Grand Jury: How is Plumas County doing without a CAO?

Blog note: the Plumas County media outlet published this grand jury report in full.

This midterm report was submitted by the 2014-15 Plumas County Civil Grand Jury. The Grand Jury plans to publish a series of midterm reports in the upcoming weeks.

SUMMARY

There are 58 counties in California. At the time of this report, three counties do not have county administrative officers: Glenn, Plumas and Sierra. The Plumas County Board of Supervisors has been operating without a CAO since April 2012.

In November 2012, the BOS decided to leave the position of CAO vacant and assumed the duties of the CAO position to offer relief for the financial constraints imposed on the county due to the overall economic climate, declining population and unfunded mandates while continuing to provide for and address the needs of Plumas County’s residents.

The county has been operating without a CAO for the past two fiscal year budgets. The Grand Jury’s question is “How is Plumas County doing without a CAO?”

In our initial interviews, the Grand Jury was concerned with the circumstances that led the BOS to make the choice to assume the role of CAO rather than hiring another CAO. We found that although the last CAO left by mutual agreement among the BOS, conflicts over management issues left a lingering resistance by some employees to work with another CAO. We found that even though many employees were hesitant to work with another CAO, they felt the county would be better served with a CAO.

The BOS has chosen to proceed without a CAO, which is arguably its most valuable organizational tool. The Grand Jury finds the BOS is focusing on the day-to-day operation(s) of the county rather than taking a more proactive approach and making a long-range strategic plan(s).

The Grand Jury recommends that the BOS consider hiring a CAO to manage the organization, which would allow supervisors to address long-range planning analysis of the county’s future needs for service with the impacts of legislation, budget constrictions and our declining population. This would be a more proactive.

BACKGROUND


The California Constitution recognizes two types of counties: general law and charter. There are 44 general law counties and 14 charter counties. Plumas County is a general law county and therefore would have an administrative CAO.

An administrative CAO is essentially the agent of the BOS, unlike an executive CAO, which has more authority. Only charter counties can establish the position of county manager or executive CAO.

Plumas County’s CAO job description, as it appears in Plumas County’s human resources records, states that the CAO position is to ensure the delivery of quality county services in a cost-effective manner in accordance with the vision and policies outlined by the Board of Supervisors and its constituents.

Responsibilities include administering policies of the BOS; supervision of all appointed department heads; monitoring legislative affairs; preparing the county’s annual budget; reviewing all agenda items for the Board of Supervisors; serving as budget officer; and undertaking studies and investigations for the BOS.

This job description is consistent with the California State Association of Counties.

By statute, the BOS is authorized to provide services to its citizens and, at their discretion, establish departments, boards, commissions and districts to meet community needs.

Plumas County has previously employed several CAOs. Since the Nov. 6, 2012, BOS decision to leave the CAO position vacant and to fill the role of the CAO itself, the BOS has divided up the CAO duties, with supervisors taking on many duties themselves and assigning other duties to selected employees. The BOS determined that this action was one of the necessary steps toward saving money in the General Fund. The BOS has not monitored the cost savings, nor have they assigned any staff to record any cost savings. The current Plumas County adopted budget for 2014-15 identifies the CAO position as “vacant” and “unfunded.”

METHOD OF APPROACH


The Grand Jury interviewed five elected officials, six department heads and other county employee(s). The Grand Jury reviewed a number of documents including county ordinance(s) and resolution(s), Board of Supervisors’ minutes and agendas, the auditor’s report, personnel rules, memorandums of understanding with Operating Engineers Local No. 3 Mid-Management & Supervisors Unit, Crafts & Trade Unit, Probation Mid-Management Unit, Probation Unit, the Confidential Employees Association, the Sheriff’s Unit and the Sheriff’s Management Unit, the credit card policy, state reports and articles on county structures and power, demographic and population information and County of Colusa Board of Supervisors minutes and agendas, and scrutinized other counties that continue to operate without a CAO.

DISCUSSION

The Grand Jury was initially concerned with why the BOS would make a dramatic change from having a traditional CAO to taking on the job itself, regardless of whether issues with the former CAO were personality conflicts with department heads and employees, a lack of supervision of the CAO by the BOS, or an opportunity to save money.

As a result of our interviews, study and analysis, the Grand Jury found it could have been any or all of the above and redirected its focus to the matter at hand: “How are we doing without a CAO?”

The Grand Jury wanted to verify the actual amount saved by leaving the CAO’s office vacant. This is very difficult to do as there is no accounting procedure in place tracking the savings accrued or where the other operational costs were absorbed. At the request of the Grand Jury, the county’s Human Resources Department, using a budget module that developed the salary and benefit budget for all county departments, including the 2014-15 CalPERS rates and the 2014 health insurance benefits, projected the cost associated with the Office of the CAO, which includes a CAO and an executive assistant position for the current fiscal year.

The cost would total approximately $247,969.34. In the adopted 2014-15 fiscal year budget, the BOS contracted a budget consultant to assist in developing the current adopted budget and has given an annual stipend to an employee for taking on the responsibility of certain administrative functions that were previously done by the CAO and/or his or her executive assistant. These two expenditures total $42,000.

Using these figures, the Grand Jury has identified a cost savings in the amount of approximately $205,969.34. Plumas County has no accounting procedure in place that would allow the Grand Jury to track ongoing expenses as they relate to the duties of a CAO. The Grand Jury has found many additional duties and workloads taken on by not only the BOS but by department heads and other employees. Most of these additional duties have been taken on without pay.

