1. Understanding my Proposed Reforms for County Government
The County Board had regularly used its Rules of Order and Procedure adopted every two years to change how the Board did its job without amending county ordinance since the mid 90’s. Throughout my six years on the board, I developed a wish list based on my own experience and through discussions with dozens of Board members past and present of change
to the process that would help the board function better as a legislative body. They came to the floor in the fall of 2016.
The reforms proposed changes to Chapter 2 Article II of the County Code and included how the Board organized itself, the process by which the Board would make decisions, the information available for the Board to make decisions, transparency in employment and operations, and how the Chairman could help the Board fulfill the proposed improvements.
As you can see from Section 2-35.1, the amendment was intended to reconcile the old ordinance with Rules of Order and Procedure. The board asked the Chairman to select committees in the old county ordinance passed in 1992. The board had been amending that ordinance using its powers to pass new Rules of Order and Procedure to say the majority and minority caucuses would choose the committees.
But John, doesn’t this take power and responsibility away from the Chairman? The short answer is no. That power had been retained by the Board a decade earlier. This language took that process from behind the closed doors of the Rules of Order and Procedure into the light of the county code. It also eliminated the discrepancy between the rules and county code.
My reforms included creating 2-35.2 which established a framework for the Board to pass laws and conduct administrative review in an informed manner (see below)
They also included deleting veto language in 2-48 (see above). I felt the language was confusing and I had multiple opinions on whether the Board had the authority to clean it up, or if it was a state mandate. In the end, it had never been used and I believed the Board was better off relying on the state statute.
My changes in 2-49 were centered on increasing transparency around department head level hires by including the advice and consent of the board. The challenge was balancing the desired transparency with the perception that the Board was trying to do the hiring and firing itself. I left this portion open for suggested amendments from the floor, acknowledging that the easy route would be advice and consent, but it may not be the best one.
My reform of 2-49 also included 2. b, as you can read above. I had seen the writing on the wall for a number of years and felt that creating a specific timeline for the Board and the Chairman to prepare for budget amendments at the end of the fiscal year would improve the process.
I did add paragraph 2.c to Section 2-49 as well. It requested a budgetary report card from the Chairman to the Board before the Board voted on the next budget. The intent was for County Officers and department heads to increase transparency and be better stewards of the public money, while helping the Board make good decisions when voting for the next budget.
I also included a tweak to Section 2-83. Committees called by the Chair have at times been unlisted, or organized without the awareness of the full Board. I believed it increased transparency to include the advice and consent of the Board.
2. Friendly Amendments to my Reforms
My reforms were approved by the Operations Committee before going to the full Board for a vote. Members of both caucuses expressed their thoughts and we agreed in caucus on three friendly amendments to the proposal.
The first was to eliminate specific time references in 2-35.2 and 2-49 2a. Each of the Standing Committees has different responsibilities and some can be more flexible than others with respect to how departments provide reporting. Board members felt the committees could establish the right fit.
The second was to replace advice and consent for the hiring of department heads with a more passive report and review system. Instead of the Board approving a dismissal, the Chairman reports the reasons why and the Board reviews it. Non-compliance with the reporting or an override vote by 2/3 of the Board would reverse the termination. Board members felt the change would increase transparency while better maintaining the Chairman’s autonomy.
The last change was to delete any reference to the selection of committees and leave that for the rules of order and procedure. Board members felt that because the board caucuses are political, putting them into county code would imply that the selection of committees should be political.
Guevara’s Reforms in Review
As you can see my reforms were extensive. They dealt specifically with the roles of the Board and the Chairman, and were directed to helping the Board make more informed decisions. If you believed otherwise prior to reading this, my apologies. I did a piss poor job of explaining things. I assumed that my character and track record spoke for themselves and that the character assassination and lies told about me would not possibly be believed. I was wrong.
The repeated negative characterization of me and my work more than two years after my leaving the Board are evidence that malevolence persists. I had made peace with my retirement and was passive in the face of mistreatment. Those days are over. I have a family now, and I will not allow anyone to defame me or disparage my work unchecked.
Current County Board Proposal
I asked for a copy of the changes to county code that were passed by Mr. Fiduccia’s Personnel Committee after reading multiple accounts about how Fiduccia’s proposal was like my own. I have since served notice to a Board member opposed to Fiduccia’s proposal (read my open letter to him here) and prove how it takes responsibility away from the Chairman and gives it to the Board. So far, this Board member, and the supporting cast including the County Board Chairman have failed to prove it. Here’s why.
The first reason is that the changes are not to the Board or Chairman’s section of County Code (Chapter 2 Article II). Shocking, I know given the
fever pitch in opposition. Instead, the Board is proposing changes to Article III specifically about the County Administrator. So what did they propose?
The first change is to delete board chairman from the first paragraph, and in paragraph (a). But John, doesn’t this mean that the Board is trying to replace the Chairman and be in control of the Administrator?
The short answer is No. The first reason is because the board is not replacing the exclusive words – board chairman – with words that are also exclusive, like “only” or “members.” And remember, the elected Chairman is a position that any County Board can create to help fulfill its state mandate.
The proposed changes do not exclude the Chairman, instead, they include the Board. As we’ve discussed, the Board has legislative duties too (learn about our county government here). It makes sense that the Board also has access to the County Administrator.
But John, what are you suggesting? Are you saying the Board is being denied access to the Administrator? No. I’m not suggesting anything. I am saying that there is nothing in the proposed change that excludes the Chairman or alters his responsibilities. I also believe anyone who reads this and continues to claim otherwise is lying.
The second change adds the County Board Offices to the Administrator’s responsibilities. There is no evidence from County Code that managing the County Board Office is a responsibility of the Board Chairman. Again, the Board is not taking away responsibility. It’s assigning responsibility that has not been allocated. I would think the Board Chairman has bigger fish to fry than to also serve as office manager.
The last change was to paragraph e2. The changes leaves “Assist the county board,” and removes “chairman in the preparation of county board agendas, ordinances, resolutions, and other business.”
Again, the change does not exclude the Chairman. It removes the exclusive language to include the county board. The Chairman retains all the responsibilities in county code like administering all statutory and non-statutory departments and functions including the county administrator.
The Myth of Twenty Bosses
“I heard the changes means the board will be running the show. Doesn’t including the board make that true?” Again, the answer is no. Just like the Chairman has specific duties and responsibilities defined in county code, the Board has specific duties and processes defined in county code and the Rules of Order and Procedure. The changes, as I’ve outlined above, do not alter how the Board legislates or conducts administrative review. All it does is include the Board in the Administrator’s job description.
Shouldn’t we have a more professionalized county government instead of maintaining the status quo? The short answer is yes. As I have illustrated, none of the current changes impede that goal. In fact, it is arguable that the changes challenge the status quo of the past twenty-seven years.
Why Should You Believe Me?
“John, people I trust say this is something different than what you’re saying. Why should I believe you?” Well, you shouldn’t believe me. None of this is about me. It’s about understanding how county government works (read my blog about it here) and to foster better county government. I did this research to understand the issue better, and wrote it down because I believe in telling the truth. You are more than welcome to disagree. If I’m wrong, help me understand how. I’m happy to discuss it and debate it any time.
Thank you for your time. I’m John Guevara, and this is what I know.
