Supervisors Split Office of Clerk-Recorder, Agree to Help Branch

After a highly critical review of County Clerk-Recorder Lee Branch’s operations, the Board of Supervisors on Tuesday voted to split the office and made a behind-the-scenes agreement to give Branch a leg up on potential opponents in the recorder’s race next year.

Tuesday’s action reverses the board’s 1978 vote to combine the two offices in order to save money.

County Administrative Officer Larry Parrish recommended Tuesday’s vote and, according to supervisors’ aides, was a key proponent of the agreement that would involve Branch’s appointment as recorder before the 1986 election..

Parrish told supervisors that little more than one man’s salary has been saved since the 1978 consolidation and the two offices have grown too big for one person to manage efficiently.

Parrish had no cost estimate for adding another elective post and support personnel to county government.

Final approval by the board is expected next week.

Meanwhile, Branch said he expects to resign later this year and be appointed by the supervisors to the then-vacant recorder’s position. That would give Branch the “incumbent” listing on next June’s ballot, an asset in the election.

Branch said that “generally, I have concurrences” from the supervisors that they will appoint him as recorder.

Board Chairman Thomas F. Riley said he felt that if Branch resigned the supervisors would “certainly feel obligated” to appoint him as recorder. Without the guarantee, “I guess he would not resign,” Riley said.

According to a county counsel’s opinion, unless Branch resigns, the supervisors are legally barred from depriving Branch of his authority over either the clerk’s or recorder’s operations until his term of office expires at the end of 1986.

That is because voters elected Branch to serve in the consolidated post and, barring resignation, they are the only ones who can end his role.

The supervisors say they would like the split to take place as soon as possible in order to improve operations in both offices.

However, officials were somewhat at a loss to explain why they would want to give Branch an advantage over potential election opponents when they are unhappy with his performance.

“I’m sure there isn’t a board member sitting up here who doesn’t feel obligated, if we can provide more efficient service and respond to the concerns that have been addressed to us, who wouldn’t jump at it,” Riley said, referring to the agreement with Branch. Riley indicated that the board admires Branch for responding well to strong criticism.

Critical Review

Still reeling from a highly critical management study of his operations made public last March, Branch suggested dividing the two offices in a July 29 letter to Riley.

Branch’s letter cited the critical review, which found Branch partly responsible for poor staff morale, lack of communication with subordinates and unnecessary work backlogs, among other deficiencies.

Branch’s letter stated that most criticism dealt with the clerk’s office, and he also cited a move by Superior Court judges to end Branch’s supervision of the clerks and take control of them directly.

The clerk files and maintains documents for the Superior Court, while the recorder files and maintains documents such as deeds, mortgages and property liens for all real estate in the county.

Parrish, the CAO, recommended that the two offices be split in 1987, after Branch’s term of office expires, or “as soon as possible” if the post becomes vacant.

Benefits for Each Office

“Each office would benefit from having a full-time department head,” Parrish wrote in a letter to county supervisors.

“The 1978 combination was based as much on convenience as on practical considerations, i.e., the recorder retired at that time. . . . This action saved the salary of one department head but had no other apparent cost savings or programmatic justification,” Parrish’s letter stated.

Branch is paid $59,425 a year as clerk-recorder.

County Counsel Adrian Kuyper said that if Branch retained the consolidated post, he would not be listed as “incumbent” in next year’s elections because that position will no longer exist.

If Branch resigns, however, and is appointed by the supervisors as recorder, he will get the “incumbent” designation, which politicians say is helpful in an election.

Branch was assistant recorder in 1978 when the county combined the two offices and the incumbents bowed out.

Branch successfully sought the new office and was reelected in 1982.

Riley said Branch never discussed with him the effect on his running for recorder next year if he were appointed to the post and ran as the incumbent but acknowledged that all politicians “are concerned with our self-preservation” and would make such a factor “part of our considerations.”