Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the County Administration topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves one-year extension for county administrator; Williams votes no
Summary
After more than an hour of discussion about succession planning and performance review methods, the Solano County Board of Supervisors approved a one-year contract extension for County Administrator Bill by a 4-1 vote. Supervisor Williams cast the lone dissent.
The Solano County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday approved a one-year extension of the county administrator’s contract after supervisors debated whether the term should be shortened and whether the county should direct the administrator to develop a succession plan and a 360-degree employee evaluation process.
Supporters said the extension preserves continuity while the county recruits a new chief administrative officer; opponents said a shorter term and clearer policy direction would be preferable. The motion passed 4-1, with Supervisor Williams voting no.
County officials and supervisors spent much of the discussion asking that certain tasks be prioritized during the extended term. Supervisor Brown asked that the extended contract include work on a succession plan for the CAO’s office and development of a 360-degree employee-evaluation process; she also suggested a shorter, six-month contract would be appropriate if the county expected a new administrator by mid-summer. Supervisor James and others said the one-year term provides coverage in case recruitment takes longer than anticipated.
Bill, identified in the meeting as the county administrator, told the board he had told the board previously he was willing to stay until a successor was on board and that the contract language provided for that flexibility. He said the arrangement had been structured to keep coverage in place if recruitment extended beyond mid-summer.
Supervisor Williams said she opposed a full one-year term on principle and urged a shorter contract that would more quickly return the county to a permanent appointment. Other board members said policy questions about succession planning and evaluation methods are appropriate for a separate board direction to staff and not necessarily for amendments to the contract itself.
The formal vote was recorded as four in favor, one opposed. The board did not specify who moved and seconded the motion in the public record during the discussion; the clerk recorded the final tally and noted Supervisor Williams as the dissenting vote.
What’s next: The board approved the contract extension and signaled it expects staff to follow up on broader personnel-policy questions through existing processes. Supervisors also noted a recruitment process for a new CAO is underway and said they expect to have a candidate in place by midsummer if possible.
