County of Mendocino B Oard of Supervisors

The initial draft CEO ordinance was approved by a vote of 411. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board of Supervisors agrees with this Finding. Response (Chief Executive Office): The County Executive Office agrees with this Finding.

The final draft CEO ordinance was approved by a vote 312. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board of Supervisors agrees with this Finding. Response (Chief Executive Office): The County Executive Office agrees with this Finding. ONE CEO FOR THE PRICE OF TWO A Report on the CEO Termination Process June 7,2007

Search for the new CEO started in February 2005. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board of Supervisors agrees with this Finding. Response (Chief Executive Office): The County Executive Office agrees with this Finding.

The CEO ordinance was adopted unanimously via the consent calendar. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board of Supervisors agrees with this Finding. Response (Chief Executive Office): The County ~xecutiveO ffice agrees with this Finding.

The CEO ordinance set forth clear guidelines concerning CEO authority. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board of Supervisors agrees with this Finding. Response (Chief Executive Office): The County Executive Office agrees with this Finding.

On April 12, 2005 the BOS announced the selection, but not the hiring, of a new CEO. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board of Supervisors agrees with this Finding. Response (Chief Executive Office): The County Executive Office agrees with this Finding.

Through the consent calendar the BOS unanimously approved the appointment and "terms of employment" of the new CEO. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board of Supervisors agrees with this Finding. ONE CEO FOR THE PRICE OF TWO A Report on the CEO Termination Process June 7,2007 Response (Chief Executive Office): The County Executive Office agrees with this Finding.

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 Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board of Supervisors agrees with this Finding. Response (Chief Executive Office): The County Executive Office agrees with this Finding.

June 7,2005 was the first BOS meeting attended by the new CEO. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board of Supervisors agrees with this Finding. Response (Chief Executive Office): The County Executive Office agrees with this Finding. 10.The CEO contract set forth clear conditions and resulting consequences in the event of termination. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board of Supervisors agrees with this Finding. Response (Chief Executive Office): The County Executive Office agrees with this Finding. II . The BOS could have terminated the CEO, by majority vote anytime prior to February 8, 2006, with minimal monetary penalty to the county. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board of Supervisors neither agrees nor disagrees with this Finding as it is speculative. Response (Chief Executive Office): The County Executive Office neither agrees nor disagrees with this Finding as it is speculative. 12.The BOS could have declared a "breach of contract" by written notice prior to May 8, ONE CEO FOR THE PRICE OF TWO A Report on the CEO Termination Process June 7,2007

Most Supervisors indicated they had no knowledge of the three month termination clause in the CEO contract. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board of Supervisors neither agrees nor disagrees with this Finding as the Board does not have direct knowledge of the testimony. Response (Chief Executive Office): The County Executive Office neither agrees nor disagrees with this Finding as the CEO does not have direct knowledge of the testimony. Response (Human Resources): Human Resources neither agrees nor disagrees with this Finding as HR does not have direct knowledge of the testimony. 17,According to California Government Code g54950 "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." Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board of Supervisors agrees with this Finding, in that the Government Code includes this section. Response (Chief Executive Office): The County Executive Office agrees with this Finding. 18.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. ONE CEO FOR THE PRICE OF TWO A Report on the CEO Termination Process June 7.2007 Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board of Supervisors neither agrees nor disagrees with this Finding as the Board does not have direct knowledge of the testimony. Response (Chief Executive Office): The County Executive Office neither agrees nor disagrees with this Finding as the CEO does not have direct knowledge of the testimony.

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. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board of Supervisors agrees with this Finding in that the contract with the CEO renewed on an automatic basis and the CEO was paid $167,000 upon termination in June 2006. Response (Chief Executive Office): The County Executive Office agrees with this Finding in that the contract with the CEO renewed on an automatic basis and the CEO was paid $167,000 upon termination in June 2006. Response (Human Resources): Human Resources agrees with this Finding in that the contract with the CEO renewed on an automatic basis and the CEO was paid $167,000 upon termination in June 2006. 20.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 3% 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 312. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board of Supervisors neither agrees nor disagrees with this Finding as the Board does not have direct knowledge of the testimony. Response (Chief Executive Office): The County Executive Office neither agrees nor disagrees with this Finding as the CEO does not have direct knowledge of the testimony.

