Adobe Acrobat Reader



Download 243.19 Kb.
Page5/7
Date conversion29.03.2017
Size243.19 Kb.
1   2   3   4   5   6   7

SUP. ANTONOVICH: THOSE WERE THE PREVIOUS THREE C.A.O.S FOR THE PAST, WHAT, 30 YEARS, 35 YEARS, I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY YEARS HARRY WAS HERE IN THE '70S. I WOULD THINK WHEN YOU'RE DOING A REVIEW, YOU'D ALSO LOOK AT THE PAST.
JONATHON FURMAN: WE DID MEET WITH MR. JANSSEN BY PHONE INTERVIEW. WE DID NOT GO TO HIS PREDECESSORS.
SUP. ANTONOVICH: MR. HUFFORD IS CONSIDERED ONE OF THE AUTHORITIES AND HE IS THE ACTING C.A.O. FOR VENTURA COUNTY OR SANTA BARBARA COUNTY WHEN THEY WERE VENTURA COUNTY, AND HE CONTINUES TO HAVE AN ACTIVE ROLE IN COUNTY GOVERNANCE. THOSE ARE RESOURCES THAT I BELIEVE HAVE A VERY GREAT DEAL OF INFORMATION THAT YOU COULD LEARN FROM AND AGAIN WE COULD LEARN FROM IN HAVING OBJECTIVE STUDY BEING DONE.
SUP. BURKE, CHAIR: THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMENTS?

SUP. MOLINA: LET ME-- FIRST OF ALL THANK YOU FOR THE REPORT. I THINK IT WAS WELL-DONE AND I KNOW YOU HAD A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME IN WHICH TO DO IT. I THINK THAT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE NEED TO DO AS WE LOOK AT SOME OF THESE ISSUES IS WE DON'T SEEM TO BE ALL TALKING ABOUT THE SAME LANGUAGE. AND I THINK LANGUAGE IS REALLY IMPORTANT HERE. FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN SOMEBODY SAYS TO ME "DISCUSSION OF POLICY" IT ISN'T JUST VOTING ON SOMETHING. IT IS REALLY A DISCUSSION OF POLICY. I MEAN, IF WE'RE GOING TO CHANGE A POLICY AS TO HOW WE'RE HANDLING CERTAIN THINGS, NOT JUST, YOU KNOW, WE PASS THE FOLLOWING MOTIONS. BUT IT IS A-- SO I GUESS THAT'S AN ISSUE. AND THEN THE ISSUE OF ROLES AS TO WHAT WORDS LIKE "FACILITATING" AND "MANAGING" AND WHAT THIS PROCESS IS. SO I THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE-- SOMEBODY ASKED ME A QUESTION. I USED MY OWN DEFINITION FOR SOMETHING, I GUESS. AND MAYBE IT WOULD BE-- I'M NOT SO SURE THAT WE'RE ALL TALKING IN THE SAME LANGUAGE, WHICH IS ALWAYS THE GOOD THING TO DO BECAUSE CONCLUSIONS ARE MADE FROM THAT. MY CONCLUSION WOULD BE-- AND I REMEMBER WHEN YOU ASKED ME THE QUESTION, I SAID, "NO, WE HAVE NOT DISCUSSED POLICY." AND YET SOME PEOPLE WOULD DETERMINE "WELL EVERY TIME WE VOTE WE'RE VOTING ON POLICY." SO I'M JUST SAYING THERE'S A LANGUAGE THING THAT HAS TO PROBABLY BE ADDRESSED ON SOME OF THESE THINGS, AND THAT'S PROBABLY TRUE ALL THE WAY THROUGH IN SOME OF THE WORDS THAT ARE BEING USED. AND I THINK THAT THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO PUT THAT WITHIN CONTEXT SOMETIMES TO UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT IS THE TERM THAT IS BEING USED. AND I REMEMBER THIS DISCUSSION WELL OVER TWO YEARS AGO ABOUT-- THAT THIS WAS GOING TO MOVE FORWARD AS FAR AS HOW WE WERE GOING TO CREATE A BETTER SYSTEM OF GOVERNANCE. AND THE REPORT BASICALLY SAYS THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF PROGRESS IN THAT REGARD AND THAT SOME OF THE EXAMPLES THAT THEY CITE IN THE REPORT ABOUT COLLABORATION WITH DEPARTMENTS AND WHAT I'VE SEEN HAS BEEN ONE OF THE HEALTHIEST ASPECTS OF GOVERNANCE WORK FOR THE CONSTITUENTS, FOR THE PEOPLE WE SERVE. IT MAY BE A LITTLE BIT MORE CONSTRAINED FOR THE PEOPLE DELIVERING THE SERVICES, BUT OUR JOBS-- AND AGAIN THAT'S ANOTHER THING, IS THAT WHAT IS OUR MISSION HERE? IS IT OUR MISSION TO MAKE IT MORE COMFORTABLE FOR US AS THE BUREAUCRATS OR MORE ACCESSIBLE AND CERTAINLY BETTER QUALITY OF SERVICES FOR THE PEOPLE THAT WE SERVE? AND SO THAT'S ANOTHER THING THAT SORT OF HAS TO BE DISCUSSED. SO WHEN YOU HEAR -- WHEN I SAW THE REPORT, "WELL DEPARTMENT HEAD SAYS THAT TAKES TOO LONG," WELL, WHAT WERE WE DOING? WERE WE MAKING THAT OUTCOME, THAT SERVICE DELIVERY