Mendocino County Grand Jury • 2004-2005

County of Mendocino Post Office Box 629

Published: March 01, 2005 2 pages
View Original PDF

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.
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.
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.
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.
No recommendations for this finding
F5
The CAO’s office had seven funded positions in the 2004-5 County budget.
No recommendations for this finding
F6
There is no anticipated increase in staffing for that office under 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. 1
No recommendations for this finding

Comments 1

No Responses Found 1

Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.

Mendocino County County