HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 08161994 - IO.3 ` t
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS I .O.-3A
Contra
FROM: INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE ( �►` : Costa
County
DATE: August 16, 1994
SUBJECT: PROPOSED RESPONSES TO THE REPORT OF THE 1993-1994 GRAND JURY:
NUMBER 9409
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1 . Adopt this report of our Committee as the Board of
Supervisors ' response to the Report of the 1993-1994 Grand
Jury #9409, "Selection and Appointment of Contra Costa
County' s Boards and Commissions . "
2 . Remove this item as a referral to our Committee.
BACKGROUND:
On June 1, 1994 the 1993-94 Grand Jury filed the above report,
which was reviewed by the Board of Supervisors onaJune 21, 1994 and
was subsequently referred to the Internal Operations Committee. On
August 8, 1994 our Committee met to discuss the recommendations and
review proposed responses . At the conclusion of those discussions,
we prepared this report utilizing a format suggested by a former
Grand Jury, which clearly specifies :
A. Whether the recommendation is accepted or adopted;
B. If' the recommendation is accepted, a statement as to who will
be responsible for implementation of a definite target date;
C. A delineation of constraints if a recommendation is accepted
but cannot be implemented within the calendar year; and
D. The reason for not adopting a recommendation.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRAT CO E ATI OARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
JEFF SMITH MARK DeSAULNIER
SIGNATURE (S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON Q APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED _eK OTHER
1994
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS
JJO��N��THE DATE SHOWN.
ATTESTED CAAA:iul,Zf- 1(.O\ 1a`CjLy
Contact: C.L. Van Marter, 646-2602 PHIL BATCH R.CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
Gi:.Lg. Dept. County Administrator SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
cc: Presiding Judge of the Superior Co
Grand Jury Foreman
County Counsel BY DEPUTY
PROPOSED RESPONSE TO GRAND JURY REPORT # 9409
SELECTION AND APPOINTMENT PROCESS OF
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY'S BOARDS AND COMNUSSIONS
RESPONSE TO THE FINDINGS OF THE GRAND JURY:
Finding # 1:
There are over 100 boards and commissions existing within Contra Costa County whose
purpose, in most cases, is to research policy questions and issues for the Board of
Supervisors.
Response:
This statement, in regard to the number of advisory bodies, was
factually true when written. Since that time, the Board of Supervisors
has abolished approximately 28 advisory boards and commissions
and there are now substantially fewer than 100 such boards and
commissions listed in the "Maddy Book". We are not commenting on
whether the purpose of most of these advisory boards, committees
and commissions is to "research policy questions and issues for the
Board of Supervisors", since many of these bodies have a specific
charge laid out in State or Federal law.
Finding # 2:
Government Code, Chapter 11, beginning with Section 54970 (Maddy Act of 1975),
directs the County to publish, on or before December 31st of each year, the terms of
appointed members on boards and commissions that expire in the coming calendar year.
Response:
This is a reasonably accurate statement of the law. Government Code
§ 54972 specifically requires that the Local Appointments List
"...contain the following information:
"(a) A list of all appointive terms which will expire during the next
calendar year, with the name of the incumbent appointee, the date of
appointment, the date the term expires, and the necessary
qualifications for the position.
"(b) A list of all boards, commissions, and committees whose
members serve at the pleasure of the legislative body, and the
necessary qualifications for each position."
Finding # 3:
For Contra Costa County, a current membership list for boards and commissions is the
responsibility of the County Administrator.
Response:
This statement is accurate, with the understanding that this
responsibility rests on the County Administrator in his capacity as the
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, not in his capacity as the County
Administrator.
Finding # 4:
This membership list is frequently incomplete and out of date.
Response:
We would differ with this finding. The list is only required to be
published once a year. The State law does not require that the Local
Appointments List be published or otherwise updated during the year.
As long as the list is accurate when it is issued, we believe we have
complied with the law. The fact is that the Clerk of the Board
maintains the "Maddy Book", as the Local Appointments List, is more
familiarly known, in a very up-to-date condition and publishes update
pages to holders of the List throughout the year. The Grand Jury has
presented no evidence to substantiate this finding so we are unclear
as to how the Grand Jury reached this finding.
Finding # 5:
This membership list contains insufficient research data regarding general information to
understand ethnic, gender, and physically-challenged compositions on Contra Costa
boards and commissions.
Response:
This statement is factually true. It is also true that the State law does
not require that such data be obtained, maintained, published or
otherwise made available publicly. There is nothing we can find in the
"Maddy Act" which in any way implies that this was ever the intent of
the Legislature in enacting these provisions.
