Adobe Acrobat Reader



Download 243.19 Kb.
Page4/7
Date conversion29.03.2017
Size243.19 Kb.
1   2   3   4   5   6   7

SUP. BURKE, CHAIR: WHO DID YOU GET THIS FROM?
KATHY OCHOA: FROM D.H.S. EMPLOYEE RELATIONS AND C.E.O. EMPLOYEE RELATIONS.
SUP. KNABE: HAVE YOU GIVEN OUR OFFICES OR THE C.E.O. A LIST OF THE ERRORS THAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT?
KATHY OCHOA: WE'VE BEEN MEETING ON A REGULAR BASIS, A WEEKLY BASIS, IN FACT, WITH REPRESENTATIVES FROM ALL OF THESE OFFICES.
SUP. KNABE: MAYBE YOU FURNISHED THAT LIST OF ERRORS?
KATHY OCHOA: YES, WE HAVE. THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE TODAY. BECAUSE THEY INSIST ON GOING FORWARD. I DON'T KNOW THAT THE PEOPLE AT THE TABLE ARE THE RIGHT EMPOWERED PEOPLE. I THINK I HAVE MUCH BETTER INSIGHT THAN THEY DO, HAVING GONE THROUGH LAYOFFS SINCE 1995 AND HAVING ENSURED AS MY OBLIGATION IS, TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE FAIR AT THE END OF THE DAY. AND THAT HASN'T INHIBITED ME FROM FULLY FIGHTING FOR FUNDING. I GOT SOME FEEDBACK THIS MORNING "OH, LET'S LET THEM DO THE MITIGATION SO WE CAN FOCUS ON THE BUDGET." IT'S LIKE THE SAME PEOPLE WHO ARE DOING THE MITIGATIONS, GOD HOPE, THEY'RE NOT THE SAME PEOPLE WORKING ON OUR BUDGET BECAUSE THEN WE'RE REALLY IN DEEP TROUBLE.
C.E.O. FUJIOKA: KATHY, DO YOU HAVE A COPY OF THAT ERROR LIST RIGHT NOW? YOU HAVE A LOT OF PAPERWORK WITH YOU.
KATHY OCHOA: YEAH, WE DO. WE HAVE PAPER.
C.E.O. FUJIOKA: BECAUSE OUR FOLKS HAVE SAID THEY HAVEN'T SEEN THAT YET.

KATHY OCHOA: THEY HAVEN'T SEEN IT YET? OKAY, GUESS WHAT. I WAS GETTING TO THAT POINT. HOLD ON. I WAS GETTING TO THAT POINT RIGHT NOW. WE HAD ASKED FOR THE LIST LAST THURSDAY. WE ASKED FOR IT IN AN EXCEL NON-.PDF FILE SO THAT WE COULD LIKE, YOU KNOW, FUNCTIONING ANALYSTS, ANALYZE THE DATA. WE GET IT EMAILED TO US IN A USELESS .PDF FILE. WE'RE STILL WAITING FOR THE EXCEL VERSION. AND NOW I'LL TURN IT OVER TO MY COLLEAGUE, WHO HAS DONE THE HARD WORK BY HAND.

KAREN MORRIS: SO BASICALLY MITIGATIONS ARE TRIGGERED BY BUDGETED ITEMS. AND WHAT I DID--
SUP. BURKE, CHAIR: PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FIRST.
KAREN MORRIS: I'M SORRY. KAREN MORRIS S.E.I.U. 721. SINCE MITIGATIONS ARE TRIGGERED BY YOUR ITEM, YOUR BUDGETED ITEM, I WENT THROUGH AND LOOKED AT THIS DOCUMENT. 95 PAGES. THIS IS THE .PDF LOCKED DOCUMENT. AND THERE IS 772 EMPLOYEES ACCOUNTED FOR. AND OF THOSE, 268 ARE NOT SITTING ON THEIR BUDGETED ITEMS. SO WHAT THAT MEANS IS WHAT KATHY WAS SPEAKING OF, YOU'RE EXPECTING-- WE HAVE A CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGIST, FOR EXAMPLE, WHO IS SITTING ON A VOCATIONAL NURSE ITEM. WHEN YOU START IMPLEMENTING A MITIGATION, THOSE THINGS HAVE TO BE CLEANED UP PRIOR. AND SO WE'RE JUST SAYING WITH THE 34 PERCENT ERROR RATES IN FOLKS NOT SITTING ON-- THEIR FUNCTIONAL TITLE IS DIFFERENT THAN THEIR BUDGETED ITEM. IT GETS VERY, VERY MESSY WHEN YOU HAVE A MITIGATION.

