Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Government Operations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board asks staff to draft an appointed-department reporting model to shift some departments under the CAO
Summary
After a staff study and discussion, the Board of Supervisors directed staff to return with a proposed model to move selected appointed departmental reporting to the County Administrative Officer; board asked that Planning, Public Works and DHHS be considered as exceptions.
The Board of Supervisors directed county staff to develop a proposed appointed-department reporting model that would move selected appointed department heads to report to the County Administrative Officer (CAO), while leaving complex or politically sensitive departments (Planning & Building, Public Works, and Health & Human Services) under direct board oversight for now.
Background and staff study
Human Resources director Zach O'Hann presented a supplemental study comparing county reporting and CAO/CEO models used elsewhere in California, showing wide variation across counties. The study found no single industry-standard approach, and it noted that Humboldt County is unusual in that most appointed department heads currently report directly to the Board of Supervisors. The CAO, county counsel and HR all participated in the study and a follow-up discussion.
Board direction
After discussion of the pros and cons and several supervisors' preference for a hybrid approach, the board voted 4-0 (Supervisor Bone absent) to direct staff to bring back a proposed appointed department-head reporting model based on the discussion.
What the study found and the rationale for change
- No single model across California: O'Hann summarized that counties vary widelysome place most department heads under a CAO/CEO while others keep more direct board reporting.
- Possible benefits of a CAO model: Board members and staff noted potential advantages including clearer day-to-day operations management, more consistent personnel and budgeting practices, and a single point of coordination for cross-departmental initiatives.
- Safeguards requested: Several supervisors stressed they want to retain ready access to department heads on constituent issues and oversight of high-profile departments (Planning & Building, Public Works, Health & Human Services and certain elected offices). The board asked staff to propose a model that preserves board access, clarifies delegated authority and codifies roles (for example by county code or job specification) rather than leaving the structure informal.
Next steps
Staff and the CAO were directed to work with County Counsel and Human Resources to draft an implementation plan and proposed changes to county code, job specifications or delegated-authority language, and to return to the board with a detailed plan that lays out which departments would move under the CAO in an initial phase and how delegated authority would be documented.
Ending: The board voted to explore a phased, codified approach to appointing departmental supervision through the CAO while preserving direct oversight and access for major service areas; staff will return with a proposed ordinance or personnel specifications for board consideration.
