Sierra County 2011-2012 - California Grand Jury Reports

F1: Sierra County presently has a fragmented approach to hiring and evaluating employees and dealing with personnel issues and complaints, and has no succession planning process for replacing retiring managers. This fragmented approach has proved to be ineffective and costly to the county.

Related Recommendations (3)

R2: We recommend that the Board of Supervisors update SCC Chapter 2.14.010 through 2.14.070 to create a careful, well-thought-out job description for the position of CAO for Sierra County, referring to the relevant Alpine County Code chapter if needed. We emphasize that this job description should be based on the actual needs of the county and on ICMA guidelines. It should NOT be written to fit the qualifications of a person already employed by the county. (ICMA's Potential Interview Questions, included in the appendix, may be useful in writing this description.)

R4: We recommend that, when funding allows, the Board of Supervisors advertise for this position at least state-wide (Bay Area, LA, & San Diego as well as Sacramento), and that they hire out of county. (See ICMA Recruitment Guidelines for Selecting a Local Government Administrator at this web site: http://icma.org/en/icma/career_network/career_resources/recruitment_guidelines_handbook

R5: We recommend adding the requirement that any person hired as CAO must move to and reside in Sierra County. CAO REPORT:

F2: Sierra County has spent $3,404,518 over the past 13 years on adjudicating and settling employee law suits against the County. Included in this amount, are annual liability insurance premiums that have escalated in the last 4-5 years. This figure also includes attorney's fees as well as wages and benefits paid to employees on administrative leave from 2004-2010 in the amount of $262,816.00. * (see footnote below)

F3: There is no system in place for evaluating elected and non-elected department heads. Though elected department heads are—in theory—only responsible to the voters, there is no evaluation of their performance relative to the county budget.

F4: Presently, department heads gain insight into the operations of the combined departments through attending informal meetings. Not all department heads attend these informal meetings. The insights gained may be at variance with those of other departments and of the Board of Supervisors. *These figures do not include the recent $280,000 settlement of a claim against the county. CONCLUSIONS: re/HUMAN RESOURCES/PERSONNEL The Grand Jury concludes that putting one person, a CAO, in charge of the hiring process, and of tracking the changing codes/laws regarding personnel issues and then training county personnel regarding these issues may alleviate these kinds of expenses to Sierra County. Further, a CAO working under the Alpine County CAO duties listed below in B, C, D and E could discover and correct department failings before they get out of hand. (Alpine County, duties of CAO, (Ord. 677 § 5, 2007) CAO REPORT: B. Department Director Meetings. The county administrative officer shall meet on a regular basis with department directors for the purpose of communicating county policies and issues. C. Nonelected Department Director Performance Appraisals. The county administrative officer shall at least annually prepare draft performance appraisals of nonelected department directors for review and approval by the board of supervisors. D. Dismissal. The county administrative officer may recommend to the board of supervisors the dismissal or suspension of or other disciplinary action to be taken against any nonelected department director with appropriate documentation. E. Oversight of County Employees. The county administrative officer shall oversee department director procedures for the hiring, assignment, management, supervision and disciplining of all county employees and shall see that all county staff are appraised at least annually. The county administrative officer shall audit and assure that all performance appraisals are consistent with the respective job descriptions, as well as with all county policies and procedures. (Ord. 677 § 5, 2007) FINDINGS: re/VISION AND LONG TERM PLANNING

F5: Issues of concern to business owners in Sierra County include the lack of a dependable work force, closed businesses, vacant homes, lack of affordable housing in some areas of the county, diminished county revenue from taxation, and dearth of attractive employment opportunities. Economic development seems to these business owners to be an essential ingredient to the solution of these problems.

F6: Economically, Sierra County is in a process of transition from our former reliance on jobs related to logging, timber production and mining, to a new scenario in which property values are neither holding nor increasing, rural schools and roads funding is disappearing, employment opportunities are down, and tourist revenue is down. There is inadequate emphasis on this within the current governance structure. No one is responsible for planning, coordinating and facilitating Sierra County's efforts during this economic downturn to attract, retain and grow businesses and jobs.

F7: The Sierra County General Plan, adopted in 1996, needs review and update in order to address evolving community realities. CONCLUSIONS: re/VISION AND LONG TERM PLANNING Sierra County needs a CAO who will take on the important and necessary work of planning, coordinating and facilitating the County's efforts to grow businesses and jobs during this period of economic transition. For instance, Glenn County's CAO serves as the CAO REPORT: county's Economic Development Coordinator, dealing with business development, job creation, finding appropriate revenue sources for implementation and program administration, and grant administration. Similarly, in Butte, Nevada and Placer Counties, economic development falls within the purview of the CAO. FINDINGS: re/INTERVIEWS WITH SIERRA COUNTY SUPERVISORS AND DEPARTMENT DIRECTORS

F8: The department directors, each interviewed singly, held these opinions in common: there is a significant need for a Human Resources Department and a strong personnel director; a common vision among supervisors is missing; no long-range plans for the county have been implemented; no vision exists for even a one, five, or ten year plan; and the county needs a greater focus on economic development. Other comments from directors were that the Board of Supervisors needs someone to help write policy, research grants, and represent the County to state and federal agencies, and that a CAO could do this and could provide a greater focus on Human Resources and personnel issues. A CAO could bridge the opinions of five supervisors and could navigate the independent turfs of elected department heads. A CAO could reduce the need for supervisors to travel out of the county to attend meetings.

