County Leaders Get Harsh Evaluation in Study for Grand Jury

In a highly critical review of Orange County government, four college professors have concluded that the Board of Supervisors fails to act on “big picture” issues important to the whole county and concentrates too much on district concerns.

The detailed 30-page report was commissioned by the Orange County Grand Jury, which is studying the county government, and circulated to the supervisors for comment.

“Many of the problems in Orange County are symptoms of a fundamental organizational weakness--the inability to take decisive action now to deal with persistent and inevitable challenges that the county will face in the near future (three to five years),” the report states.

Problems Well Known

“Specific examples of such problems are well known and easy to document: e.g., inadequate jail space, overburdened courts, traffic congestion, airport, pollution, and controversies over land use and development.

“Less apparent, but still important examples include such social problems as homelessness, the impact of the AIDS epidemic on county health facilities and new federal immigration laws on county social services.”

The report was prepared by Pomona College government professor Karen M. Hult and by psychology professor Mark M. Lipsey and management professors Joseph A. Maciariello and Vijay Sathe, all of Claremont Graduate School.

It was based on personal interviews with about 50 key people in county government, including the five supervisors and their aides, heads of county departments and agencies and staff members. The team also reviewed past grand jury reports and county studies.

The professors wrote: “Some will say that this is the way county governments work--that no action is taken until the problems get so acute and visible that something has to be done to fix them, with state intervention, judicial directive and/or public outrage providing the impetus.

“We disagree with this pessimistic and somewhat cynical view. We believe that the citizens of Orange County, blessed as they are with enormous human talent and financial resources, would like to do better and expect their elected officials to provide the leadership needed to do so.”

The study, titled “The Organizational Effectiveness of County Government in Orange County,” also examines the roles of department and agency leaders, elected and appointed. Among the conclusions:

- There is sufficient planning, but “paper plans are not being translated into action--action today to solve tomorrow’s problems.”

- The supervisors’ need to run for reelection every four years from specific districts “leads to a short-term, NIMBY (not in my backyard) mentality.” “For example,” the professors write, “Where should the needed new jail facility be located? Answer: NIMBY!”

- The county administrative officer “has not been able to do effective long-term policy analysis, planning and control, nor is his office adequately organized and staffed to do so effectively.”

- Although elected county officials do not represent districts but rather the entire county, they fail to counterbalance the district orientation of the supervisors.

- Appointed county department heads reflect the short-term orientation of the elected leadership and have little of the coordination between agencies needed to deal with longer-term issues.

The report concedes that there are “sharp limits” of authority in a county with 26 cities, “each with its own perspectives and powers.” It also notes that many county programs are subject to rules laid down by state and federal governments. The study found, however, that the county government “can serve as a catalyst and provide needed leadership in addressing countywide and regional issues.”

Although Larry Parrish, the county chief administrative officer, has won praise in his two years on the job and has a good staff, the report says, he “has no recognized role or influence in addressing long-term problems in the county.”

But some of the sharpest words are aimed at the supervisors personally.

“Without singling out any specific cases,” the authors wrote, “and while recognizing significant exceptions, one must note that Orange County has not generally received distinguished performance from members of the Board of Supervisors in recent years.

“A disturbing number of them have been indicted for various forms of malfeasance and have brought embarrassment to the county. In addition, though it is more difficult to demonstrate, board members have often not been strong leaders pursuing the public interest effectively in their role as supervisors.”

There have been no indictments against supervisors since the 1970s, and the only two board members in office then, Thomas F. Riley and Harriett M. Wieder, were not involved in those investigations.

The report also says that the supervisors’ pay of $58,906 a year is “woefully low for the caliber of executive required on the board. . . .”

Pay ‘Woefully Low’

It says the supervisors should set explicit policy directives for each department, explain the goals “with regard to their role in the bigger picture,” and link department heads’ pay raises to how well they meet their goals.

Now, according to the study, the relationships between agency and department heads and the supervisors “range from adversarial to wary to virtually non-existent.” Many department heads “report functioning virtually in a policy vacuum; they sense that all the board wants from them is that they run their departments quietly without making any waves.”

The authors conclude that the next grand jury should “keep the spotlight” on the issues raised and that a “blue-ribbon” citizens panel be formed for the same purpose.

“Organizations, like individuals, resist change,” the report says. There will be no change unless a model of the desired organization is created, there is sufficient motivation for the change, and “there is a process for getting from here to there.”