MAYBE MORE EFFECTIVE? SO IT CERTAINLY DOESN'T GET THE EVALUATION IF ONLY THE COMPLAINT IS, "OH ,THE DEPARTMENT HEAD THOUGHT THAT, YOU KNOW, WE ASK TOO MANY QUESTIONS ON THAT AND THAT SLOWED DOWN THE PROCESS OR THE LETTER GOT HELD UP BEFORE I GOT APPROVAL." BECAUSE DEPARTMENT HEADS HAVE , OR DEPARTMENTS HAVE, ONE VIEW AS TO HOW THEY WANT TO MOVE FORWARD. AND I THINK THAT'S THE WHOLE PROCESS OF WHAT GOVERNANCE IS AND WHY WE'RE HERE AS A BOARD, IS TO SORT OF GO THROUGH THE PROCESS. EACH OF US HAVE OUR OWN SET OF VALUES, AND WE REPRESENT CONSTITUENTS WITH A SET OF VALUES. AND SO THIS IS A PROCESS WHICH WHERE THOSE THINGS GET EVALUATED THROUGH THAT CRITERIA VALUES THAT WE HAVE. AND SO FOR SOMEONE TO SAY "WELL IT MAKES IT INCONVENIENT FOR ME TO CARRY IT OUT" I DON'T KNOW THAT JUST BECAUSE SOMEBODY SAYS "OH, IT SLOWED DOWN THE PROCESS", BUT DID WE EVALUATE AT THE END OF THE DAY? MAYBE IT MADE THE SERVICE DELIVERY BETTER. WE KNOW IN CERTAIN AREAS, CERTAINLY IN THE COLLABORATIONS THAT WE'VE SEEN IN PROBATION WITH MENTAL HEALTH AND THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION AND OTHER SERVICES THAT WE'VE SEEN BETTER COLLABORATIVE OUTCOMES. AND SO I THINK THAT'S THE OTHER THING. HOW WE EVALUATE SOMETHING, JUST BECAUSE IT'S NOT CONVENIENT FOR I'M GOING TO SAY A BUREAUCRAT, DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN THAT IT WASN'T A BETTER OUTCOME FOR THE PEOPLE THAT WE SERVE. SO I DON'T KNOW WHERE YOU'RE GOING WITH THIS, IF THERE'S GOING TO BE A SECOND REPORT. I THINK IT WOULDN'T BE A BAD IDEA TO HAVE A FOLLOW UP ON SOME OF THESE ISSUES. BUT I THINK THAT AS WE FRAME SOME OF THESE, PROBABLY THE CONTEXT OF HOW WE UTILIZE WORDS AND WHAT WE MEAN WHEN WE SAY SOMETHING LIKE THAT IS PROBABLY BETTER TO PUT IT WITHIN THE CONTEXT SO IT'S UNDERSTOOD. BECAUSE TO ME WHEN I READ THAT AND IT SAID, "OH, A DEPARTMENT HEAD SAYS IT'S SLOWING DOWN," WELL, THAT'S NOT A GOOD THING, RIGHT? BECAUSE YOU DON'T WANT TO SLOW DOWN THE PROCESS. BUT IF IT WAS SLOWER AND THERE WAS MORE DELIBERATIONS AND THE OUTCOMES WERE BETTER, THEN IT WAS PART OF THE PROCESS. SO I GUESS THAT WOULD BE MY ONLY COMMENT. AND I GUESS THE QUESTION IS: IS THERE AN INTENTION OF HOPEFULLY DOING A FOLLOW UP? BECAUSE EVENTUALLY THIS HAS TO GO BEFORE THE VOTERS WHILE WE'RE IMPLEMENTING IT AND SO ON, IT DOES REQUIRE IT EVENTUALLY TO GO ON. AND SO I GUESS THERE'S SOME FILTRATION TO CONTINUE TO CREATE A BETTER SYSTEM? BUT I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOUR INTENT IS AS THE COMMISSION.

JONATHAN FURMAN: WE HAVE NOT DISCUSSED THAT, BUT WE AWAIT YOUR INSTRUCTION. AND THE COMMISSION WOULD BE HAPPY, I ASSUME, TO SERVE IN ANY WAY THAT WE CAN. IN RESPONSE TO TWO OF YOUR POINTS, CLEARLY ONE OF THE STRONGEST COMMENTS WE RECEIVED FROM MANY RESPONDENTS WAS THE SENSE THAT THE COLLABORATION AND THE SHARED PROBLEM SOLVING WAS ONE OF THE MAJOR BREAKTHROUGHS OF THE NEW SYSTEM AND UNIFORMLY WE HAD VERY POSITIVE COMMENTS THAT DEPARTMENT HEADS AND BOARD DEPUTIES ALIKE FELT-- AND D.C.O.S FELT WE HAD MADE SIGNIFICANT PROGRESS IN THAT AREA AND THAT THERE WAS SUBSTANTIAL BENEFIT FROM THAT SHARED PROBLEM SOLVING. ON THE SECOND ISSUE IN TERMS OF SLOWING DOWN THE PROCESS, WE CLEARLY GOT MIXED INPUT. A NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS NOTED THAT A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT ROUTINE BUSINESS PROCESSES HAD BEEN SLOWED DOWN. SOME FELT THERE WAS NO BENEFIT GAINED FROM THE ADDED REVIEW. OTHERS FELT THERE WAS SIGNIFICANT BENEFIT GAINED FROM THE ADDED REVIEW THAT LED TO THE SLOWING DOWN OF THE PROCESS. SO IT MAY DEPEND ON INDIVIDUALS' PERSPECTIVES OR IT MAY DEPEND ON WHETHER THE OUTCOME BECAME MORE OR LESS FAVORABLE FROM THEIR OWN PERSONAL VIEWPOINT. BUT CERTAINLY THE INPUT THERE WAS MIXED.

