQUIRED RESPONSE Board of Supervisors (All Findings; All Recommendations) County Executive Office (All Findings; All Recommendations) Human Resources (Finding 12-16, 19, 22; Recommendation 4) REQUESTED RESPONSE Mendocino County District Attorney (All Findings; All Recommendations) California State Attorney General (All Findings; All Recommendations)
F28
Individual Supervisors do not determine policy. This is the role of the entire Board. A review of BOS minutes shows that this is a role they have failed to fulfill.
Related Recommendations (6)
R2
the BOS educate themselves on the various forms of executive management. (Findings 25, 28-29)
R5
the BOS provide clearly defined policy direction by majority vote. (Findings 5, 24, 28- 29)
R9
the BOS avoid taking on day-to-day managerial duties of staff or department heads. (Findings 23, 25-28)
R10
the BOS avoid temptation to interfere with CEO responsibilities. (Findings 23, 25-28)
R11
the BOS embrace positive change, and a willingness to relinquish direct control. (Findings 23, 25-28)
R29
6. the BOS conduct periodic reviews of any new CEO, regardless of performance. (Findings 5, 13, 20-21) 7. the BOS put personal agendas aside for the good of the County and it’s citizenry. (Findings 5, 24) 8. the BOS revert to the original CEO ordinance. (Findings 2, 4-5, 25, 27) 9. the BOS avoid taking on day-to-day managerial duties of staff or department heads. (Findings 23, 25-28) 10. the BOS avoid temptation to interfere with CEO responsibilities. (Findings 23, 25-28) 11. the BOS embrace positive change, and a willingness to relinquish direct control. (Findings 23, 25-28) 12. the BOS support a chain of command as defined by the Mendocino County Organizational Chart. (Findings 23, 25-27) 13. the BOS avoid any circumvention of the established line of authority and/or reporting as defined by the Mendocino County Organizational Chart. (Findings 23, 25-27) 14. the BOS be totally transparent in conducting the citizen’s business. (Findings 17, 31) COMMENTS For an elected official to fail to initiate an action when warranted is to neglect their duty to County citizens. Before hiring the CEO there was no effort by the BOS, as a body, to determine a clear direction which any CEO would be charged with implementing. Prior to the CEO arrival, there was no formal discussion between the BOS and County employees, to address or discuss their concerns and anxieties. For the first two and a half months of the CEO tenure a clear line of authority was not established, due to BOS reluctance to accept an executive organizational structure. This resulted in heightened anxieties within all levels of County government. The persistence of the BOS to conduct business as usual, by ignoring the CEO’s authority, further complicated the role of the CEO. Issuance of individual policy directives instead of a majority vote is common practice by most BOS members, resulting in fragmented policy and frustration among executive staff. Insistence by individual Supervisors that the CEO insert increased funds for Board use, has the appearance of an attempt to bypass the fiduciary duties of the CEO. The process of termination “had no process.” REQUIRED RESPONSE Board of Supervisors (All Findings; All Recommendations) County Executive Office (All Findings; All Recommendations) Human Resources (Finding 12-16, 19, 22; Recommendation 4) REQUESTED RESPONSE Mendocino County District Attorney (All Findings; All Recommendations) California State Attorney General (All Findings; All Recommendations)
F29
A willingness on the part of some BOS members to accept the CEO form of management as defined by the ordinance passed by the BOS, was totally lacking.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2
the BOS educate themselves on the various forms of executive management. (Findings 25, 28-29)
R5
the BOS provide clearly defined policy direction by majority vote. (Findings 5, 24, 28- 29)
F30
Testimony and public documents make it clear the termination of the CEO was a decision made without forethought, resulting from conflicting personalities, and originating within a period of four days.
No recommendations for this finding
F31
The process of terminating the CEO was carried out in a manner which failed to meet the ideals of governmental transparency, and did not address the questions and concerns of the citizens of the County.
No recommendations for this finding
Comments 1
-
CO1For an elected official to fail to initiate an action when warranted is to neglect their duty to County citizens. Before hiring the CEO there was no effort by the BOS, as a body, to determine a clear direction which any CEO would be charged with implementing. Prior to the CEO arrival, there was no formal discussion between the BOS and County employees, to address or discuss their concerns and anxieties. For the first two and a half months of the CEO tenure a clear line of authority was not established, due to BOS reluctance to accept an executive organizational structure. This resulted in heightened anxieties within all levels of County government. The persistence of the BOS to conduct business as usual, by ignoring the CEO’s authority, further complicated the role of the CEO. Issuance of individual policy directives instead of a majority vote is common practice by most BOS members, resulting in fragmented policy and frustration among executive staff. Insistence by individual Supervisors that the CEO insert increased funds for Board use, has the appearance of an attempt to bypass the fiduciary duties of the CEO. The process of termination “had no process.” REQUIRED RESPONSE Board of Supervisors (All Findings; All Recommendations) County Executive Office (All Findings; All Recommendations) Human Resources (Finding 12-16, 19, 22; Recommendation 4) REQUESTED RESPONSE Mendocino County District Attorney (All Findings; All Recommendations) California State Attorney General (All Findings; All Recommendations)