Cochise County supervisors debate limits of county administrator role, direct staff to draft redlines

The Cochise County Board of Supervisors met in a special session to discuss a proposed county administrator job description and whether the county should keep, rename or substantially limit that position's authority. Supervisors agreed to ask county staff and legal counsel to produce redlined language and return for further consideration, but took no formal vote to adopt or remove the position.

The discussion centered on how much day-to-day authority a county administrator should have versus direct oversight by the three-member elected board. The board reviewed a 19-page draft job description containing numbered paragraphs (including paragraphs 8, 10, 11, 14, 23 and 25) that supervisors said needed clearer limits on "routine" powers, hiring/firing authority, and specific prohibitions such as hiring lobbyists.

Supporters of keeping a delegated administrator argued the board needs a single person to manage daily operations and to produce executive summaries of department actions and budgets. Opponents said the draft gives too much insulation to staff and risks allowing an unelected official to delay or "stonewall" reports to the board. Supervisors discussed alternatives including changing the title to chief of staff, having department heads report directly to the board, or eliminating the position entirely.

The board examined several specific concerns in the draft. Paragraph 8 describes the administrator as the primary conduit for department issues and lists a broad set of direct reports; supervisors said that language could allow an administrator to decide not to bring matters to the board. Paragraph 10 authorizes the administrator to "make routine decisions or decisions that implement prior, adopted policy or work programs," and several supervisors asked for a clearer definition of what constitutes "routine" or "day-to-day" authority. Paragraph 11 states that a hearing shall not prevent employees from discussing county business with a supervisor, and some speakers said the process for bringing unresolved department issues to the full board should be simplified.

Supervisors noted other provisions they want removed or tightened, including a line that would permit the county administrator to hire a lobbyist and language that could place statutorily established offices, such as the county clerk, under the administrator's authority. One supervisor referenced a set of Cochise County resolutions from the 1990s that originally shaped the current structure and asked staff to identify all impacted resolutions and merit-system rules so changes would not create conflicts.

Legal and procedural issues also figured in the discussion. Supervisors raised open-meeting concerns about how and when the board would take employment actions for department heads, and whether collective board decisions would increase litigation or liability risk. The board discussed using executive session where appropriate to review personnel matters with outside counsel.

Direction to staff: supervisors agreed that Sharon (the current interim administrator) and county legal counsel should prepare a redlined draft that tightens the language on delegated authority, lists specific prohibitions, and identifies related resolutions and merit-system provisions to be amended if necessary. Supervisor Crosby indicated he would provide input; the clerk's office and legal counsel agreed to coordinate the draft. The board did not set a binding timetable beyond revisiting the issue in roughly one month and scheduling an executive-session meeting with outside counsel at 2:00 p.m. to continue related discussions.

No formal motions were adopted at the special meeting. The board adjourned the public portion and planned further executive-session work on the item.