Solano supervisors decline ballot consolidation of financial offices after divided debate, 3–2

The Solano County Board of Supervisors voted 3–2 on July 23 to retain the county’s current elected financial offices after a lengthy public discussion and testimony from county officials.

County staff presented three choices after the recent retirement of the long‑time Auditor‑Controller: maintain the status quo; consolidate the Auditor‑Controller and Treasurer/Tax Collector into an Office of the Director of Finance (then ask voters whether that new position should be appointed or elected); or keep separate offices but convert one or both to appointed positions. Staff said consolidation is a path some counties take to achieve operational efficiencies, and that any change would go to voters and not take effect until a later date.

"We felt we'd be remiss at least not bringing this issue to the board given the timing," said county staff during the presentation, noting legal and timing considerations for placing questions on the November ballot.

Treasurer‑Tax Collector Chuck Lomeli urged caution with removing elected oversight, saying an elected official is an important conduit between the public and government. "The constitution grants power to the people to petition their government, and the conduit for that is us — the electeds," Lomeli told the board.

Retired Auditor‑Controller Shylis Tainton said the auditor's office serves as an independent watchdog over taxpayer dollars and warned that appointing the role could reduce independent scrutiny: "If this position becomes an appointed one, the taxpayers will lose their internal independent watchdog," she said.

Supervisors who favored placing a consolidated director of finance before voters said consolidation could improve efficiency and reduce vulnerability in cases where few qualified candidates run for office; supervisors opposed cited accountability concerns. Public commenters also urged keeping elected offices to preserve independent oversight.

After the debate the board took two motions: a primary motion that would have placed consolidation and appointment questions on the ballot, and a substitute motion to take no action. The substitute prevailed; the clerk recorded the final vote as 3 in favor of maintaining the current elected offices and 2 opposed. The board did not place a measure on the November ballot at this time; staff said if the board had directed a ballot measure, it would have returned in early August with a resolution and wording for placement.