2
Finding # 6:
Maddy Act language does not prohibit Contra Costa County from implementing affirmative
action strategies to assure broader representation.
Response:
This statement is accurate.
Finding # 7:
Previously untapped human resources are readily-available to serve on and better
diversify Contra Costa County's boards and commissions.
Response:
This is no doubt true for some advisory boards and commissions and
less true for others. It is difficult to generalize, although it is
undoubtedly true that additional recruitment efforts would likely
provide additional applicants as the Board of Supervisors has found
from its recent cooperative relationship with Delta 2000 in East
County.
Finding # 8:
No uniform methods exist to acknowledge receipt of applications, or the status of
appointments, to Contra Costa County boards and commissions.
Response:
Given the variety of methods which are used to recruit applicants for
the various boards, committees and commissions which are advisory
to the Board of Supervisors and the various offices, departments and
individuals who are involved in this recruitment effort, this statement
is certainly true. Current practice is that if applications are received
by the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, the application is shared
with the County Administrator's Office, the responsible department
and, as appropriate, with one or more members of the Board of
Supervisors. The mechanism which is used to acknowledge those
applications is then left up to the responsible department.
3
Finding # 9:
Selection committees often do not represent Contra Costa County's ethnic, gender, and
physically-challenged mix and frequently do not consider for selection a cross-section of
the community served.
Response:
We have no evidence to support this finding and none is presented by
the Grand Jury. To the best of our knowledge, the various selection
mechanisms which are used do consider all applicants who have
chosen to apply for a seat on any given advisory boards, committees
or commission.
Finding # 10:
Contra Costa County's marketing approach and public information strategy for recruitment
and community outreach is not linked to a diverse applicant pool and remains untested
for effectiveness.
Response:
It is difficult to determine exactly what the Grand Jury has in mind
with this finding. We are unclear what "marketing approach" the
Grand Jury has in mind which remains untested for effectiveness.
Without further details, we do not believe we can respond further to
this finding.
Finding # 11:
Key selection criteria is not codified and often includes factors such as familiarity and
acquaintanceship with members of the appointing authority.
Response:
As is detailed in Administrative Bulletin 24.1, there are a variety of
selection mechanisms which are used for various advisory boards,
committees and commissions, in large part in response to State or
Federal law or in an effort to provide other organizations with a role
in nominating individuals for advisory boards, committees and
commissions. Of necessity in as complex a subject as this, selection
criteria cannot readily be codified, except for an individual seat on an
individual advisory boards, committee or commission. This data is
4
included in the "Maddy Book" entry for each advisory board.
At least for those seats which are screened by the Internal Operations
Committee, the Committee attempts to interview all applicants exactly
because they are not generally acquainted with the individual
applicants.
Finding # 12:
Multi-cultural organizations in the community are readily-available to assist in the County's
recruitment process.
Response:
We know that this is certainly true in the case of Delta 2000, which
approached the Board of Supervisors with a request to be recognized
as the Board's agent in recruiting minority and women candidates for
advisory boards, committees and commissions, particular in East
County. There are also individuals, perhaps on behalf of
organizations, who have been instrumental in recruiting substantial
interest in the County's advisory boards, committees and
commissions. The Board appreciates this interest and assistance and
welcomes the identification of any additional organizations which are
willing to assist in this regard.
Finding # 13:
County employees with self interests and personal agendas frequently serve as voting
members on boards and commissions.
Response:
We are unaware that this is or has been a substantial problem. In
most cases there are no prohibitions against County employees
serving on advisory boards, although generally the Board of
Supervisors has been reluctant to make such appointments,
particularly where the employee's employment might conflict with
service on a given advisory board.
Finding # 14:
Boards and commissions in Contra Costa County have no written policy regarding
limitation of terms of service.
5
Response:
This is an accurate statement, although the Internal Operations
Committee frequently asks for information on length of service and
attendance in determining whether to reappoint an individual to an
advisory board. There are some State and Federal limitations on
service which are complied with rigidly.
RESPONSE TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE GRAND JURY:
The 1993-94 Contra Costa County Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors:
Recommendation # 1:
Immediately eliminate a major barrier in the existing selection process by ceasing the
practice of using close relationships of applicants with the appointing authorities as a key
factor in selecting representatives for boards and commissions.
Response:
Agree with this recommendation, as modified.
We have no evidence that a close relationship of an applicant to an
appointing authority is a "key factor" in selecting representatives for
advisory boards and commissions. In fact, as has been noted above
in response to finding # 11, members of the appointing authority
frequently interview applicants primarily because they do not know
them.
