Lake County appoints two public members to public defender oversight committee; CAO replacement deferred

At a Lake County Board of Supervisors meeting, the board voted 5-0 to appoint Mark Bice and Mary Wilson as the two public members of the county's Public Defender Oversight Committee and to conditionally appoint Mitch Hartman as an attorney member once he finishes his remaining caseload.

The appointments came after supervisors debated whether to remove the county administrative officer (CAO) seat and add the chief public defender as a voting member of the oversight panel. Vice Chair raised concerns that making the chief public defender a voting member would create a conflict because that person would be a voting member of the body that provides oversight of the public defender's office.

“This is concerning to have the chief public defender as a voting member of oversight for their own committee,” the Vice Chair said, adding that the board could move forward by appointing the two public members and an attorney now and allow the newly constituted committee to recommend bylaw changes about the CAO position.

Board members settled on a motion to appoint the two public members and the attorney member conditionally, and to postpone any immediate change replacing the CAO with the chief public defender. The motion, as offered by a supervisor, said the board would not act on replacing the CAO with the chief public defender “until such time that the committee brings back recommendations on bylaw updates.” The chair announced, “Motion carries 5 0 0.”

County staff and supervisors discussed logistics and next steps. County staff said they expect the oversight committee to begin meeting quarterly, with a first meeting in July and the next in October, and that logistics such as meeting location and notice would be determined by staff and the committee. The clerk's office explained that earlier applications submitted in 02/2023 were not carried forward automatically and that applicants are encouraged to reapply when the board reopens recruitment; a press release was issued March 5 of the current year to solicit applications.

County Counsel said the counsel's office could review questions about committee composition and that any direction from the board could be provided to staff to determine an appropriate committee composition and to draft bylaw revisions. One supervisor noted hesitation about involving county counsel on the panel because county counsel represents the county and could face conflicts in advising advisory committees in the future.

Committee composition and confidentiality were discussed. Under the committee's current bylaws, meetings “shall be held in compliance with the Brown Act,” and are therefore public; supervisors and staff noted that while meetings are public, the committee would not be expected to disclose specific client case information. The board directed staff to coordinate with the oversight committee to revise the bylaws and return recommendations on membership and other changes.

No members of the public spoke on the item during the meeting. The board recorded the appointment outcomes and directed staff to follow up with the appointed members and to work on bylaw updates for future board consideration.