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. ONE CEO FOR THE PRICE OF TWO A Report on the CEO Termination Process June 7.2007 Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board of Supervisors agrees with this Finding in that any Board member has the ability to place an item on the agenda at any time regarding CEO performance. Response (Chief Executive Office): The County Executive Office agrees with this Finding in that any Board member has the ability to place an item on the agenda at any time regarding CEO performance. 22.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. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board of Supervisors neither agrees nor disagrees with this Finding as it is speculative. Response (Chief Executive Office): The County Executive Office neither agrees nor disagrees with this Finding as it is speculative. Response (Human Resources): Human Resources neither agrees nor disagrees with this Finding as it is speculative. 23.The BOS did not approve the CEO's proposed County Organizational Chart until 2% months after submittal by the CEO on June 21,2005. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board of Supervisors agrees with this Finding. Response (Chief Executive Office): The County Executive Office agrees with this Finding.

Individual Supervisor's directives, reflecting their personal desires, are often contradictory and are not directives of the Board. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board of Supervisors neither agrees nor disagrees with this Finding as the Board does not have direct knowledge of the testimony. Board directives are supported by a majority of the members. Response (Chief Executive Office): The County Executive Office neither agrees nor disagrees with this Finding as the CEO does not have direct knowledge of the testimony. ONE CEO FOR THE PRICE OF TWO A Report on the CEO Termination Process June 7,2007 25.On October 18, 2005 the BOS voted unanimously to formalize the CEO appointing authority of various department heads and their duties. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board of Supervisors agrees with this Finding. Response (Chief Executive Office): The County Executive Office agrees with this Finding.

Pursuant to the CEO ordinance, the CEO attempted to organize the executive level of County government. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board of Supervisors agrees with this Finding. Response (Chief Executive Office): The County Executive Office agrees with this Finding. 27.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. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board of Supervisors disagrees with this Finding. The CEO Ordinance provides for an executive role for the CEO in relation to all department heads, but does not remove direct links between the Board and Board-appointed department heads, nor indirect links with the remaining department heads. Response (Chief Executive Office): The County Executive Office disagrees with this Finding. The CEO Ordinance provides for an executive role for the CEO in relation to all department heads, but does not remove direct links between the Board and Board-appointed department heads, nor indirect links with the remaining department heads.

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. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board of Supervisors agrees with the first two sentences of this Finding. The Board disagrees with the third sentence of this Finding as BOS minutes are evidence of Board policy-setting. --- ~ ~~ ONE CEO FOR THE PRICE OF TWO A Report on the CEO Termination Process June 7,2007 Response (Chief Executive Office): The County Executive Office agrees with the first two sentences of this Finding. The CEO neither agrees nor disagrees with the third sentence as it is a judgment rather than a statement of fact. 29.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. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board of Supervisors neither agrees nor disagrees with this Finding, as the Board has no direct knowledge of the testimony that led the Grand Jury to this conclusion. Response (Chief Executive Office): The County Executive Office neither agrees nor disagrees with this Finding, as the CEO has no direct knowledge of the testimony. 30.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. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board of Supervisor neither agrees nor disagrees with this Finding, as the Board has no direct knowledge of the testimony. Response (Chief Executive Office): The County Executive Office neither agrees nor disagrees with this Finding, as the CEO has no direct knowledge of the testimony.

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. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board of Supervisor neither agrees nor disagrees with this Finding, as the Board has no direct knowledge of the testimony. The termination was carried out in accordance with the law. Response (Chief Executive Office): The County Executive Office neither agrees nor disagrees with this Finding, as the CEO has no direct knowledge of the testimony.