KATHY OCHOA: AND NOT ONLY THAT, IT HAS PROFOUND CLINICAL CONSEQUENCES, BECAUSE YOU'RE TRYING TO PRESERVE THE STAFF AT THE HOSPITAL WHO WILL PROVIDE THE RIGHT SET OF ANCILLARY SERVICES TO OUR NEW AMBULATORY SERVICE CENTER. SO IF YOU HAVE-- IF YOU DON'T KNOW FUNCTIONALLY-- WE HAVE ASKED THE COUNTY HOW HARD COULD IT BE TO DO A CENSUS OF 800 PEOPLE WHO ARE BASICALLY YOUR CAPTIVE AUDIENCE? BECAUSE THE PROCESS THAT THEY USE WAS, "OH, WE ASKED MANAGERS TO REPORT BACK." THEN THEY GOT A CLUE THAT THE DATA WASN'T GOOD. SO NOW THEY'RE-- IT'S LIKE MORE HANDS ON DECK. I THINK WE CAN REALLY EASILY AND SIMPLY CLEAN THIS ONCE AND FOR ALL BY ASKING FOR A COUPLE OF WEEKS. THIS IS NOT A-- IF IT'S A MONEY PROBLEM, I'LL WORK HARDER TO MAKE UP THE DIFFERENCE IN SACRAMENTO WHEN WE GO AND FIGHT FOR COUNTY FUNDING. THAT'S NOT THE POINT. THAT'S NOT THE POINT. THE POINT IS WE ARE OFFERING A SET OF FRIENDLY RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WE HOPE GET US TO AN EXCELLENT H.R. PRACTICE THAT THE KING M.A.C.C., AS IT RAMPS UP ITS AMBULATORY CARE SERVICES AS WE DETERMINE ITS COLLECTIVE FUTURE, THAT WE'RE GUARANTEED THAT THERE'S A FUNCTIONAL SYSTEM IN PLACE AND WE KNOW WHO WORKS THERE AND WHO DOESN'T.

SUP. BURKE, CHAIR: I'D BE MORE THAN CONCERNED ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THIS VOCATIONAL NURSE WAS PLACED SOMEWHERE ELSE BECAUSE SHE DID NOT PASS HER EXAM.
KATHY OCHOA: NO, WHO KNOWS? THERE COULD HAVE BEEN. BUT ACTUALLY IT COULD HAVE BEEN A VACANT ITEM. AND YOU NEEDED A CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGIST. SO YOU BRING THE CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGIST IN I THINK AT THE FIFTH STEP AND YOU HAVE THEM WORK A REDUCED NUMBER OF HOURS. IT CAN'T BE THAT HARD TO LIKE MAYBE JUST DECLARE AMNESTY AND GET EVERYBODY WORKING ON THE RIGHT ITEM AND THEN FROM THERE TRIGGER YOUR MITIGATION.
SUP. YAROSLAVSKY: MADAME CHAIR, I THINK THAT THERE WERE ISSUES MISS OCHOA ARE RAISING OUGHT TO BE CONSIDERED SEPARATE FROM THE MOTION BEFORE US TODAY BUT SIMULTANEOUSLY. AND I WOULD ASK THAT MR. FUJIOKA REVIEW THE DOCUMENTS THAT THEY HAVE AND THAT THEY ARE GOING TO PRESUMABLY GIVE TO YOU. AND THEN WHATEVER FINDINGS YOU MAKE, YOU CAN SHARE THOSE ABOUT THE AUDITOR-CONTROLLER IF IT'S RELEVANT TO THE MOTION THAT'S BEFORE US. BUT I DON'T WANT TO WEIGH DOWN THE VERY FOCUSED REVIEW HERE, WHICH IS NOT ABOUT WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT SPECIFICALLY. IT'S REALLY ABOUT THE INTEGRITY OF THE PROCESS THAT'S BEEN USED AND WHERE THINGS BROKE DOWN. THIS IS REALLY A-- AND THAT'S WHY I'VE ASKED THE AUDITOR-CONTROLLER TO GET INVOLVED IN THIS. THE OTHER STUFF WE CAN HANDLE ADMINISTRATIVELY. THIS GETS TO WHO KNEW WHAT AND WHEN DID THEY KNOW IT?
KATHY OCHOA: EXACTLY. THAT'S WHAT WE WANT TO KNOW.
SUP. KNABE: I WOULD SUPPORT THAT, BECAUSE THAT WAS MY POINT. I DON'T WANT TO GET BOGGED DOWN WITH THE OTHER. BUT THE ISSUES THEY RAISED--
SUP. YAROSLAVSKY: HER ISSUES ARE GOOD, AND THEY OUGHT TO BE DEALT WITH SEPARATELY BUT SIMULTANEOUSLY..
KATHY OCHOA: WE WOULD ASK SEPARATE BUT SIMULTANEOUSLY, BUT BY THE AUDITOR-CONTROLLER. BECAUSE WE THINK THAT'S THE ONLY WAY WE ARE GOING TO GET AN INDEPENDENT--

