Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05081984 - 2.5 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on May 8, 1984 by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Powers, Fanden, Schroder, McPeak, Torlakson NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None SUBJECT: Report on Establishment of a Citizens Budget Task Force and a Governmental Review Committee On March 27, 1984 the Board requested the County Administrator to review a proposal relative to the formation of a Governmental Review Committee and to report to the Board on the cost of staffing such a committee as well as the structure, functions and respon- sibilities of such a committee if it were established. The Board also requested the County Administrator to provide similar information on the establishment of a Citizens Budget Task Force. C. E. Dixon, Interim County Administrator, in a May 2, 1984 letter to the Board (copy of which is attached hereto and by reference incorporated herein) reported on the activities of a former Governmental Review Committee created on June 16, 1978 and terminated on November 19, 1979, and the Budget Task Force appointed on May 24, 1983 which was in existence for approximately six weeks during the deliberations on the 1983-1984 County budget. He noted that the Governmental Review Committee involved greater direct costs and much more staff time than did the Budget Task Force. Mr. Dixon also pointed out that past experience has shown that the activities of the Governmental Review Committee parallel in many ways those of the Grand Jury and would appear to be somewhat duplicative in effort. Board members having expressed a desire to have said report reviewed further , IT IS ORDERED that receipt of the aforesaid report is ACKNOWLEDGED and that same is REFERRED to the Finance Committee (Supervisors Schroder and McPeak) for review. I hfreby cW"y that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutos of the Board of Supervisors an theeddato shown. ATTESTED: J.R. CLSSON, COUNTY CLERIC and ax officio Clark of the Board . t. 9y Dept" cc: Finance Committee County Administrator 00 128 Board of Supervisors County Administrator Contra Tom Powers 1st District County Administration Building COsta Nancy C.Fanden Martinez, California 94553 2nd District ^ �� (415) 372-4080 County Robert I.Schroder v/ J 3rd District M. G. Wingett Sunne WrightCounty Administrator McPeakistrator 4th District Tom Tortakson 5th District May 2, 1984 Board of .Supervisors Administration Building Martinez , CA 94553 Dear Board Members : On March 27, 1984 , your Board referred to our office for report the cost of staff time, structure and functions and responsibilities of a possible new Governmental Review Committee. Additionally, your Board asked for a report on the cost of staff time required for establishment, orientation and service of an additional Citizens Budget Task Force. Our prior experience with these two groups is shown below. Governmental Review Committee The Governmental Review Committee was created on June 16 , 1978 , after the passage of Proposition 13 , for the purpose of taking a broad look at county government, especially for improvements in efficiency and economy. The committee was comprised of 11 members and held more than 25 meetings over about a one-year period. A county contribution on a matching basis of up to $6 ,000 was .authorized for the assistance of a professional consulting firm to work with the committee. (The consultant was used primarily to assist the committee in organizing its work and preparing its report. ) Direct costs amounted to roughly $6,500, most of which went to the county matching contribution of $6 ,000. The committee developed detailed questionnaires which required response by county departments and in addition spent considerable time interviewing top and middle management in the various departments. It focused its efforts on services and particularly on organization j� • Y -l- and staffing requirements. Considerable county staff time was involved both in the County Administrator's Office and in the departments in responding to the questionnaires and interviews and otherwise providing information requested to Committee members. Secretarial services (roughly a one-third time assignment) were provided by the County Administrator' s Office. Much time additionally was expended by county staff over a number of months in following up and responding to the committee' s reports and recommendations. Final action on the Land Use Regulation Procedures Advisory Group' s recom- mendations (an outgrowth of the Governmental Review Committee' s work) did not occur until the spring of 1983. Overall several hundred hours of county staff time were committed to the project. Budget Task Force The Budget Task Force was appointed on May 24 , 1983 , and consisted of thirteen citizen members. The committee met with key county staff (County Administrator, County Auditor-Controller, Assistant County Administrator-Finance) and other budget staff members on three or four occasions for orientation and review of data relating to the county budget. Subsequently, it sat in on meetings of the Finance Committee and it heard the various departmental budget presentations. The committee served during a roughly 30-day period and during this time met on several occasions during the lunch hour. In these cases a sandwich lunch was provided by the county. This was the principal direct cost of this committee although some additional costs were incurred for duplication and printing of materials. Direct costs are estimated to be only about $200 , however. In terms of staff time , a review indicates that about five or six work days overall of staff time from the County Administrator' s Office were devoted to recruiting committee members, to orientation, to assisting them, and to helping the committee prepare its final report and recommendations. Conclusions It is readily apparent that the Governmental Review Committee involved both greater direct costs and much more staff time than did the Budget Task Force. However, in neither case were the direct costs of major significance. Each, however, required staff effort, but staff time in both the County Administrator' s Office and depart- ments for the work of the Governmental Review Committee far exceeded that of the Budget Task Force. In considering the establishment of such a Governmental Review Committee again, it should be pointed out that the activities of such a committee parallel, in many ways, those of the Grand Jury and are therefore somewhat duplicative of its effort. While such a 1 1� I 0 _3_ committee could take another outside look at county operations, and could review and comment on the outstanding organizational recommendations of the Grand Jury, the committee would largely be performing the same general function as the Grand Jury. From county staff perspective, expert assistance in implementation of organizational and operational recommendations has proved of value in the work of previous citizen committees and an alternative, therefore, might be the establishment of subject matter task forces with the assistance of experts from local business and industry in areas such as telephone services, storage/warehousing, purchasing and insurance. An example of such a report is that submitted to the Board on May 1, 1984 from the Private Sector Executive Committee relating to county data processing and communications activity and recommending formation of a separate Information Systems Department. The 1978 Governmental Review Committee was comprised of two business representatives, two labor representatives and two Taxpayer Association representatives, as well as an appointee of each member of the Board of Supervisors for a total of 11. Respectfully submitted, C. E. DIXON, Interim County Administrator CED:lmj