Wieder Expresses Discontent Over Board’s Consent Calendar : County government: Supervisor wants a review of the practice of approving, without discussion, dozens of substantive matters on a single vote.

Challenging an age-old practice in Orange County government, Supervisor Harriett M. Wieder is questioning how the Board of Supervisors does much of its business after it approved a $37.7-million contract this week with no public discussion.

At issue is the use of the supervisors’ “consent calendar”--the mechanism that allows the board to approve dozens of county items at once with a single vote at its meeting each Tuesday, usually in a matter of seconds.

Wieder said in an interview Friday that she is bothered because substantive issues that should get more attention are instead left undiscussed by the board, and the guidelines appear “nebulous” for determining which items are voted on individually and which ones are consigned to the consent calendar.

“Some things can go right through the cracks,” she complained.

Wieder said she wants to find better ways of using the consent calendar and has asked county staff members to look at the issue.

Several community activists applauded Wieder for bringing attention to befuddling governmental procedures that they say have often kept the public in the dark.

“I don’t personally like Wieder, but I commend her for this,” said Ray Harbour, a former board member of the Taxpayers Action Network of Orange County.

Clashing bitterly with the board last year, TAN complained that supervisors had tried to “slide through” a 4% pay raise for themselves by placing it on the consent calendar with little notice. The group later succeeded through public pressure in getting the board to rescind the raise.

“There’s a lot of things flying through on that budget that even the supervisors don’t ever pick up on,” Harbour said. “And if (members of the public) don’t know the system, they get bypassed.”

Bob Bennyhoff, an Orange city activist who attends board meetings regularly, added that “you have to stay on your toes to keep up with what goes on there. . . . I think (the consent calendar) is a device they use when they have something that could be a hot potato.”

But some county officials said they were puzzled over why Wieder--a 13-year veteran of the board--was raising the issue now. They also pointed out that both the public and board members are always free to “pull” any individual item on the board’s agenda for comment.

Supervisor Thomas F. Riley said that when Wieder first raised her concerns at Tuesday’s meeting, “I was kind of surprised since she’s been on the board so many years. . . . I thought the procedure was pretty well established, and I don’t see any need to change it now.”

The consent calendar has been used in county government for at least two decades to speed the board’s review and approval of the myriad contracts, appointments, reports and other matters that come before it, officials say.

During her time as a supervisor, Wieder said, she has long been concerned about occasional inconsistencies in its use, but “the 2-by-4 that got my attention” was a vote the board took Tuesday on a computer contract.

As part of a single vote that also included 72 unrelated items, the board approved a three-year, $37.7-million renewal of a computer contract with a Georgia firm. There was no discussion before the vote.

The contract ensures that Martin Marrietta Technical Services Inc., first awarded the contract in 1985, will continue to operate the county’s Data Center, handling tax bills, paychecks, government aid and a range of other services. While the 1985 contract was put out to bid, the renewal was not.

Wieder said she had wanted to know why the renewal of the contract had not been bid competitively, but she missed her chance to discuss it because she did not realize the item had been placed on the consent calendar at the recommendation of R.A. (Burt) Scott, head of the General Services Agency.

“The whole thing bothered me,” she said. “I want to know how come the department heads have so much latitude.”

Scott referred comment on the issue to County Administrative Officer Ernie Schneider, who said he thinks the consent calendar process “works fine.” With 100 matters or more pending before the board each week for approval, Schneider said, “to take every single item individually would be a tremendous waste of staff time.”

But Schneider added that if Wieder wants to try to make changes in the board’s legislative process, “that’s certainly her prerogative.”