SUP. YAROSLAVSKY: IT MAY GET TO THE AUDITOR-CONTROLLER AT SOME POINT. BUT LET'S START WITH BILL. YOU WORK WITH MY OFFICE AND ANY OF THE OTHER OFFICES OBVIOUSLY. YOU ALWAYS WORK WITH ALL OF US. AND WE'LL TAKE IT FROM THERE. WE'LL SEE WHAT DEVELOPS WITH THE INFORMATION YOU HAVE AND HOW IT CAN BE FOLDED IN, IF NECESSARY, WITH THE AUDITOR-CONTROLLER. BUT I WANT THE AUDITOR TO START NOW ON THE FRAMEWORK THAT'S IN THE MOTION AND THEN WE CAN EXPAND IT AS NECESSARY.

KATHY OCHOA: OKAY. WE WOULD LIKE TO ENSURE THAT THERE'S AN EXTERNAL--
SUP. BURKE, CHAIR: DON'T WANT TO CONFUSE THE TWO ITEMS.
SUP. YAROSLAVSKY: EXACTLY.
KATHY OCHOA: I CAN WRITE UP A SEPARATE MOTION ON THIS RIGHT NOW, AND YOU CAN WORK WITH SOMEBODY TO WRITE UP SOMETHING SEPARATE. IT'S THE SAME CONCEPTS OF A SYSTEM THAT IS NOT FUNCTIONAL.
SUP. YAROSLAVSKY: KATHY, I HEAR YOU. WE HAVE A PATH FORWARD AS I'VE JUST DESCRIBED IT. WE DON'T NEED A WRITTEN MOTION. WE'LL BE ON TOP OF IT.
KATHY OCHOA: I JUST WANT TO GUARANTEE THAT WE'LL HAVE SOME ACCESS TO THE AUDITOR-CONTROLLER TO DO A REVIEW.
SUP. YAROSLAVSKY: THE AUDITOR-CONTROLLER WILL DETERMINE HOW MUCH ACCESS YOU HAVE. SHE'S INDEPENDENT. SHE'LL DO WHAT SHE NEEDS TO DO AND SHE'LL USE YOU AS A RESOURCE I'M SURE AS SHE SEES FIT.
KATHLY OCHOA: OKAY, GREAT.
SUP. BURKE, CHAIR: SUPERVISOR ANTONOVICH?
SUP. ANTONOVICH: AS SUPERVISOR YAROSLAVSKY'S MOTION TODAY IS ON THIS ISSUE AS MINE WAS ON THE PAST WEEK, IN OUR EXECUTIVE SESSION, THAT'S DISCUSSING THIS ISSUE TODAY?
KATHY OCHOA: THAT'S CORRECT.
SUP. ANTONOVICH: WE WANT TO ENSURE THAT WE HAVE INTEGRITY IN THE SYSTEM, BUT THAT INTEGRITY ALSO IS THE ADMINISTRATIVE ARM WHERE THERE WAS A BREAKDOWN, WHAT TYPE OF ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES HAVE TO BE MADE FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE LEVEL AS WE REVIEW THE ENTIRE-- LET'S SAY, ALL OF THE EMPLOYEES AND THEIR QUALIFICATIONS. IT'S GOT TO BE A FAIR SYSTEM. BUT WHEN THERE'S BEEN PERHAPS DELIBERATE BREAKDOWNS, WE WANT TO MAKE THOSE CORRECTIONS.
KATHY OCHOA: RIGHT.
SUP. ANTONOVICH: THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GOING TO BE DOING.

KATHY OCHOA: THANK YOU, AND I THINK THAT-- I WOULD NOT GO SO FAR AS TO SAY THAT-- I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW. MAYBE I'M, YOU KNOW-- I DON'T THINK THERE ARE INTENTIONAL BREAKDOWNS. I MEAN, BREAKDOWNS ARE BREAKDOWNS OF A SYSTEM. AND OUR H.R. SYSTEM IS VERY COMPLICATED. WE HAVE MULTIPLE PEOPLE IN CHARGE OF DIFFERENT PARTS. AND SO IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO GET AT A CERTAIN POINT OF ACCOUNTABILITY WHERE WE HAVE ONE PERSON WE COULD TALK TO WHO CAN GIVE US SOME GOOD ANSWERS. AND I THINK THAT'S PART OF ANOTHER DISCUSSION, MAYBE ONE ON THE GOVERNANCE. BECAUSE AS WE'VE TESTIFIED HERE BEFORE, WHEN DAVID JANSSEN REVAMPED OUR GOVERNANCE SYSTEM TO BE VERY SIMILAR HYBRID OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY AND SAN DIEGO COUNTY, HE FAILED TO INCLUDE OUR H.R. FUNCTION. AND IF YOU GO TO THOSE WEB PAGES, AND I INVITE THE DEPUTIES TO DO THAT, YOU WILL SEE THAT IT'S ALL UNDER ONE, WHETHER IT'S RETURN TO WORK, COMPENSATION, CLASSIFICATION, PROMOTIONS, RETENTION, RECRUITMENT, THEY ARE ALL UNDER ONE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE HEAD. AND WE BELIEVE THAT THAT'S, AT THE END OF THE DAY, THESE PROBLEMS DON'T JUST EXIST IN HEALTH SERVICES, IT'S THE BANE OF OUR EXISTENCE EVERYWHERE. WE CAN'T HIRE ENOUGH D.P.S.S. WORKERS EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE IN THE QUEUE, OR CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES WORKERS, OR WHO ARE THOSE WORKERS THAT YOU'RE WORKING WITH?