SUP. MOLINA: SO AS FAR AS DIRECTION FOR HOW WE WOULD DO FOLLOW UP, YOU'RE WAITING FOR THE BOARD TO PUT THAT TOGETHER AND GIVE DIRECTION. I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS THAT MIGHT BE HELPFUL, AND AGAIN, ONLY A SUGGESTION, IS FOR MAYBE THE BOARD, YOUR BOARD, TO DISCUSS WHAT IT WOULD RECOMMEND. I KNOW YOU'VE PUT IN A SET OF RECOMMENDATIONS. I THINK THAT'S A GOOD THING. AND I THINK THAT THOSE ARE SOMETHING THAT PROBABLY SHOULD BE ADOPTED OR ASK FOR THE C.A.O. TO FOLLOW THROUGH ON SOME OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE. BECAUSE I THINK THEY'LL PROVIDE FURTHER CLARIFICATION, WHICH I THINK IS A GOOD THING. BUT I'M WONDERING IF YOU'VE LOOKED AT WHAT KIND OF ROLE YOU SHOULD PLAY IN CONTINUING TO DO THAT KIND OF EVALUATION. WHAT I'M SUGGESTING IS WHAT KIND OF ROLE THE E&E COMMISSION SHOULD PLAY AS IT LOOKS AT THIS SYSTEM AGAIN. ONE OF THE THINGS I NOTED THIS YEAR, OR WHEN WE WERE STARTING TO PUT THIS ALL TOGETHER, IS THAT WE HAD A VERY TIGHT TIMEFRAME IN WHICH WE HAD TO DO EVERYTHING. AND IT FELT LIKE IF YOU'RE GOING TO RUSH US TO MAKE PUT IT ON THE BALLOT WITHOUT US REALLY HAVING A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF HOW FUNCTIONAL THIS IS FOR US. AND WHILE AGAIN I THINK THERE'S GREAT FUNCTION IN IT NOW I JUST THINK THAT IT WOULDN'T HURT TO PROVIDE THE KIND OF CLARIFICATION SO IT'S FUNCTIONAL FOR EVERY ONE, DEPARTMENT HEADS, THE C.A.O.'S OFFICE, CERTAINLY US AND OUR DEPUTIES, SO THAT THERE IS BETTER-- THAT EVERYBODY HAS A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING, WE'RE ON THE SAME PAGE, SO THAT IF WE'RE GOING TO PUT SOMETHING ON THE BALLOT IN THE FUTURE, WE HAVE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF EXACTLY WHERE WE'RE GOING. ALL OF THESE THINGS THAT WE DID, WHEN WE ADOPTED THE MOTION LAST TIME, THERE WAS REPORT, A STUDY, THERE WAS LONG DISCUSSIONS, BUT I DO REMEMBER THAT AT, OUR INVOLVEMENT WAS MORE ON THE CONSTITUENT SERVICES, WHICH I THINK HAS WORKED VERY, VERY WELL. IT WAS SO-- MAYBE BECAUSE IT WAS BETTER DEFINED, OR I DON'T KNOW. BUT IT JUST SEEMED TO BE VERY WELL-DEFINED. AND MAYBE THAT'S WHAT IT TAKES. I THINK THAT IT MIGHT BE WORTHWHILE-- I AM NOT GOING TO MAKE A MOTION OR ANYTHING-- BUT FOR YOU TO DISCUSS WHAT KIND OF ROLE YOU SEE YOURSELVES PLAYING IN SOME OF THOSE AREAS AS TO AN ADDITIONAL REPORT, AN ADDENDUM, A REVIEW, A RE-REVIEW, A SPECIFIC TARGET OF ISSUES THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO LOOK AT AS COMPARED TO THE WHOLE THING. SO I'M JUST SUGGESTING THAT. IT'S CERTAINLY NOT ANY MOTION I WOULD MAKE NOW. BUT I THANK YOU FOR THE REPORT. IT WAS VERY HELPFUL. BUT I DO THINK THE OTHER PART OF IT, THE LANGUAGE THING THAT WE'RE ALL KIND OF ON THE SAME PAGE AND KNOW WHAT WE'RE SAYING WHEN WE'RE COMMENTING ON SOMETHING THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE SAME THING. BECAUSE SOMETIMES THAT GETS MISINTERPRETED.

SUP. BURKE, CHAIR: SUPERVISOR KNABE? I'M SORRY, IN RESPONSE?
