Supervisors adopt resolution clarifying county administrator authority and update org chart amid public concern over elections oversight

The Cochise County Board of Supervisors on June 3 adopted Resolution 25-11 clarifying the roles, authority and responsibilities of the county administrator and rescinding Resolution 03-15, and approved an updated organizational chart that shows solid-line administrative control by the county administrator and dotted-line operational oversight by the board.

Supervisor Kathleen Gomez moved to adopt Resolution 25-11; Supervisor Antonori seconded and the board voted aye to pass the measure. Gomez also moved and the board approved an updated Cochise County organizational chart that reflects current reporting relationships under the county administrator.

The new chart makes two notable changes the board discussed: it shows a solid administrative reporting line from the board to the county administrator and from the county administrator to department directors (covering hiring, appointment and performance evaluation), and it shows that the clerk of the board reports to the board "consistent with statute" rather than to the county administrator.

During public comment and later discussion of the chart, several speakers raised concerns tied to elections and civility. Ronnie Maestas Condos told the board he found comments by Supervisor Antonori about a former state elections director to be “very offensive, very inappropriate, and slanderous,” and he urged the supervisor to correct his public statements. Allison Morse, a registered voter from Portal, asked the board to enforce civility in meetings and later said she was concerned that the board’s oversight could put the new elections director in a difficult position; Morse urged that the board support election staff who follow state law. Supervisor Antonori replied during call to the public that his earlier remarks about the prior elections director reflected his view that staff who “go behind the board and lobby members of the legislature” without board approval constituted insubordination; he said he would not change his position.

County Administrator Gilman and other staff described the organizational-chart change as aligning administration with state statute and clarifying operational vs. administrative roles. Gilman told the board the chart gives the county administrator administrative control over directors (appointments, hiring and performance evaluations) while the board retains operational oversight as allowed under state law and Title 11. The board emphasized the intent to reduce ambiguity in roles and to reduce a “toxic environment” that some speakers and members have raised.

Discussion vs. decision: The board’s formal actions were (1) adoption of Resolution 25-11 to clarify county-administrator authority and (2) approval of an updated organizational chart. Separate from the votes, public commenters expressed concerns about prior remarks by a supervisor and the potential for friction between the board and elections staff; no personnel actions were taken at the meeting.

What’s next: County staff said the chart will be implemented administratively; the clerk of the board’s reporting alignment was noted as consistent with statute and will remain under board appointment.