KAREN MORRIS: THE PUBLIC GUARDIANS.
KATHY OCHOA: THE PUBLIC GUARDIANS. I MEAN THERE'S ALL THESE BACKLOGS. WE THINK THAT ULTIMATELY WE'LL GET TO A VERY-- WE'VE HAD COMMITMENTS. I THINK EVERYBODY IS OPEN TO WORKING OUT, INCLUDING THE UNION, WE'LL HELP MOVE THIS FORWARD, DEVISING, DESIGNING AN H.R. SYSTEM FOR A 21ST CENTURY COUNTY. I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE ALL DESERVE. I THINK THAT'S WHAT THE PUBLIC EXPECTS. THANK YOU.
SUP. BURKE, CHAIR: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
SUP. YAROSLAVSKY: MOVE IT.
SUP. BURKE, CHAIR: MOVED BY YAROSLAVSKY, SECONDED BY ANTONOVICH; WITHOUT OBJECTION, SO ORDERED.
SUP. YAROSLAVSKY: I WANT TO TAKE UP ITEM-- ARE THERE ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO WANT TO-- I THINK WE COVERED ALL THOSE, RIGHT?
CLERK SACHI HAMAI: WE HAVE COVERED ALL THOSE.
SUP. YAROSLAVSKY: ALL THAT'S LEFT IS 25? I WOULD CALL UP 25, THEN. WE HAVE THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE COMMISSION HERE, I THINK?
SUP. BURKE, CHAIR: WE'LL ASK DR. CLAVREUL, DO YOU WANT TO WAIT NOW OR UNTIL AFTER THE PRESENTATION, OR DO YOU WANT TO SPEAK NOW? I CAN'T HEAR YOU. OKAY. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME.