JONATHAN FURMAN: IN RESPONSE TO SUPERVISOR ANTONOVICH'S PRIOR QUESTIONS ABOUT COMPARING THE CURRENT OPERATION TO THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS, I THINK ONCE YOU'VE PUT THE PROCESS IN PLACE FOR A YEAR, PEOPLE THEN HAVE A STRONGER UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THE DESIGN ACTUALLY MEANT IS HAPPENING? WHEREAS SOMETIMES THE LANGUAGE IN THE ORIGINAL PAPERS CAN HAVE DIFFERENT MEANINGS TO DIFFERENT PEOPLE. GOING BACK TO OUR RECOMMENDATION NUMBER 3 ON THE ROLE OF THE DEPUTY C.E.O.S, I THINK THE SAME LANGUAGE IN THE ORIGINAL BRIEFING PAPERS MIGHT HAVE BEEN INTERPRETED RATHER DIFFERENTLY BY DIFFERENT MEMBERS OF THE BOARD AND LED TO DIFFERENT EXPECTATIONS. AND THE DIFFERENCE IN EXPECTATIONS OF THE ROLES FOR THOSE DEPUTY C.E.O.S I THINK HAS BEEN ONE OF THE AREAS OF CONFLICT. SO PERHAPS NOW, AFTER A YEAR OF EXPERIENCING IT AND PERHAPS COMING TO SEE HOW THEY ACTUALLY ARE OPERATING, GOING BACK TO THE ORIGINAL JOB DESCRIPTIONS OR NEW JOB DESCRIPTIONS TO HELP CLARIFY A COMMON SET OF EXPECTATIONS WILL HELP US MAKE SOME PROGRESS IN THAT AREA AND ADDRESS SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT WERE APPARENT.

C.E.O. FUJIOKA: IF I MAY REAL QUICKLY ON THAT NOTE, SINCE IT WAS MENTIONED SEVERAL TIMES ABOUT THE ROLE OF THE D.C.O., WHAT I'D ASK IS THAT WE MODIFY THAT RECOMMENDATION SLIGHTLY TO RE-VISIT THE ROLE OF ALL PARTICIPANTS, WHETHER IT'S MYSELF, DEPARTMENT HEADS, IT COULD BE BOARD STAFF, DEPARTMENT STAFF BELOW THE DEPARTMENT HEADS, D.C.O.S OF COURSE, THAT'S AN ABSOLUTE FOCUS, BUT WE SHOULD-- I WOULD TAKE THE ORDINANCE AND RE-VISIT THE ENTIRE ORDINANCE AND LOOK AT WHETHER OR NOT THE INITIAL VISION WAS MET. AND IF IT WASN'T MET-- BECAUSE A LOT OF WORK, HONESTLY-- I WASN'T HERE, BUT I UNDERSTAND A TON OF WORK WAS COMMITTED TO DEVELOPING THAT ORDINANCE. SO WE SHOULD MAKE THAT COMPARISON AND WE SHOULD REVIEW IT. THE LAST COMMENT I'D HAVE IS THAT I KNOW THERE WAS A STATEMENT MADE WITH RESPECT TO THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE STRUCTURE, AND, YET, IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THE COST WAS DISCUSSED AT LENGTH AND IT WASN'T A SURPRISE. BUT THE ONE THING THAT I INTEND TO DO THROUGH THE BUDGET PROCESS, I CAN DO IT SEPARATELY, IF YOU LIKE, BECAUSE I'M ABLE NOW TO IDENTIFY SOME ABSOLUTE SAVINGS WE'VE ACHIEVED THROUGH THIS COLLABORATIVE, COORDINATED EFFORT AND ALSO SOME EFFICIENCIES WE'VE ACHIEVED AND WILL REALIZE THROUGH THIS UPCOMING BUDGET YEAR, AND I'M ABSOLUTELY CONFIDENT THAT WHAT WE'VE ACHIEVED THROUGH OUR SAVINGS OR EFFICIENCIES WILL FAR OUTWEIGH THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS INITIAL EFFORT.

SUP. BURKE, CHAIR: BEFORE I CALL ON SUPERVISOR KNABE, ACTUALLY THIS IS YOUR ANNIVERSARY, RIGHT?
C.E.O. FUJIOKA: MONDAY WAS MY ONE YEAR ANNIVERSARY. [APPLAUSE.] IT HAS BEEN A YEAR. I STARTED WITH ALL BLACK HAIR. [LAUGHTER.] I'VE NOTICED THAT. I'M TRYING TO AVOID MY FACIAL TWITCH, THOUGH. OTHERWISE IT'S BEEN A WONDERFUL YEAR. AND MY APPRECIATION FIRST GOES TO, OF COURSE, MY OFFICE, BUT THEN OF COURSE TO EACH BOARD OFFICE. IT'S BEEN A WONDERFUL YEAR.
SUP. BURKE, CHAIR: AND I THINK AS PART OF THAT, AT THE END OF ONE YEAR, WE'VE ALL HAD ORDINARY, WE WOULD HAVE TIME TO EVALUATE, WE MIGHT WANT TO SET A CLOSED SESSION WHERE WE COULD HAVE THAT KIND OF DISCUSSION.
C.E.O. FUJIOKA: WONDERFUL.
SUP. BURKE, CHAIR: IS THAT AGREEABLE WITH EVERYONE? THAT WE DO THAT? MAYBE NEXT WEEK'S CLOSED SESSION, IF EVERYONE'S GOING TO BE HERE?