It may, however, be appropriate for the Board of Supervisors to
remind all of its members of the need to open the recruitment process
to diversity and not to rely on the knowledge of an individual's work
as the primary factor influencing a recommended appointment.
Recommendation # 2:
Within sixty (60) days, declare by board resolution a reaffirmation of the spirit and intent
of the Maddy Act, and issue an order to all boards and commissions that they strictly
adhere to the principles of inclusion and broad community representation as intended by
the Maddy Act.
6
Response:
Agree with the recommendation and direct the County Administrator
to so advise all advisory boards, committees and commissions
through the department head who is responsible for providing support
services to the advisory board, committee or commission.
Recommendation # 3:
Within sixty(60) days, issue a policy limiting county employees who serve on boards and
commissions to non-voting staff roles.
Response:
Agree with the recommendation as modified.
We do not believe that all County employees should be
disenfranchised from serving on all advisory boards, committees and
commissions solely because of their employment as a result of
whatever isolated incidents may have been brought to the attention of
the Grand Jury.
The Board of Supervisors has asked in the past that it be advised
whenever an appointment is recommended which involves a County
employee so that the Board is fully aware of this fact and can take it
into account in determining whether to confirm the appointment. We
would recommend that the Board of Supervisors direct the County
Administrator to write to all department heads, reminding them of this
concern and asking that they flag any recommended appointment
when it involves a County employee so the Board of Supervisors is
aware of this fact.
Recommendation # 4:
Within sixty (60) days, develop and issue in writing communication methods that will, in
a courteous and timely manner, acknowledge the receipt of each application and the
status of each appointment to boards and commissions.
Response:
Agree with the recommendation as modified.
As has been noted above, applications are received in a number of
7
offices, by a number of individuals and by a number of departments.
Because of the diversity of the advisory boards, committees and
commissions with which the Board of Supervisors is dealing and the
variety of recruitment and selection processes which are in use, it
does not appear to be practical to centralize the application process,
except as it is now centralized to the extent that the Clerk of the Board
of Supervisors is generally the repository of applications for most
advisory boards, committees and commissions.
The Board of Supervisors should direct the County Administrator to
write to all department heads, reminding them of the need to
acknowledge all applications and be prepared to provide information
on the status of recruitment for any vacancy on an advisory board,
committee or commission for which the department head is
responsible for providing support.
Recommendation # 5:
Within sixty (60) days, develop constructive and legal methods to survey and report the
ethnic, gender, and physically-challenged representation on boards and commissions;and
to instruct the County Administrator to publicly present the reports to the Board of
Supervisors each calendar quarter.
Response:
Agree with the recommendation as modified.
It would be an enormous job to centrally maintain information on the
ethnic, gender and physically-challenged status of every appointment
to every advisory board and to report that information to the Board of
Supervisors on any regular basis. Furthermore, it is not clear what
would be accomplished by doing this. The information is accurate
only on the date it is gathered. There are changes to the composition
of advisory boards, committees and commissions on a weekly basis
which would affect the accuracy of the data. In addition, since outside
organizations are often making appointments to designated seats on
a given advisory board, committee or commission, it may not always
be possible to alter the composition of a given advisory body without
working closely with the organizations which are responsible for
making nominations to these advisory boards, committees and
commissions.
More to the point, the real issue of the ethnic and gender distribution
8
of any given advisory board becomes relevant at the time the Board
of Supervisors is considering appointments to vacancies on a given
advisory board or to reappointing incumbents to a given advisory
board, committee or commission. It would seem more useful to
provide this type of distribution to the Internal Operations Committee
at the time the Committee is considering a given set of appointments
to a given advisory board, committee or commission. Individual
Board members are, of course, always free to request similar
information from County staff on any advisory board, committee or
commission for which a Board member is considering an
appointment.
Recommendation # 6:
Within sixty (60) days, produce and effect written policy requiring each supervisorial
district to assure that.
a. Board and commission selection committee members reflect the ethnic, gender,
and physically-challenged make-up of each district, and
b. Each supervisor search out and then coordinate with multi-cultural and other
community organizations in his/her district for assistance in community-wide
outreach and recruitment tactics.
Response:
Agree with the recommendation as modified.
The Board of Supervisors can certainly call to the attention of its
members the need to insure that the recruiting and interviewing
process for advisory boards, committees and commissions involves
community organizations as appropriate and that selection
committees, to the extent that they are used, fairly represent the
residents of the district. It does not appear to be necessary or
appropriate for the Board of Supervisors to go further than this in
attempting to impose a particular process on its members in selecting
members for advisory boards, committees or commissions.
Recommendation # 7:
Immediately implement a policy clearly stating the limits of service on boards and
commissions to allow a larger number of individuals the opportunity to participate.