F9: The five supervisors, also interviewed singly, held varying opinions regarding positive aspects of reinstating a CAO for Sierra County. Among these: A CAO could smooth out disparities among supervisors; could help separate fact from opinion for supervisors in dealing with different departments or diverging opinions. Could be a unifying presence. A CAO could establish regular performance evaluations of department heads. 3) A CAO could establish a long-term planning process; could help in consolidating the vision of 5 independent minds and creating consensus; could create consistency between terms of supervisors and other elected officials.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors research the job descriptions adopted by other rural California counties for their County Administrative Officers and those available at the International City/County Management Association website in order to develop an administrator profile. (See ICMA's Development of an Administrator Profile included in the appendix.)

F10: Regarding negative aspects of a CAO for Sierra County, the supervisors held these opinions: 1) An extra layer of government is not needed in Sierra County; would not want to see too much authority given to one person in such a small county. A CAO might take on tasks that are supervisors' responsibilities. Examples: budget, personnel, water issues. 3) A CAO could be a bottleneck between elected officials, department heads, and the public. Would not want CAO to obstruct the wishes of the Board. 4) Having a CAO might make the supervisors lazy. 5) In a small county like ours, any person should be able to approach the Board directly with whatever concerns they may have. CAO REPORT: CONCLUSION: re/INTERVIEWS Reviewing these interviews regarding negative aspects to employing a CAO for Sierra County, the Grand Jury concluded that many of the supervisors' concerns stem from their unfamiliarity with the way a carefully constructed description of CAO duties and responsibilities entered into our county code would alleviate those concerns. In the Alpine County Code model cited earlier, items 2.10.060 - Powers and Duties-Limitations; 2.10.090 - Performance Review; and 2.10.090 - Removal would resolve concerns about a CAO usurping authority or obstructing the wishes of the Board. The Grand Jury further noted there is no statement in the Alpine County Code model (nor would there be one in a thoughtfully constructed CAO job description for Sierra County) preventing any person from directly approaching Board members with concerns. FINDINGS: re/FUNDING A CAO FOR SIERRA COUNTY

F11: The Grand Jury recognizes that during this recession, funding a new administrative position may be difficult. However, if a CAO knowledgeable about codes/laws regarding personnel were placed in charge of overseeing departmental procedures regarding hiring, assignment, supervision, evaluation and disciplining of county employees, there could be a significant savings for Sierra County. Specifically, the cost of liability insurance and payouts could be reduced, and, very importantly, the County Counsel budget could be reduced because the need for day-to-day services would be reduced.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: We recommend that the Board of Supervisors prepare a budget plan and staff plan focused on the installation of a County Administrative Officer.

F12: The current County Counsel budget totals $437,000. Of this total, $267,000 is budgeted for the County Counsel's legal services, office costs, travel and medical insurance, and $170,000 is budgeted for outside counsel fees. If the County Counsel budget of $437,000 can be reduced by $200,000 when the current contract ends in two years, largely through eliminating the use of outside counsel and through reducing the need for day-to-day services, the remaining $237,000 would provide ample funding for a CAO. CONCLUSIONS: re/FUNDING A CAO FOR SIERRA COUNTY The Grand Jury concludes that it is reasonable to anticipate funding sufficient for hiring a CAO for Sierra County within two years. We further conclude that if the Board of Supervisors can find funding for the CAO position sooner than two years, the savings to the county may be significant. The sooner the Board decides to implement the hiring of a qualified CAO, the sooner the county will reduce the flow of monies to an outside counsel. The CAO position will pay CAO REPORT: for itself almost immediately. FINAL CONCLUDING STATEMENT The Grand Jury concludes that Sierra County's elected local government officials can better fulfill their policy-making roles by delegating the day to day management of the county to an appointed, professionally-trained administrator-that is, a County Administrative Officer—appointed by and serving at the pleasure of the Board of Supervisors. The CAO will serve the legislative function of the Board by providing research, information, and recommendations. The CAO will serve all of the executive functions of the Board by administering and supervising all County departments in matters that are the responsibility of the Board. The responsibilities of the County Administrative Officer will include: Acting as an agent and representative of the Board Enforcing Board policy Recommending the annual budget Exercising continuous budgetary control Recommending efficient operating procedures Recommending effective administrative reorganizations Providing direction and supervision of personnel Providing risk management We further conclude that a CAO will bring these benefits to Sierra County: A comprehensive organizational structure Relief for department heads and elected officials from duties not listed within their job descriptions, thus permitting them to focus on the tasks at hand A source of informed recommendations, analyses, and forecasts to the Board of Supervisors for their bi-monthly consideration and action Verifiable County goals and direction Representation to industry, agencies and citizens outside the county Growth management Liaison between administration and employed and elected officials, departments, and the community Provision of a comprehensive public access point, reducing requests made to individual county employees and officials Establishment of a succession process for replacing retiring county managers.