SUP. ANTONOVICH: I'M NOT HERE NEXT WEEK. AFTER, BUT THE WEEK AFTER. TWO WEEKS.
SUP. BURKE, CHAIR: IN TWO WEEKS? ALL RIGHT. SO I'LL SET THAT UP AS A CLOSED SESSION ITEM. OKAY. SUPERVISOR KNABE?

SUP. KNABE: YEAH, I JUST HAD A FEW THOUGHTS AGAIN TO EVERYONE ON THE COMMISSION. I APPRECIATE IT. IT'S A GREAT REPORT. AND I ALWAYS THINK THEY'RE GREAT REPORTS IF I AGREE WITH MOST OF IT. SO BEGIN WITH THAT THEORY. BUT I THINK IN ADDITION TO THE THANKS, AS SUPERVISOR MOLINA HAD MENTIONED ABOUT LANGUAGE, ONE OF THE LANGUAGE SITUATIONS THAT REALLY BOTHERS ME IS, QUOTE UNQUOTE, "THE ADDED REVIEW". THAT CERTAINLY WASN'T IN MY THOUGHT PROCESS IN CREATING THIS NEW FORM OF GOVERNANCE WAS ADDED REVIEW. I THINK WE LOOKED AT IT SOMEWHAT DIFFERENTLY AND SORT OF EXPEDITING CERTAIN THINGS FROM AN OPERATIONAL STANDPOINT SO THAT WE COULD DEAL MORE WITH POLICY ISSUES. I ALSO THINK THAT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE TRIED TO LOOK AT-- AND I'M VERY THANKFUL THIS BOARD MADE THE DECISION TO DO THIS BY ORDINANCE VERSUS RUSHING TO JUDGMENT TO PUT IT ON A CHARTER. AND IN MY PARTICULAR MIND, IT MAY NEVER BE-- I MAY NEVER SUPPORT PUTTING IT ON A BALLOT UNTIL WE GET THROUGH ALL THIS BECAUSE I THINK IT'S GOING TO TAKE A LOT OF WORK. THERE'S STILL DEPARTMENT HEADS OUT THERE THAT HAVE BEEN HIRED BY ALL OF US VERSUS THE C.E.O. I MEAN, THIS PROCESS IS STILL GROWING AND WE NEED TO LOOK AT HOW IT MANAGES ITSELF. I DO HAVE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THE POSITION. I WAS SOMEWHAT SURPRISED, AND HOPEFULLY YOU'LL BE ABLE TO ISOLATE THINGS THAT WE DO HAVE SOME SAVINGS AND DO HAVE SOME EFFICIENCIES THAT HAVE BEEN CREATED OUT OF THIS. BUT ON THE OTHER HAND I KNOW THAT ONE OF THE THINGS WHEN WE DISCUSSED THIS ORIGINALLY WAS TO BE ABLE TO PUSH THE DECISION MAKING OUT QUICKER, AND AS SUPERVISOR MOLINA MENTIONED AGAIN, THE LANGUAGE SITUATION IS SORT OF A FILTERING PROCESS. WHAT I SEE HAPPENING FROM TIME TO TIME IS THINGS GET BOGGED DOWN INSIDE THE DEPUTY C.E.O. POSITION AND NOT PUSHING IT OUT. AND THE DEPARTMENT HEADS ARE EITHER FROZEN OR THERE'S AN INABILITY TO MAKE A DECISION. AND I THINK THAT'S AN IMPORTANT PART OF THIS PROCESS IS THE FILTERING, THE PUSHING OUT, THE EXPEDITING OF A LOT OF THESE NON POLICY BUT VERY IMPORTANT OPERATIONAL ISSUES. AND SO HOPEFULLY AS WE MASSAGE THIS ENTIRE ORDINANCE, THAT WE CAN CONTINUE TO DEAL WITH THAT. AND I KNOW, TOO, I MEAN OBVIOUSLY YOU WERE NOT HERE WHEN DAVID PUT THIS TOGETHER. WE VALUE YOUR INPUT AS WELL, TOO. AND AGAIN LAST STATEMENT MADE, I THINK AN IMPORTANT PART OF THIS REVIEW IS TO LOOK AT THE ORDINANCE ITSELF AND TO SEE WHETHER OR NOT IT FITS WHAT WE REALLY THOUGHT IT WAS GOING TO FIT AT THAT PARTICULAR TIME, WHETHER THE ORDINANCE NEEDS TO BE CHANGED TO SORT OF FREE THINGS UP, WHATEVER IT MAY BE. BUT I THINK WE NEED TO LOOK AT EVERYTHING ON THE TABLE. BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, I STILL THINK, AND YOUR REPORT KIND OF SAYS IT, WHILE THERE MAY BE SOME AREAS OF FINE-TUNING OR MAYBE TO LOOK AT IT AGGRESSIVELY IN CERTAIN AREAS, IT'S WORKING. AND I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT, AS WELL, TOO.

