⚠️ 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 7 findings
F1
Reports published earlier this year by the Mendocino County Grand Jury (on Animal Control and the Library) cited the failure of the BOS to exercise proper and sufficient control over the administration of those departments. The same criticism occurs in a number of Grand Jury reports from previous years. Response (CEO): The CEO agrees with this finding that the reports have been critical. Response (County Counsel): The Department agrees with the finding that this year the Grand Jury did allege that the Board of Supervisors failed to exercise proper and sufficient control over the administration of Animal Care & Control and the Library. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding that the reports have been critical.
No recommendations for this finding
F2
Under the new organization, the BOS retains direct supervisory responsibility only for the Clerk of the Board, the County Counsel and the CEO. All other County agencies are ultimately the responsibility of the BOS but will be supervised by the CEO. Response (CEO): The CEO disagrees with this finding in part and agrees with this finding in part. Elected department heads cannot be supervised by the Board or the CEO. The Chief Probation Officer and the Farm Advisor are appointed and supervised by other entities than the Board and the CEO. Additional language will be necessary in the County Code to make provisions regarding appointed department heads consistent with supervision by the CEO. Response (County Counsel): The Department disagrees with this finding in that the CEO does not supervise the Assessor-Clerk-Recorder’s Office, the Sheriff’s Office, the District Attorney’s Office, the Auditor-Controller, Treasurer-Tax Collector, or any other elected official’s department. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board disagrees with this finding in part and agrees with this finding in part, in concurrence with the response of the CEO.
No recommendations for this finding
F3
The language in the ordinance, which does not clearly assign responsibilities for supervision of departments, leaves considerable room for confusion and misinterpretation. Response (CEO): The CEO agrees with this finding. Response (County Counsel): The Department disagrees with this finding. The ordinance amending Mendocino County Code § 2.28 et seq. states that the CEO will “appoint, transfer, discipline, suspend or dismiss, as appropriate, any non-elected department head who is not required to be appointed by the Board of Supervisors.” (§ 2.28050 (3)(h)) The amended ordinance also defines those department heads who report directly to the BOS. (see § 2.28.050(3)(g)) In addition, when read as a whole, the new ordinance clearly establishes that the department heads, except for elected department heads, County Counsel, and the Clerk of the Board, all report to the CEO, and that the CEO has the ability to terminate and/or discipline the department heads that report to the CEO. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding.
No recommendations for this finding
F4
Mendocino County Supervisors are elected officials who do not necessarily have the training and expertise to be personnel managers. Response (CEO): The CEO does not have sufficient information to agree or disagree with this finding. Response (County Counsel): The County Counsel cannot agree or disagree with this finding due to insufficient information. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board does not have sufficient information to agree or disagree with this finding.
No recommendations for this finding
F5
The CAO’s office had seven funded positions in the 2004-5 County budget. Response (CEO): The CEO agrees with this finding. Response (County Counsel): The Department does not have sufficient information to either agree or disagree with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding.
No recommendations for this finding
F6
There is no anticipated increase in staffing for that office under the CEO. Response (CEO): The CEO agrees with this finding in part and disagrees with this finding in part. There has been no increase in staffing attributable to the transition to CEO, at this point in time. Analysis is underway regarding workload and resources. There has been the addition of two positions as a result of incorporation of the risk management function into the Executive Office. The two Safety Officers are not included in this count. Response (County Counsel): The Department does not have sufficient information to either agree or disagree with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding in part and disagrees with this finding in part; in concurrence with the response of the CEO.
No recommendations for this finding
F7
The CEO is an at-will employee of the County – that is, his employment may be terminated at any time by a vote of the BOS. Response (CEO): The CEO agrees with this finding. Response (County Counsel): The Department agrees with this finding. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board agrees with this finding.
No recommendations for this finding
Comments 1
-
CO1“Policy and personnel management don’t mix,” as one interviewee observed. The creation of the CEO position is clearly intended to provide for better management and, in the process, allow the BOS to focus on policy without the added friction brought on by difficult personnel issues. Agency directors may be relieved, in fact, by having to report to one person rather than a Board, but the change should also mean that a coherent and consistent management process will be in place. Whether or not the BOS will give the CEO the power to manage effectively remains to be seen. If the Board meddles and micro-manages, then the change will have brought no improvement. Put another way, we will be no worse off than we were before, but no-one thinks that’s a good option. The BOS has, in fact, a lot invested in the success of the CEO; at this point, the CEO has therefore considerable power to establish a good working environment. In addition to his relationship with the BOS, the CEO needs to make himself available to the public who deserve to know more about the person who takes this new position. There are some who fear that the CEO position will act to insulate further the County government from the public and thereby make County officials less responsive to public needs and wishes. The Grand Jury understands that concern. The important questions about lines of authority have to be worked out carefully. That such questions are still pending is inevitable, as this venture into a new kind 4 of administration is a work in progress, with details to follow. It has been undertaken by County officials who are seeking to make changes in an organization that badly needs change. Supervisors, as well as outside observers, are unanimous in their agreement that politics and conflict have diminished the effectiveness of the BOS in the past. We can only hope that those days are over and that this group has realized that the budget crisis, along with all the other crises, demands cooperation and effective action. The decision to create the CEO position supports that hope. RESPONSE REQUIRED Mendocino County Board of Supervisors RESPONSE REQUESTED Mendocino County Chief Executive Officer Mendocino County Counsel 5
No Responses Found 1
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
Mendocino County
County