RON IKIJIRI: YES, GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS RON IKIJIRI, I'M THE CHAIRMAN OF THE E&E TASKFORCE AS WELL AS THE COMMISSION. WE WANT TO THANK THE SUPERVISORS FOR ALLOWING US TO PUT THIS PARTICULAR MATTER ON THE AGENDA. AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO LISTENING AND HEARING YOUR RESPONSES TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS. THE CENTRIST VIEW AND THE CREATION OF THE NEW COUNTY GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE WITH THE C.E.O. BY THE BOARD WAS DESIGNED TO ENCOURAGE HORIZONTAL AS WELL AS VERTICAL COLLABORATION ACROSS THE DEPARTMENTS IN THE DELIVERY OF COUNTY SERVICES UNDER THE NEW GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE. IN TIME THE NEW COUNTY GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE WILL ALLOW THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ADDITIONAL TIME AND RESOURCES TO DEVELOP POLICY AND FUTURE VISION FOR OUR COUNTY. THE BOARD ASKS FOR OUR HONEST REVIEW AND RECKONING OF THE NEW COUNTY GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE BY THE COMMISSION AND THROUGH ITS TASKFORCE CHAIR, JON FURMAN, AS WELL AS OUR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ED ING, WE HAVE SUBMITTED 8 RECOMMENDATIONS. THE COMMISSION REPORT SHOULD BE VIEWED FROM THE PERSPECTIVE THAT THE BUDGET OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES WOULD PLACE IT WITHIN THE TOP FORTUNE 100 CORPORATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES. WHEN DEALING WITH A CORPORATE STRUCTURE OF THIS SIZE, WITH 40 OPERATING DEPARTMENTS, EMPLOYING OVER 102,000 EMPLOYEES, AND SERVING 10 MILLION CUSTOMERS, THE FINDINGS FROM THE INTERVIEWS PROVIDES ENCOURAGEMENT THAT THE NEW GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE IS WORKING. IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE COUNTY BY POPULATION, IF IT WERE A STATE, WOULD REPRESENT THE EIGHTH LARGEST STATE IN THE UNITED STATES. THE BOARD IS TO BE COMMENDED FOR THEIR LEADERSHIP IN SEEKING TRANSPARENCY OF THEIR GOVERNANCE MANAGEMENT. IN MY EXPERIENCE, THERE IS NOT MANY BOARDS OR CORPORATIONS THAT WOULD BE WILLING TO HAVE THEIR C.E.O. DEPARTMENT HEAD AND STAFFS PROVIDE A CANDID EVALUATION OF ITS OWN CORPORATE MANAGEMENT. PERHAPS AT NO TIME IN THE HISTORY OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY HAS THERE BEEN AN CANDID AND OPEN DISCUSSION AND MANAGEMENT OF OUR COUNTY MANAGEMENT BY ELECTED AND APPOINTED COUNTY LEADERS AND ADMINISTRATORS. WE LOOK FORWARD TO YOUR RESPONSES AND YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS AND AT THIS TIME I'D JUST LIKE TO INTRODUCE THE MEMBERS OF THE TASKFORCE THAT ARE HERE IN ATTENDANCE AT THE BOARD MEETING. JONATHAN FURMAN, OUR CHAIR. CLAYTON ANDERSON, ALLEN GLASSMAN, ROMAN PADILLA AND ROBERT SACHS. THANK YOU, MADAME CHAIR.
SUP. BURKE, CHAIR: THANK YOU. DOES THAT CONCLUDE YOUR PRESENTATION?
RON IKIJIRI: YES, IT DOES.
SUP. BURKE, CHAIR: SUPERVISOR ANTONOVICH?
SUP. YAROSLAVSKY: I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE YOU HAD THE OPPORTUNITY. I'M NOT ASKING YOU--
C.E.O. FUJIOKA: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I'LL MAKE MY COMMENTS REAL BRIEF. I APPRECIATE THE REPORT AND ESPECIALLY THE QUALITY OF THE REPORT THAT WAS PREPARED BY OUR ECONOMY AND EFFICIENCY COMMISSION. I THINK IT'S A FAIR AND BALANCED REPORT. I APPRECIATE THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WERE MADE. THEY'RE LISTED IN THE REPORT 1 THROUGH 8. AND WE KNOW THAT WE'VE ALREADY STARTED WORK IN OUR OFFICE TO ADDRESS THESE RECOMMENDATIONS. THE ONE THING THAT I WANTED TO EMPHASIZE, THOUGH, IS THAT-- AND I MADE KIND OF A-- I MADE A COMMENT THAT WAS PRESENTED IN A RECENT NEWSPAPER ARTICLE WHERE I MADE COMPARISONS WITH THIS COUNTY TO A LARGE OCEAN FREIGHTER. IN VERY CANDID TERMS, WE STARTED A VERY SIGNIFICANT INITIATIVE TO CHANGE HOW THIS COUNTY IS BEING GOVERNED. AND WITH THAT, IT CHANGES RELATIONSHIPS AND IT ALSO CHANGES A NUMBER OF FACTORS BETWEEN ABSORBED INFORMATION, HOPEFULLY THE HOW DEPARTMENTS INTERACT WITH EACH OTHER AND EQUALLY IMPORTANT HOW DEPARTMENTS AND MY OFFICE INTERACT WITH THE BOARD OFFICES. THIS IS A SERIOUS PARADIGM SHIFT OR A SEA CHANGE FOR THE COUNTY OF L.A. AND I HOPE THAT AFTER A YEAR, THAT IT'S RECOGNIZED THAT WE NEED TO CONTINUE WITH THIS EFFORT, TO CONTINUE TO IMPROVE THE PROCESS. I FEEL THAT I HAVE A STRONG PERSONAL BIAS THAT WE'VE MADE SOME SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENTS. BUT I ALSO FEEL, ON THE SAME NOTE, THAT WE NEED TO MAKE SOME CHANGES TO FURTHER IMPROVE THIS PROCESS. I HOPE THAT AS WE GO FORWARD, THAT WE LOOK AT HOW COLLECTIVELY WE CAN WORK STRONGER TOGETHER. AND THAT MEANS-- I DON'T MEAN JUST TWO OFFICES, I MEAN ALL OFFICES. IT'S FROM ALL THE COUNTY DEPARTMENTS, MY OFFICE, BOARD OFFICE AND SO ON BECAUSE IN THE END, THE FINAL OUTCOME IS WHETHER OR NOT WE HAVE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE QUALITY OF PROGRAMS AND SERVICES THAT WE OFFER TO THOSE WHO WE ULTIMATELY SERVE, AND THAT'S THE CITIZENS OF THE COUNTY OF L.A. THE ONE THING THAT I WOULD EMPHASIZE IS THAT WE'RE SEEING A CHANGE IN HOW DEPARTMENTS WORK TOGETHER. WE'RE SEEING A CHANGE IN AN IMPROVEMENT IN HOW WELL THEY COLLABORATE AND COORDINATE THEIR SERVICES. IT'S NOT PERFECT. IT WILL NEVER BE PERFECT IN THE FIRST YEAR. BUT WE'RE COMMITTED TO MAKING THESE CHANGES. WE'RE COMMITTED TO SEEING STRONGER COORDINATION AND COLLABORATION. AND WE'RE HERE TO WORK WITH NOT ONLY THIS COMMISSION BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY THIS BOARD TO MAKE THE IMPROVEMENTS NECESSARY TO MEET NOT ONLY YOUR NEEDS BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY THE NEEDS OF THE ULTIMATE PEOPLE WE SERVE, THE CITIZENS OF THE COUNTY. SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

