[The following column, penned my yours truly, appears on the Opinion Page of the Orange County Register today. I’m reprinting it below because, as luck would have it, the column appears the first day that the Register is imposing it’s firewall for readers. Who can fault me for reprinting my own piece? Here is the link to where it resides behind the paywall – Flash]
Jon Fleischman: Orange County doesn’t need an appointed CEO
O.C. actually run by 5 elected supervisors, who need more of a chief of staff.
O.C. actually run by 5 elected supervisors, who need more of a chief of staff.
By JON FLEISCHMAN / For the Register
The county of Orange for more than eight months has been without a county executive officer. But our county government has not been without leadership.
Unlike the private sector, where a corporate CEO will often answer to a part-time board of directors, providing perhaps only the broadest of oversight, the Orange County CEO answers to a Board of Supervisors that is anything but part time. All five supervisors make executive salaries, and each has an office budget in excess of $1 million – taxpayer investment in this elected leadership function of county government is substantial. It is unquestionably the job of the board to set all policy for the county, and to provide direct oversight of the CEO (among other positions).
It is important for the supervisors to keep this in perspective as they refocus their efforts on finding a new CEO. The reality is that we have a “strong board” form of government, and it is important that the board find someone whose role it is to implement its policies and directives.
It was always my impression that the most-recent CEO, Tom Mauk, saw himself as a “strong CEO” – who was comfortable driving his own agenda, in the absence of specific direction from the board. Then, again, if you look at Mauk’s compensation, it was high enough that it might have carried the implication that the board wanted him to be in charge.
I would suggest to this full-time board of supervisors that the model to be emulated involves more of a county “chief of staff” (not to be confused with the individual supervisors’ staff chiefs). This individual would feel very comfortable understanding that it is the elected board, not him or her, that “runs the county.”
This person would understand, and agree with, the philosophical underpinnings of the board. Certainly, this individual would sit atop the county’s sizeable bureaucracy, but, not unlike the White House chief of staff, he or she would have a significant number of direct-report senior staff to aid in the execution of the job.
It is worthy of note that the annual compensation for the chief of staff to the president of the United States is just north of $170,000.
So, where to go from here? The supervisors must have another public discussion about what they envision for this CEO position – most notably it’s responsibilities and authority in the context of a county run by a full-time, elected board. I would encourage an emphasis on hiring someone whose job it is to “make the trains run on time” and take their cues, whenever possible, from the supervisors.
Next, I would again open up the application process, setting out not only a clear description of where a CEO fits in a “strong board” form of government, but also setting out a realistic compensation structure, given this reality. It is likely that many more people would apply for the position as more narrowly defined, to include not only qualified applicants within the county ranks, but perhaps also sparking some interest from the private sector.
If the Board of Supervisors wants to continue to look for a “strong CEO” for the county, I would humbly suggest that they accompany this with a ballot measure suggesting a shift to part-time supervisors.
Jon Fleischman of Dove Canyon publishes the FlashReport.org, a website on California politics.