Mendocino County released its response to the 2019 Grand Jury Report, which criticized the overall leadership and public communication of the Board of Supervisors.
The findings detailed criticized long term county-wide strategic planning on county issues, no written succession plan for the CEO of Mendocino County, a lack of information in the CEO report, problems with the Mendocino County website, tracking directives they gave to the CEO, and a lack of public and board of supervisors communication. Based on the findings, the grand jury issued a variety of suggestions to improve the board.
County CEO Carmel Angelo authored the response. She agreed there is no complaint or issue form on the Mendocino County website, but partially or entirely disagreed with the rest of the findings.
Regarding the lack of a written succession plan for the CEO of Mendocino County, the response said while there might not be a written plan, two or three department heads, key staff, and the Assistant CEO can take over the position.
One finding said the Supervisors don’t adequately track directives given to the CEO, which the response partially disagreed with, citing that the CEO is responsible for day-to-day responsibilities and that the current structure gives the board plenty of ways to track directives.
The response disagreed that the CEO report does not include substantial updates, and also cited the board agenda and budget reports as other avenues that communicate information to the public.
The county response partially disagreed that the Consent Agenda approved at the beginning of every board meeting often includes controversial items, saying it only happens “occasionally” and that most controversial items are pulled for board discussion.
In response to the recommendations from the Grand Jury, the county said they had instituted the majority of the recommendations. The county said they are currently working on adding an embedded complaint/issue form on the county website that would require sender contact information directly to a supervisor. The county is considering changing the way the board directive status is presented to the public to include more detailed information about goals, proposed action, funding status, and primary agency. The county said they would not include the name of speakers and the issue raised during public expression in the BOS minutes because it is not legally required.
The full response to the Grand Jury Report is available on the Board of Supervisors page on their July 23 meeting agenda.
July 29, 2019
The Ukiah Daily Journal
By Curtis Driscoll
No comments:
Post a Comment