📋
Extracted from Consolidated Report
This investigation was originally published as part of a larger consolidated report containing multiple investigations. View the consolidated PDF for the complete document.
Trinity County Grand Jury
• 1998-1999
Administrative Structure and Decision-Making: Board of Supervisors and All Departments
⚠️ 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 2 findings
F1
Page 6
It is apparent that the role of the CAO now and in the past has been dependent, to a great measure, on both the make-up and temperament of the Board of Supervi- sors and the make-up and temperament of the individual in the CAO role. With only two exceptions, those interviewed believed the role of CAO was essential to efficient and effective county decision-making. The position was seen as a fun- nel for the gathering of information to go to and from the Board of Supervisors. A clear majority felt the current CAO was effectively performing the duties of the CAO and gave the current CAO credit for team-building among elected and ap- pointed department heads and opening up the decision making process including access to the Board of Super- visors. There are regular meetings of the administrative staff to deal with issues in general and in setting the agenda for meetings of the Board of Supervisors. This, along with a more congenial Board of Supervisors, has generally made decision-making easier, more coopera- tive and effective. Most acknowledged that the role of the CAO changes depending on who is wearing the hat and that continu- ance of the current decision-making environment is de- pendent on a CAO willing to share decision-making and a Board of Supervisors wishing to work together and with department heads in a collegial manner.
F2
Page 6
The 1997-98 Grand Jury made recommendations re- lated to evaluations of elected and appointed depart- ment heads. It appears that evaluation of the CAO is an informal, on-going process based on the individual ob- servations and interactions of each supervisor with the CAO. While the CAO essentially serves at the pleasure of the board, and this informal evaluation may be com- fortable for the parties involved, there are drawbacks. County residents are generally not aware of the roles the CAO plays in government nor how well those roles are performed and thus do not have the necessary in- formation to assess the value of the CAO position. The CAO’s tenure requires pleasing five individual mem- bers rather than meeting the needs of the Board of Su- pervisors as a unit.
Recommendations 2
-
R1Page 6Other than expressing appreciation for what most de- scribed as a positive and clear change in the decision- making process, we have no recommendations other than to continue on the same course.
-
R2Page 7On an annual basis the CAO should be outlining goals and objectives for the CAO office for the upcoming year. This should be done at a regular, public meeting of the board. In this way the supervisors, as well as citi- zens, will have a more concrete method of assessing what the CAO should be doing and how well the CAO is performing. CONCLUSION: The Grand Jury was pleasantly surprised at how well the county operates at the administrative level. Both elected and appointed officials and administrators showed a clear understanding of their roles in the administrative structure and decision-making process and presented a fairly positive outlook for continued good will and co- operation in the future. 30-DAY RESPONSE REQUESTED FROM: Board of Supervisors and CAO Response of the County Administrative Officer Date: March 23, 1999 To: Honorable John K. Letton, Superior Court Judge From: Jeannie Nix-Temple, County Administrative Officer RE: Response to 1998-99 Trinity County Grand Jury Finance and Administration Committee Final Report Admin- istrative Structure and Decision Making I appreciate the Grand Jury’s investigation and recom- mendations relating to the County’s administration and decision-making process. I am pleased that the Grand Jury received such positive responses from the Board of Supervisors and the department heads who were in- terviewed.