SUP. BURKE, CHAIR: SUPERVISOR ANTONOVICH?
SUP. ANTONOVICH: LET ME ASK. WHEN THE GOVERNANCE PROPOSAL, THE CHANGE WAS ADOPTED AT ORDINANCE, THEY STATED THAT THERE WAS A LACK OF UNDERSTANDING REGARDING THE ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOR BOARD OFFICES, THE C.E.O. AND DEPARTMENTS. DID YOUR COMMISSION REVIEW THE ORDINANCE LANGUAGE ADOPTED BY THE BOARD AND RECONCILE WHETHER THE CURRENT STRUCTURE IS IN LINE WITH THE ORDINANCE ADOPTED BY THE BOARD?
JONATHAN FURMAN: MR. SUPERVISOR, MY NAME'S JOHN FURMAN, I WAS THE CHAIR OF THE COMMISSION'S TASKFORCE ON GOVERNANCE. WE DID LOOK AT THE ORIGINAL MOTION. WE DID NOT TRY TO COMPARE THE CURRENT STRUCTURE WITH THE EXACT WORDING OF THE MOTION, SO WE DID NOT TRY TO VALIDATE WHETHER THE CURRENT IMPLEMENTATION WAS PRECISELY AS THE ORIGINAL MOTIONS ANTICIPATED. WE INTERVIEWED A NUMBER OF SENIOR COUNTY PERSONNEL, ASKED THEM HOW THE CURRENT SYSTEM WAS WORKING. WE DID NOT TRY TO COMPARE OR CONTRAST HOW THE ACTUAL IMPLEMENTATION MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE VARIED FROM THE ORIGINAL PICTURE, WHICH IN SOME CASES WAS DETAILED AND IN SOME CASES WAS NOT SO DETAILED.
SUP. ANTONOVICH: WHEN THE NEW GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE WAS PRESENTED TO THE BOARD, WE WERE TOLD IT WAS NOT GOING TO RESULT IN ANY EXTRA LEVEL OF MANAGEMENT AT THE DEPUTY C.E.O. POSITION. IT WAS JUST AN ADMINISTRATIVE REFORM. HOWEVER, THE REPORT POINTS OUT THAT BOARD DEPUTIES HAVE AGREED THAT NEW STRUCTURE HAS RESULTED IN DELAYS AND NOT BEING RESPONSIVE, LIMITING OUR ABILITY TO BE RESPONSIVE TO CONSTITUENT SERVICES. SO WHAT COULD BE DONE TO CHANGE THE STRUCTURE TO IMPROVE RESPONSIVENESS TO THE CITIZENS WHO HAVE ISSUES?

JONATHAN FURMAN: I THINK, LOOKING BACK AT OUR REPORT, WE TRIED TO PROVIDE YOU WITH AN ACCURATE TRANSMISSION OF WHAT WE HEARD VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS AND BOARD DEPUTIES SAYING. AND I THINK WHAT PEOPLE WERE SAYING GENERALLY WAS THAT ON SPECIFIC CONSTITUENT SERVICE ISSUES, PEOPLE, BY AND LARGE, FELT RESPONSIVENESS WAS GOOD IN AREAS WHERE CONSTITUENT SERVICE MAY OVERLAP WITH POLICY AND BUDGET ISSUES, WHICH LED TO THE NEED FOR REVIEW THROUGH THE C.E.O.'S OFFICE STRUCTURE, WHERE IN THE PAST DEPARTMENTS HAD RESPONDED INDIVIDUALLY. IN THOSE CASES, THERE WAS SOMEWHAT OF A DELAY. IN GENERAL, PEOPLE FELT THEY WERE MANAGING THROUGH THAT DELAY WE DID NOT ASK SPECIFICALLY THE QUESTION OF HOW WOULD YOU CHANGE IT TO FIX THAT PROBLEM? WE DID ASK THE GENERAL QUESTION OF ALL OF OUR RESPONDENTS: WHAT THINGS SHOULD BE CHANGED? AND PEOPLE MENTIONED INCREASED DELEGATION OF RESPONSIBILITY AND ATTEMPT TO UNDERSTAND BETTER THE ROLE OF THE DEPUTY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERS. AND IT BECAME APPARENT FROM OUR DISCUSSIONS THAT THERE WERE DIFFERENT PERCEPTIONS OF THOSE ROLES. THAT LED TO OUR RECOMMENDATION NUMBER 3 THAT THE BOARD WORK WITH THE C.E.O. TO CLARIFY THE EXPECTATIONS AND THE ROLES OF THE DEPUTY C.E.O.S. WITH THAT CLARIFICATION, YOU MAY GET SOME RESOLUTION OF SOME OF THE PROBLEMS THAT HAVE ARISEN.