9
Response:
Agree with the recommendation as modified.
Imposing absolute term limits on members of advisory boards,
committees and commissions might accomplish what the Grand Jury
is seeking. However, it also precludes dedicated individuals who have
valuable talents to provide the opportunity to continue to provide that
service to the County. The Board of Supervisors is always able to
refuse to reappoint an individual because of the length of the
individual's service if the Board wishes to do so. What might be most
helpful to the Board of Supervisors in this regard would be to require
that the length of time an individual has served on an advisory board,
committee or commissions be included in the information the Board
considers when making an appointment. In this way, the Board is
able to consider this information and act on it as appropriate without
placing an absolute procedural barrier on service by individuals.
10
A REPORT BY
THE 1993-94 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GRAND JURY
1020 Ward Street
Martinez, CA 94553
(510) 646-2345
Report No. 9409
SELECTION AND APPOINTMENT PROCESS OF
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY'S BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
�'. a vast and largely untapped reservoir of talent exists
among the citizenry of the State of California . . ."
The Haddy Act of 1975
o�
s
�O OFQc,�PP OO\
Approved by the Grand Jury:
Date:
*rand
jhM. Mullin
ry Foreman
Accepted for Filing:
ichard E Arnason
udge of the Superior Court
SCOPE OF INVESTIGATION
The 1993-94 Contra Costa County Grand Jury, in this report, addresses
its concerns regarding the composition of Contra Costa County's
appointed boards and commissions. This investigation focuses on the
recruitment and selection process for filling vacancies on boards and
commissions. Better representation through more diverse and multi-
cultural membership promises .more responsive government.
FINDINGS
1. There are over 100 boards and commissions existing within Contra
Costa County whose purpose, in most cases, is to research policy
questions and issues for the Board of Supervisors. ,
2. Government Code, Chapter 11, beginning with Section 54970 (Maddy
Act of 1975) , directs the County to publish, on or before December
31st of each year, the terms of appointed members on boards and
commissions that expire in the coming calendar year.
3. For Contra Costa County, a current membership list for boards and
commissions is the responsibility of the County Administrator.
4. This membership list is frequently incomplete and out of date.
5. This membership list contains insufficient research data regarding
general information to understand ethnic, gender, and physically-
challenged compositions on Contra Costa boards and commissions.
6. Maddy Act language does not prohibit Contra Costa County from
implementing affirmative action strategies to assure broader
representation.
7. Previously untapped human resources are readily-available to serve
on and better diversify Contra Costa County's boards and
commissions.
8. No uniform methods exist to acknowledge receipt of applications,
or the status of appointments, to Contra Costa County boards and
commissions.
9. Selection committees often do not represent Contra Costa County's
ethnic, gender, and physically-challenged mix and frequently do
not consider for selection a cross-section of the community
served.
10. Contra Costa County's marketing approach and public information
strategy for recruitment and community outreach is not linked to
a diverse applicant pool and remains untested for effectiveness.
11. Key selection criteria is not codified and often includes factors
such as familiarity and acquaintanceship with members of the
appointing authority.
1
RECOMMENDATIONS
The 1993-94 Contra Costa County Grand Jury recommends that the Board of
Supervisors:
1. Immediately eliminate a major barrier in the existing selection
process by ceasing the practice of using close relationships of
applicants with the appointing authorities as a key factor in
selecting representatives for boards and commissions.
2. Within sixty (60) days, declare 'by board resolution a
reaffirmation of the spirit and intent of the Maddy Act, and issue
an order to all boards and commissions that they strictly adhere
to the principles of inclusion and broad community representation
as intended by the Maddy Act. '
3. Within sixty (60) days, issue a policy limiting county employees
who serve on boards and commissions to non-voting staff roles.
4. Within sixty (60) days, develop and issue in writing communication
methods that will, in a courteous and timely manner, acknowledge
the receipt of each application and the status of each appointment
to boards and commissions.
5. Within sixty (60) days, develop constructive and legal methods to
survey and report the ethnic, gender, and physically-challenged
representation on boards and commissions; and to instruct the
County Administrator to publicly present the reports to the Board
of Supervisors each calendar quarter.
6. Within sixty (60) days, produce and effect written policy
requiring each supervisorial district to assure that:
a. Board and commission selection committee members reflect the
ethnic, gender, and physically-challenged make-up of each
district; and
b. Each supervisor search out and then coordinate with multi-
cultural and other community organizations in his/her
district for assistance in community-wide outreach and
recruitment tactics.
7. Immediately implement a policy clearly stating the limits of
service on boards and commissions to allow a larger number of
individuals the opportunity to participate.
3