Supervisors Vote for Freeze on Hiring Throughout County

With a note of frustration about the county’s continuing financial problems, the Board of Supervisors unanimously voted Tuesday to implement a countywide hiring freeze immediately and stressed that they want the county’s administrators to find ways to avoid such problems in the future.

Although county officials on Monday said hundreds of county employees might be laid off in the next few weeks to balance the 1988-89 budget, the supervisors did not mention the subject at all Tuesday.

Harriett M. Wieder, chairman of the supervisors, complained that the county still has not completed the 5-year financial forecast the supervisors requested during budget hearings last summer.

And Supervisor Gaddi H. Vasquez said he was concerned that the county administrators have failed to cut the county’s work force by 3% as ordered last summer when the county faced a possible budget deficit.

“That has me a bit disturbed because it was a specific board direction,” Vasquez said. “I certainly look forward to seeing that explained more specifically.”

Working on Both Plans

County Administrative Officer Larry Parrish told the supervisors Tuesday that he was still working on both of those plans.

He told Vasquez that a lot of planning has been done on the 3% cut but that putting the reduction into effect has been “more cumbersome than I thought.”

Parrish also told Wieder, “We are working on a system to show your board what is coming in the future.” He attributed the difficulties in forecasting to the “vagaries of our revenue sources,” referring mainly to the inconsistent flow of funds from state and federal grants.

Parrish also made the same points that he made in a letter to the board last week in which he said the hiring freeze was necessary because of a $23-million shortfall in the fiscal year budget.

When the fiscal year started in July, Parrish said, administrators were confident that several financial sources would generate at least enough money to cover the shortfall before December. But, so far, none of the money has been delivered.

Parrish said he will return to the board on Jan. 17 with recommendations for further action, which could include hundreds of layoffs. If no additional money is found, the supervisors have been told that the worst-case scenario would involve the layoff of more than 1,200 employees--almost 10% of the county’s work force.

But Parrish said he was optimistic that the county would receive an additional $12 million under a new program in which the state will assume the cost of operating the county courts.

And he said it is still possible that an agreement can be reached with the county’s Retirement Board that could generate up to $30 million this year.

County officials estimated that the hiring freeze and cutbacks on other costs, such as travel and training, would save the government about $2 million.

“That is not a total solution,” Parrish said. “It is a prudent one. . . . We cannot proceed without some caution,” he told the board.

County department heads said Tuesday that they were uncertain of the impact the hiring freeze would have on their services and exactly where the pinch might occur.

They said Parrish’s office has not yet revealed the guidelines for the freeze, such as whether it would apply only to positions covered by the general fund or whether it might also include positions that are funded from other sources, such as state grants or user fees.

“If it’s only general fund positions, we’ll do all right,” said Ernie Schneider, director of the Environmental Management Agency. “If it’s across the board, then we’re going to experience some real difficulties.”

Parrish did not return phone calls to his office Tuesday.

The board’s vote on the hiring freeze also allows Parrish to decide if some vacancies should be exempt from the order. Several department heads said the effect on their operations would depend on the degree to which Parrish would fill their most critical vacancies.

Wieder also said Tuesday that she has delayed the announcement of an ad hoc committee she proposed to examine the county’s financial future. She had suggested that she would create the committee under her authority as chairman of the board, but Tuesday she said she will seek a vote of the supervisors.

“It should be a board committee,” she said. “I need to get the concurrence of my colleagues.”