Grand jury: Mendocino County should curtail ad-hoc committee use

Ukiah Daily Journal Staff Updated: 05/12/2013 04:01:38 PM PDT Ukiah Daily Journal The Mendocino County civil grand jury urged the Board of Supervisors in a recent report to end its tendency over the past two years to assign important issues to ad-hoc committees while leaving dormant the more publicly accessible standing committees. The March 20 report, titled "Board of Supervisors - Standing Committees Public Access - Public Interest'" makes five findings and four recommendations, and claims that ad-hoc committees "circumvent" California's Brown Act, which is designed to ensure that the public's business is conducted in public. "Numerous labor contracts will be renegotiated this year. Mental health services may be contracted to non-County service providers. Changes in sentencing, probation, parole and County Jail populations continue to affect the courts and criminal justice system," the grand jury report says. "These and other pressing issues deserve and demand the opportunity for an informed public to access an open, formal forum for information and public expression."

The board in 2011 and 2012 appointed members to the county's four standing committees -- Health and Human Services, Criminal Justice, Public Resources and General Government/Personnel-Legislative -- but kept them dormant, saying they would only convene on an as-needed basis. County CEO Carmel Angelo noted that the committees hadn't met for two years when the board followed her recommendation in January to continue the practice.

"The exclusive use of ad-hoc committees is not consistent with the intent of the Brown Act," the grand jury report says among its five findings. The report notes that while standing committees are required under the Brown Act to notify the public of their meetings, post agendas and keep minutes, ad hocs are not subject to the act, meaning "opportunities for long-term planning, continuity and documentation are minimized or eliminated."

The grand jury report gives two examples of the problems with using ad hocs instead of standing committees, with the first being the board's October decision to form an ad-hoc committee to help plan Mental Health Court.

The two supervisors appointed to the ad-hoc updated the full, five-member Board of Supervisors frequently on the group's efforts during the portion of the meeting reserved for supervisors' reports, but "the update portion of the ... meeting is usually scheduled near the end of the open meeting, precluding easy accessibility for the public to know of the supervisors' participation, opinions or recommendations," according to the grand jury report.

The Mental Health Court ad-hoc committee was never added to the county's official list of ad hocs, according to the report.

"Therefore, the average citizen is almost completely unaware of the supervisors' interest and participation in Mental Health Court planning, further limiting the ability to provide public comment," the grand jury report says.

Follow-up on ad-hoc committee matters is also a concern, the grand jury reported, giving as an example the two supervisors appointed to an ad hoc to study efficiency in the Mendocino County Sheriff's Office.

"The study was completed, the report received and the (ad hoc) dissolved," the report says. "Neither the public nor the (Board of Supervisors) currently has a venue to address the status of the responses to the recommendations and the sheriff's efforts to improve departmental efficiency."

The grand jury also found that the ad hocs weren't reporting at every scheduled Board of Supervisors meeting under the county's rules of procedure, and that Mendocino County's exclusive use of ad hocs doesn't match the practices of other counties.

"Ad-hoc committees should be investigative, issue-specific and of short-term duration," according to the report.

The grand jury recommends that the board reactivate its four standing committees, assign appropriate issues to them and use them "as the primary vehicle for policy guidance and direction to the (board);" that the committees report at each regular board meeting; that the committees finish their business within the calendar year as a rule and that the county Executive Office update its list of ad-hoc committees on the county's website, www.co.mendocino.ca.us.

The Board of Supervisors was required to respond within 90 days, and Angelo had 60 days to respond.

http://www.advocate-news.com/ci_23227798/grand-jury-mendocino-county-should-curtail-ad-hoc