Other unidentifiable costs associated with those duties were dispersed and absorbed by the individual departmental budgets. This is a limited, one-sided picture of the savings accrued with no verifiable forensic analysis to recapture expenditure figures ranging from 2012 to present.

Although the BOS can demonstrate some salary/benefit savings by leaving the CAO position vacant, the Grand Jury finds that the choice of leaving the CAO position vacant comes with a cost to the whole organization that is more than just monetary.

The employees who were interviewed had previous experience working for or with other CAOs as well as having worked with the former CAO of Plumas County. These employees pointed out that some of the past problems went away when the BOS assumed the role of the CAO. Some of these issues are public knowledge and have been in the local newspaper and some were handled in executive session of the BOS. Many employees stated their opinion that although the county is managing without a CAO, it would be better if the county had a CAO. Many employees stated the job of a CAO is to manage the multiple departments, seek to fulfill the goals set by the BOS, serve as a bridge between appointed department heads and the elected BOS, coordinate programs within departments, resolve departmental conflicts and be an on-site employee.

Currently, these supervisorial duties are lacking in organization, according to some employees. The Grand Jury finds that these are some of the nonmonetary costs to the county by leaving the CAO position vacant.

The Grand Jury has identified the benefits of working without a CAO. Among these benefits are:

—The BOS has indeed saved money.

—The BOS has established a closer working relationship with department heads.

—The BOS has become more familiar with the internal mechanics of each department.

—The BOS has become more familiar with various types of funding sources other than the General Fund.

The Grand Jury has also become aware of the needs of department heads and staff in which the BOS falls short:

—Many felt that a CAO streamlined the budget process and offered better communications.

—It was pointed out that a CAO position can provide relief for the BOS.

—With a CAO, appointed department heads report to an appointed CAO who then answers to an elected BOS.

—The CAO is the missing link between department heads and BOS. It is difficult for a department head to have five bosses, and with a CAO there is only one who then answers to the BOS.

—Some department heads are not working well together and do not have a clear understanding of their roles.

—It is important for department heads to make contact with the BOS regarding direction and not violating the Brown Act; a CAO can supervise all department heads without violating the Brown Act.

—A CAO serves as a buffer or a bridge between appointed department heads and the elected BOS department heads.

—It is more convenient for department heads to work with an on-site CAO. The BOS is not in Quincy every day.

—Without a CAO, when issues cannot be resolved between departments, they are taken to the BOS in a public hearing, and having to take issues to the entire BOS in a public meeting is not the best conflict resolution method.

—Without a CAO, there is a lack of coordination between departments.

—The current department head meetings are not well attended and do not offer the coordination needed between departments. The meetings do not offer any conflict resolution without the BOS.

The Grand Jury found the workload fluctuates with incremental staffing changes and election changes, as well as budget impacts. This affects the county’s administrative effectiveness as a whole. The BOS will have to evaluate those impacts and make adjustments. The BOS is currently acting in a crisis-management mode due to budget constraints, unfunded mandates and declining population.

While in the midst of an economic crisis, the BOS has maintained the status quo and that is to be applauded, but it cannot be described as progress.

The Grand Jury believes the BOS needs to address these issues, with or without a CAO, and that can be done by setting clear countywide goals.

The BOS needs to quantify or track the results of the goals. This would afford the department heads the ability to then set their goals accordingly.

In our study, we found how another county working without a CAO has handled the situation. The Colusa County BOS authorized a study to review its options and approach for the position of CAO.

In January 2014, the Colusa County BOS chose to amend the CAO job description, consolidating the clerk of the board with the county administrative officer. With this change to an administrative-style CAO with limited executive decision-making abilities, a CAO has been hired. This is an option the BOS may want to consider when reassessing the CAO’s role in this county.

The Grand Jury found that the Board of Supervisors and staff are to be commended for addressing this fiscal struggle by taking on additional responsibilities, most without additional remuneration or pay. The Board of Supervisors has met its intended goal of some financial savings by not replacing the CAO but there may be hidden costs in operating without a CAO that have yet to be adequately accounted for in any cost analysis report.

FINDINGS


F1) The Grand Jury finds a CAO would free up the BOS to focus on strategic planning instead of reacting to everyday operational matters.

F2) The Grand Jury has identified an estimated cost savings in operating without a CAO in the amount of approximately $205,969.34, but there is no accounting procedure in place to allow an accurate cost/expenditure analysis as some unidentifiable costs have been dispersed and absorbed by the individual departments taking on the additional workload.

F3) The Grand Jury finds it is not in the best interest of the employees to continue operating without a CAO because employees must take on extra duties, most without financial compensation.

F4) Given that it is important for department heads to make contact with the BOS regarding direction without violating the Brown Act, a CAO would be better positioned to supervise all department heads without violating the Brown Act.

F5) The Plumas County Civil Grand Jury finds it commendable that the Board of Supervisors and staff have addressed this fiscal struggle by taking on additional responsibilities, most without additional remuneration or pay.

RECOMMENDATIONS


R1) The Grand Jury recommends the BOS have a study conducted to review their options and approach for the position of CAO.

R2) The Grand Jury recommends the BOS reevaluate Plumas County’s CAO job description.

R3) The Grand Jury recommends the BOS consider filling the vacant CAO position for the following reasons:

—To manage the organization while allowing the BOS to become more proactive.

—To better serve the constituents of Plumas County by allowing the BOS to do what it was elected to do rather than the day-to-day administrative duties that could be done by a CAO.

—To be more cost effective.

—To avoid airing any unresolved departmental issues at public BOS meetings.

April 20, 2015

Plumas County News

Feather Publishing