Law Would Increase CAO’s Power

A long-running push to strengthen the hand of the county’s top administrator could take a bold step forward Tuesday when supervisors consider a new law that would significantly increase the powers of that office.

Supervisors are expected to put into writing the powers that their top administrator should have, including the ability to hire and fire department heads and serve as official spokesman on Ventura County policy.

Under the new guidelines, the chief administrator would also have to be told in advance of all meetings between department heads and supervisors.

“It is a change, and the change comes from the fact that we’ve been through a lot of problems with the department heads and board members circumventing the chief administrator,” Supervisor Frank Schillo said.

“This sort of cleans up all that and gets us back on the right track.”

The changes stem from the resignation last November of former chief administrative officer David Baker, who left his post after only four days on the job. He left behind a blistering letter criticizing the administrator’s position as too weak to be effective.

“It recommits the board to ensuring the strengthening role of chief administrative office,” added Harry Hufford, chief administrator who first proposed the new powers to board members in a June resolution.

That resolution was unanimously passed by board members, who were still stinging from Baker’s resignation letter.

All of the powers recommended in the June resolution are included in the new ordinance. They include limiting Auditor Tom Mahon’s role in fiscal forecasting. Hufford has long argued that such duties should be left to the chief administrator and that Mahon and his staff should narrow their focus to auditing departments and programs.

Hufford already is searching for a financial officer to assume the forecasting duties. That person would answer to the chief administrative officer.

However, the ordinance fails to address several of Baker’s key criticisms.

Among them is that the county has too many elected department heads who are able to bypass the chief administrative officer’s authority. That power-sharing structure hampers the the chief administrator’s ability to effectively control the budget. Hufford said it would require a countywide vote to make any county-elected position, such as auditor, an appointed post.

For that reason, it’s an issue that likely will have to be taken up after Hufford’s scheduled departure in April.

But perhaps the biggest unresolved issue is a special financing agreement enjoyed by the sheriff, district attorney and other public safety chiefs that some say essentially ties the county administrator’s hands on budget decisions.

Hufford said he intends to address the issue in coming weeks.

“That’s a separate subject,” Hufford said. “But I intend to bring a report before the board, hopefully with the cooperation of the district attorney and the sheriff.”

The ordinance is considered the first step in the search for a chief administrative officer to replace Hufford. Supervisors believe the new and clearly defined powers of the position will help attract top candidates.

“We can’t go out and recruit for a new [chief administrator] without him knowing exactly what his position will be,” Schillo said.

So far, county officials have taken no steps to search for Hufford’s replacement, but expect to begin compiling a list of contenders even before Supervisor-elect Steve Bennett takes his seat on the board in January.

Bennett is replacing Susan Lacey, who is retiring as the supervisor in the 1st District.

While most of the supervisors appear to support the new ordinance, Supervisor John Flynn said he is concerned about handing too many duties to the new chief administrator and creating a position more powerful than the elected board. He specifically targeted a section of the proposed ordinance that makes the administrator the county’s official spokesperson.

“The people elected me to tell them what I’m doing,” Flynn said. “I’m responsible to my constituents, not the chief administrator. I just don’t want to go from one extreme to another, so I’ll have to look at that part of the ordinance very carefully.”