C.E.O. FUJIOKA: I NEED TO COMMENT ON THAT, THAT REVIEW ISSUE. BECAUSE CANDIDLY, OVER THIS PAST YEAR IT'S BEEN SOMETHING THAT DIDN'T MAKE A WHOLE LOT OF SENSE FROM MY PERSPECTIVE. AND SO WITHIN THE LAST MONTH, WE'VE TAKEN THE BOARD LETTER PROCESS AND WE'VE SENT IT BACK TO THE DEPARTMENTS TO ELIMINATE THAT, THAT LINEAR REVIEW AND MAKE IT MORE ON A PARALLEL BASIS. BECAUSE FOR THE DEPARTMENT HEADS AFTER THIS YEAR OF WORKING WITH US AND WE CAN UNDERSTAND WHAT THE BOARD NEEDS TO SEE IN A LETTER, UNDERSTANDS WHAT KIND OF INFORMATION WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE, WHETHER IT'S MYSELF OR STAFF IN THE C.E.O.'S OFFICE, ABOUT A MONTH AGO, AND I MET WITH THE DEPARTMENT HEADS SEVERAL WEEKS AGO, WE MADE THAT DECISION TO PUSH THAT BACK-- NOT PUSH IT BACK, BUT TO ELIMINATE THAT SECOND LAYER OF REVIEW AND ASK DEPARTMENTS TO REPORT THE INFORMATION DIRECTLY TO THE BOARD BECAUSE ALL OF YOU, AND THIS REPORT HIGHLIGHTS IT, YOU MADE THE COMMENT, SUPERVISOR ANTONOVICH AND MOLINA HAS MADE THE COMMENT, THAT EXTRA LAYER OF REVIEW ONLY BOGGED DOWN THE PROCESS. BUT WE'VE MADE THAT CHANGE ALREADY. THAT WAS ONE OF THE CHANGES I MENTIONED EARLIER.
SUP. KNABE: I'M GLAD TO HEAR THAT. BECAUSE TO CONTINUE TO TALK ABOUT ADDED REVIEW, I DON'T THINK THAT WAS THE INTENT OF THE PROCESS, WAS TO ADD ADDITIONAL BUREAUCRACY TO WHATEVER OPERATIONAL DECISION. BUT I THINK, TOO, WHATEVER ROLE THAT THE COMMISSION WILL PLAY IN SORT OF UPDATING THEIR REPORT AND LOOKING AT WHAT'S GOING ON, I DON'T THINK IT HURTS TO TALK TO PREVIOUS C.E.O.S. I KNOW MICHAEL MENTIONED MR. HUFFORD AND MR. HUFFORD WAS A STRONG A ADVOCATE OF THE C.A.O. HAVING THE ABILITY TO HIRE AND FIRE. JIM HANKLA WAS ANOTHER ONE THAT WAS A STRONG ADVOCATE. SO IT MIGHT JUST BE GOOD TO LOOK AT THEIR INPUT. THEY WERE-- ALL HAD STRONG OPINIONS.

SUP. BURKE, CHAIR: I ALSO WANT TO THANK YOU. I THINK YOU DID AN EXCELLENT JOB ON THE REPORT. I DO AGREE WITH MOST OF THE THINGS IN THE REPORT. PARTICULARLY ONE OF THE INTERESTS THAT I HAVE IS IN INTERDEPARTMENTAL COORDINATION AND COOPERATION AND GETTING OVER THE PROBLEM OF BUDGET ALLOCATIONS WHEN YOU BRING TWO DEPARTMENTS TOGETHER IN ORDER TO MOVE FORWARD WITH A PARTICULAR PROJECT OR A GOAL. SO I DO THINK THAT THAT HAS BEEN VERY POSITIVE AND YOU IDENTIFIED THAT SO WELL. PART OF THE DIFFERENCE, I THINK, IN TERMS OF POLICY DISCUSSIONS IS THE DISCUSSION OF POLICY ISSUES THAT WE RAISED INDIVIDUALLY BEFORE THE BOARD RATHER THAN AT GENERAL BRAINSTORMING SESSIONS. AND I THINK THAT'S THE WORD, POLICY WAS AS IT APPEARS IN THIS DOCUMENT, APPEARS TO BE A TIME SET ASIDE FOR BRAINSTORMING, ALBEIT ON ONE PARTICULAR ISSUE, ONE PARTICULAR CONCERN, OR IN GOALS OR A NUMBER OF THINGS LIKE THAT. AND THAT'S ALWAYS A VERY POSITIVE THING. WE'RE ALWAYS RUSHED. SO WE DON'T NECESSARILY SET ASIDE THAT KIND OF TIME FOR JUST STRATEGY, GOALS, EVALUATIONS. AND WHEN WE DO DO STRATEGY, IT GETS DOWN TO TECHNICAL ISSUES. AND RATHER THAN THE BROAD ISSUES IN TERMS OF POLICY GOALS. SO I SEE THE DISTINCTION HERE. OBVIOUSLY WE SPEND A LOT OF TIME ON POLICY. THAT'S ALL BASICALLY WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE DOING. WE'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE MICROMANAGING. BUT IN TERMS OF BRAINSTORMING, WE REALLY HAVE NOT DONE A GREAT DEAL OF THAT IN THE USUAL TERM OF POLICY DISCUSSION. I DO THINK THAT YOU HAVE BEEN ABLE TO IDENTIFY SOME OF OUR CONCERNS VERY WELL. AND I FEEL VERY COMFORTABLE WITH THE REPORT AND WANT TO COMMEND YOU ON THE KIND OF RESEARCH YOU DID, THE KIND OF COMMUNICATION YOU WERE ABLE TO ESTABLISH WITH BOARD MEMBERS AND STAFF AND THOSE PEOPLE THAT YOU INTERVIEWED. AND I DO FEEL THAT THIS REPORT IS ONE THAT REFLECTS SOME THINGS THAT NEEDED TO BE POINTED OUT AND EVALUATED. AND MAYBE IT IS APPROPRIATE FOR YOU TO GO FORWARD AND TO LOOK AT ADDITIONAL ISSUES. AND I ASSUME THAT THAT'S GOING TO COME UP AT SOME FUTURE TIME. BUT I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT I FEEL COMFORTABLE. I WOULD VOTE FOR THIS REPORT. I THINK THE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE WONDERFUL AND IT PINPOINTS ISSUES THAT WE NEED TO DISCUSS. SUPERVISOR YAROSLAVSKY.