SUP. ANTONOVICH: WHEN THE ORDINANCE WAS BEING DISCUSSED, THE C.A.O. AT THE TIME INDICATED THAT THERE WOULD BE NO COSTS BASICALLY ASSOCIATED WITH IT, HOWEVER NOW IN RETROSPECT, WE FIND THAT IT'S NEARLY A $2 MILLION INCREASE IN NET COUNTY COST. SO DID THE COMMISSION LOOK AT THE INCREASED COSTS TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE BENEFITS OUTWEIGHED THE COSTS?
JONATHAN FURMAN: WE DID NOT ATTEMPT TO DO A COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS. WE FELT THAT WAS BEYOND OUR ABILITY TO TACKLE IN A RELATIVELY SHORT PERIOD OF TIME.
SUP. ANTONOVICH: ONE OF THE STATED PURPOSES OF THE GOVERNANCE RESTRUCTURE WAS TO MAXIMIZE OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE BOARD TO PROVIDE POLICY DIRECTION. NOW, PRIOR TO THE CHANGE, THE BOARD OR THE C.A.O. HAVE HAD THE ABILITY AND HAVE SET ITEMS ON THE AGENDA TO FOCUS ON POLICY ISSUES. OVER THE LAST 18 MONTHS, I'VE HAD 26 SEPARATE POLICY ISSUES ON THE AGENDA THAT HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED BY THE BOARD, AS OTHER MEMBERS, IN TURN, HAVE HAD POLICY ISSUES PLACED ON THE BOARD. THERE'S BEEN NO INCREASE IN THE-- SINCE THERE'S BEEN NO INCREASE IN THE GOVERNANCE CHANGE. SO ONE OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS IS TO DIRECT C.A.O. TO DESIGN A FRAMEWORK WITHIN POLICY ISSUES ARE IDENTIFIED AND PLACED ON THE AGENDA. SO HOW DOES THIS L.A. GOVERNANCE CHANGE ALLOW MORE TIME FOR POLICY DECISIONS AND DISCUSSIONS WHEN CURRENTLY WE HAVE AS MANY BOARD MEETINGS AS NECESSARY TO DISCUSS SUCH POLICY ISSUES?

JONATHAN FURMAN: IN REVIEWING THE CURRENT OPERATION, OUR TASKFORCE DETECTED A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION AMONG-- FROM AMONG BOARD OFFICES AS TO-- THERE WAS A CLEAR CONSENSUS THAT ESSENTIALLY NOTHING HAS CHANGED FROM LAST YEAR. THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION ON, I THINK, WHERE PEOPLE WOULD LIKE TO GO. WE BELIEVED A MAJORITY OF OFFICES FELT, IN FACT, THE BOARD IS NOT DEVOTING AS MUCH TIME AS THEY WOULD LIKE OR AS THEY SHOULD TO POLICY DELIBERATIONS. AND WE SUGGESTED SEVERAL RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WE BELIEVE WOULD HELP THE BOARD FIND A WAY TO FOCUS MORE INTENSIVELY ON POLICY ISSUES. OVER AND ABOVE YOUR CURRENT PROCESS OF USING SET ITEMS AS A VEHICLE FOR POLICY DELIBERATIONS.

SUP. ANTONOVICH: BUT AGAIN THE SET ITEMS DO ADDRESS POLICY ISSUES, BOTH EXECUTIVE SESSION-WISE AND PUBLIC SESSION-WISE. AND AS I SAID, THE LAST 18 MONTHS, WE HAVE 26 THAT MY OFFICE HAS GENERATED, FULL BOARD PARTICIPATION, AND OTHER MEMBERS HAVE COMPARABLE NUMBERS OF ISSUES THAT THEY BROUGHT BEFORE THE BOARD FOR POLICY ISSUES, ACTION, DISCUSSION, INPUT. SO I DON'T SEE THAT NECESSARY CHANGE HAD TO BE IMPLEMENTED BECAUSE THE CURRENT PAST SYSTEM AND THE STATUS QUO WAS PERMITTING POLICY DECISION. THERE WAS ALSO THE NONINTERFERENCE CLAUSE, WHICH WAS IN MY OPINION VERY DETRIMENTAL, IN THAT WHEN YOU HAVE CONSTITUENT ISSUES, GETTING THOSE ISSUES RESOLVED, BE IT ANIMAL CONTROL, PUBLIC WORKS, DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, AND DID YOU REVIEW THAT PROVISION AND HOW THAT HAS INHIBITED OR BEEN ABLE TO ENHANCE THE ABILITY TO DEAL WITH THE PUBLIC?

