Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the CalOptima Reform topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board splits 3–2, sends CalOptima ordinance back for second reading after debate over state bill and local control
Summary
After a lengthy debate over local control and pending state legislation (SB 4), the Orange County Board of Supervisors amended and voted 3–2 to send an ordinance changing CalOptima board composition to a second reading, setting an effective date of Jan. 1, 2018.
A contentious debate over an ordinance to change the composition of the CalOptima (Orange County Health Authority) board culminated Tuesday with the Board of Supervisors voting 3–2 to send the measure back for a second reading after amending its effective date.
The ordinance (Item 21) would add supervisors to the CalOptima board and adjust several related technical provisions. County staff and supervisors discussed the interaction between the local ordinance and SB 4, a state bill that authors are advancing in Sacramento; staff noted SB 4 had moved through earlier committee stages and could include an urgency clause that would make any state change effective immediately.
"This is just a raw political power play," Supervisor Spitzer said during the debate, framing at least part of the disagreement as political. Other supervisors argued the change was intended to provide more oversight and transparency at an agency that handles billions of dollars and health‑care decisions for county residents.
County Executive staff reported SB 4 could reach the Assembly floor after recess and noted that, if enacted without an urgency clause, state changes would take effect Jan. 1; supervisors debated whether the county ordinance should be delayed to that date to avoid a short period of local disruption.
After discussion the board amended the motion to set an effective date of Jan. 1, 2018 and then voted 3–2 to approve the amended motion, sending the ordinance to a scheduled second reading. County Counsel confirmed that adopting an ordinance with a delayed effective date would require a second reading and subsequent meeting.
The board did not adopt SB 4 or otherwise bind the county to a state outcome; the action was limited to the county ordinance and its calendar scheduling. The item will return for a second reading at a future meeting where formal adoption can occur.