SUP. YAROSLAVSKY: THANK YOU. I ALSO WANT TO COMMEND THE COMMISSION ON WHAT I THOUGHT WAS A VERY BALANCED, DISPASSIONATE REPORT AND I THOUGHT IT IDENTIFIED LARGELY BOTH THE SUCCESSES AND THE DEFICIENCIES IN THE PROCESS AS THE COUNTY FAMILY AT THIS LEVEL AND AT THE DEPARTMENT HEAD LEVEL HAVE EXPRESSED. AND THERE HAVE BEEN PLUSES AND MINUSES. SO I THOUGHT YOU CAPTURED IT REAL WELL. I JUST WANT TO MAKE A COUPLE OF COMMENTS, JUST FOR THE RECORD. I'M NOT SO SURE THAT THE ORDINANCE LANGUAGE ITSELF IS THE PROBLEM. IT MAY DESERVE TO BE CHANGED OR TWEAKED OR MODIFIED. BUT IT'S HOW IT'S BEING IMPLEMENTED THAT'S REALLY THE PROBLEM OR THE ISSUE. MAYBE A PROBLEM FOR SOME AND AN ISSUE, AND NOT A PROBLEM FOR OTHERS. BUT I DO THINK YOU CAPTURED FROM JUST ABOUT EVERYBODY THE ISSUE OF THE MANAGEMENT LAYER RIGHT UNDER THE C.E.O. AND THIS HAS BEEN A SOURCE OF GREAT FRUSTRATION TO ME. AND I APPRECIATE THAT MR. FUJIOKA HAS MADE MOVES TO MODIFY THAT TWICE, ONCE A FEW MONTHS AGO AND I THINK AS A RESULT OF THIS OR MAYBE COINCIDENTALLY WITH THIS MADE ANOTHER MOVE. THE KEY IS GOING TO BE IN HOW THAT'S IMPLEMENTED. AND IT'S AN ISSUE THAT I'M GOING TO BE A LOT MORE COMFORTABLE DISCUSSING WITH YOU IN THE CLOSED SESSION WE HAVE THAN IN HERE. BUT I THINK IT'S ALL IN THE WAY THAT IT'S IMPLEMENTED AND RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN DEPARTMENT HEADS AND THE D.C.E.O.S, WHAT THE ROLE OF THE D.C.E.O. WAS. I SAID TO MR. FUJIOKA SOME MONTHS AGO PRIVATELY, AND I'LL SAY IT HERE, THAT THERE IS NO WAY IN THE WORLD THAT ANY ONE OF THESE D. C.E.O.S, DEPUTY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERS, CAN TAKE THE PLACE OF ONE OF THE DEPARTMENT HEADS THAT ARE IN THEIR CLUSTER LET ALONE ALL OF THEM. WE HIRE DEPARTMENT HEADS AT 180, 200, 250, $300,000 A YEAR IN THE CASE OF THE HEALTH DIRECTOR, IT'S AT LEAST THAT MUCH. AND WE OUGHT TO GET THE BEST HEALTH DIRECTOR AND THE BEST I.S.D. DIRECTOR AND THE BEST DEPARTMENT HEAD THAT WE CAN GET AND THEN LET HIM MANAGE. THE GREAT SOURCE OF FRUSTRATION THAT I'VE HEARD FROM DEPARTMENT HEADS-- AND I'VE HEARD FROM A LOT OF THEM. I TALK TO A LOT OF THEM-- IS THAT THEY FEEL, IN MANY CASES, THEY'RE BEING MICROMANAGED. AND I THINK WE'RE GOING TO INCREASINGLY FIND IT DIFFICULT TO ATTRACT GOOD PEOPLE TO JOBS IF THEY FEEL THAT THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE FREE TO RUN THEIR DEPARTMENT. IT'S NOT THAT THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE OVERSEEN, AND THE ROLE OF THE D.C.E.O., AS I RECALL, WHAT I THOUGHT WAS THE PURPOSE OF IT, WAS FOR CERTAIN, AN INTERDEPARTMENTAL COORDINATING FUNCTION AND ALSO JUST AN OVERSIGHT FUNCTION. NOT A MICROMANAGING FUNCTION. I THINK THAT WE'RE GETTING AWAY FROM THAT NOW. THERE'S A GOOD TRAJECTORY NOW. AND THAT'S AN ISSUE THAT I THINK REALLY NEEDS TO BE FOCUSED ON QUICKLY BEFORE THE CULTURE IS DEVELOPED THAT IS REALLY UNHEALTHY. AND I THINK SOME REAL FOCUS AND ATTENTION HAS TO BE GIVEN TO THAT. THE SECOND THING I WANTED TO SAY WAS-- AND THIS HAS COME UP OVER A PERIOD-- AS A RESULT OF THE BUDGET PROCESS, I WAS NOT KEENLY AWARE UNTIL THE BUDGET PROCESS WENT INTO EFFECT, THIS DIDN'T EVEN