JONATHAN FURMAN: WE DID ASK OUR RESPONDENTS GENERALLY HOW THEY FELT CONSTITUENT SERVICES WERE BEING DELIVERED AND WHETHER THEY FELT BOARD OFFICES UNDERSTOOD THE NEW BOUNDARIES AND WERE ADHERING TO THOSE NEW BOUNDARIES. DEPARTMENTS GENERALLY FELT THEY WERE DELIVERING CONSTITUENT SERVICE, AS WELL OR BETTER THAN THEY HAD IN THE PAST. DEPARTMENT HEADS GENERALLY FELT BOARD OFFICES UNDERSTOOD AND WERE ADHERING TO THE NEW RULES, WITH A FEW EXCEPTIONS HERE AND THERE. BOARD OFFICES GENERALLY FELT EACH OF THEIR OWN OFFICES WERE ADHERING TO THE NEW BOUNDARIES BUT WERE SKEPTICAL ABOUT HOW OTHER OFFICES WERE ADHERING TO THE BOUNDARIES. CLEARLY THIS IS AN AREA WHERE EVERYONE IS LEARNING AND ADJUSTING TO THE NEW RULES, EXPERIMENTING A LITTLE BIT WITH WHERE THE BOUNDARIES ARE, PUSHING HERE OR THERE. BUT THE GENERAL RESPONSES WE RECEIVED SAID MOST BOARD OFFICES SEEM TO BE ADHERING TO THE NEW RULES. DEPARTMENT HEADS REPORTED THEY WERE NOT RECEIVING INAPPROPRIATE INSTRUCTIONS OR DIRECTIONS, WITH A RARE EXCEPTION NOW AND THEN, FROM BOARD OFFICES. SO THE NONINTERFERENCE CLAUSE SEEMED TO BE WORKING AND DID NOT SEEM TO BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE DEPARTMENT'S ABILITY TO DELIVER QUALITY CONSTITUENT SERVICE.

SUP. ANTONOVICH: AND AGAIN, THOUGH YOU DID NOT DO A COST ANALYSIS TO SEE IF THE CHANGES WERE COST-EFFECTIVE.
JONATHAN FURMAN: WE DID NOT.
SUP. ANTONOVICH: THE FORMER STRUCTURE DID ALLOW THE C.A.O. AT THE TIME TO HAVE REGULAR MEETINGS WITH DEPARTMENT HEADS, WHICH THE C.A.O., ON HIS WATCH, DETERMINED NOT TO DO. BUT HE HAD THAT ABILITY TO HAVE WEEKLY MEETINGS. HE ALSO HAD THE ABILITY TO BRING THE VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS TOGETHER TO WORK ON A PARTICULAR ISSUE OR PLAN OR STRATEGIC PROGRAM. SO THE NEW STRUCTURE REALLY DOESN'T PROHIBIT ANY MORE THAN LET'S SAY THE OLD STRUCTURE NEVER PROHIBITED THAT TYPE OF LEADERSHIP. IT REALLY DEPENDS ON THE PERSON THAT OCCUPIES THE POSITION TO WORK WITH THE VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS OR TO BE LACKADAISICAL AND NOT WORK WITH THEM, BUT LET THEM GO STATUS QUO. THAT'S A PERSONALITY FACTOR OR MANAGEMENT STYLE.
JONATHAN FURMAN: WE CERTAINLY RECOGNIZE THAT OUR ANALYSIS WAS COMPLICATED BY THE FACT THAT WE BOTH CHANGED STRUCTURE AT THE SAME TIME AS WE CHANGED SENIOR PERSONNEL. BUT WE DETERMINED WE COULDN'T REALLY ANSWER THAT QUESTION, "COULD SOME OF THE IMPROVEMENTS WE'VE SEEN HAVE BEEN ACHIEVED UNDER THE OLD SYSTEM BY EITHER THE CURRENT INCUMBENT OR THE PRIOR INCUMBENT?"
SUP. ANTONOVICH: AND DID YOU MEET WITH HARRY HUFFORD?
JONATHAN FURMAN: NO, WE DID NOT.
SUP. ANTONOVICH: DID YOU MEET WITH RICHARD DIXON?
JONATHAN FURMAN: NO, WE DID NOT.
SUP. ANTONOVICH: DID YOU MEET WITH SALLY REED?

JONATHAN FURMAN: NO, WE DID NOT.


1   2   3   4   5   6   7


The database is protected by copyright ©hestories.info 2017
send message

    Main page