COME UP IN MY INTERVIEW WITH YOU, THAT BEFORE MR. FUJIOKA GOT HERE, WHEN MR. JANSSEN WAS IMPLEMENTING THIS, AND ACTUALLY I REVIEWED THE DOCUMENT LAST NIGHT, THAT THERE WAS A MOVE TO SHIFT QUITE A BIT OF-- THE LION'S SHARE OF THE BUDGET SECTION OF YOUR OFFICE, AGAIN, THIS IS BEFORE YOU GOT THERE, TO STAFF THE D.C.E.O.S AND THE CLUSTERS. AND I THINK I UNDERSTAND WHY THAT WAS DONE. IT WAS DONE IN ORDER TO MINIMIZE COST AND TO BETTER UTILIZE TAKING PEOPLE OUT OF THIS BULLPEN AND PUT THEM ON THE MOUND OVER HERE, WHATEVER THE REASON WAS. BUT IN THE PROCESS, I DIDN'T REALIZE AT THE TIME, WAS THAT THIS WAS ALL COMING, AT LEAST LARGELY COMING, OUT OF BUDGET SHOP IN YOUR OFFICE. AND I THINK THAT'S AN ISSUE THAT YOU OUGHT TO TAKE A LOOK AT GOING FORWARD, THAT IS NOT WHETHER YOU NEEDED MORE SUPPORT FOR THE CLUSTERS. THAT CLEARLY IS THE CASE. BUT I THINK YOU NEED TO BE SURE THAT YOU HAVE ENOUGH SUPPORT IN YOUR FINANCE SECTION. BECAUSE WHAT'S HAPPENED-- AND I THINK EVERY BUDGET DEPUTY, AT LEAST WHAT I'VE HEARD IN THE MEETINGS THEY'VE HAD, HAS EXPRESSED THIS IN ONE ITERATION OR ANOTHER, IS THAT A BUDGET OFFICER OR A BUDGET BUREAUCRAT IN YOUR OFFICE WHO IS ESSENTIALLY BEEN IN THE PAST, AS LONG AS I'VE BEEN HERE, KIND OF A LOOSELY ANALOGOUS TO THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, THEY ARE THE ONES THAT KEEP US STRAIGHT ABOUT WHAT'S AVAILABLE, WHAT ISN'T AVAILABLE, WHAT'S BEING DOUBLE-COUNTED, WHAT ISN'T BEING DOUBLE-COUNTED, WHAT LATEST IDEA FROM SOME CRAZY DEPARTMENT HEAD IS JUST ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS AND UNAFFORDABLE AND WHAT ISN'T. BUT I THINK THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF THAT SHOP HAS BEEN MOVED TO THE CLUSTERS. AND I THINK WHAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT IS STARTING TO SURFACE IS THAT THOSE INDIVIDUALS OVER TIME WILL BECOME ADVOCATES FOR THEIR CLUSTERS AND NOT BACKSTOPS FOR THE FINANCES OF THE COUNTY. NOW, THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH HAVING PEOPLE WHO ARE ADVOCATES FOR THE CLUSTERS, BUT THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG IF YOU HAVE ADVOCATES FOR THE CLUSTERS AND NOBODY-- NO TRUTH TELLER BACK HERE THAT SAYS "HEY, BILL, JOE IS SAYING SPEND A BILLION DOLLARS ON X, BUT WE DON'T HAVE A BILLION DOLLARS." AND YOU NEED TO HAVE AN EQUILIBRIUM IN YOUR SHOP THAT HAS BEEN SOMEWHAT LOST. I'M REALLY LOOKING AHEAD. I'M CONCERNED THAT OVER TIME, IT WILL BE LOST. YOU'RE LOSING IT NOW. SO I JUST WANT TO CALL THAT OUT TO YOUR ATTENTION. I THINK YOU NEED TO LOOK AT YOUR BUDGET SECTION, MISS LIZZARI'S SHOP IN PARTICULAR. I THINK THAT SHOP HAS DONE GREAT WORK OVER THE TIME THAT I'VE BEEN HERE. IT DOESN'T MEAN I ALWAYS AGREED WITH HER OR WITH HER PEOPLE, BUT AT LEAST THERE WAS SOMEBODY IN THIS COUNTY ORGANIZATION THAT SAYS "HEY, YOU DON'T HAVE THAT KIND OF MONEY TO DO THAT KIND OF THING." THEY'VE SAID IT TO ME AND THEY'VE SAID IT TO DEPARTMENT HEADS. AND WE TRIED TO RECONCILE. BUT IF YOU DON'T HAVE THAT, YOU FIND YOURSELF IN A VORTEX PRETTY DARN QUICK.


1   2   3   4   5   6   7


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

    Main page