ITEM 4b on next Tuesday’s Supervisors agenda is:
“Discussion and Possible Action Including Ratification of Motion to Waive Rule #27 of the Rules of Procedures to Reconsider Agenda Item 4i from the May 7, 2024, Board of Supervisor’s Meeting; and Discussion and Possible Action Including Adoption of Resolution Amending the Position Allocation Table as Follows: Budget Unit 4050, Add 1.0FTE Director of Health Services, Salary Range $162,593.60- $197,620.80/Annually and Delete 1.0 FTE Director Behavioral Health, PN 4472; Budget Unit 4010, Delete 1.0 FTE Director Public Health, PN 4567. (Sponsor: Human Resources)”
This is agenda-speak for reconsideration of the appointment of Dr. Jenine Miller as boss of “Health Services,” a combination of Mental Health and Public Health. The item is in response to Jim Shields Brown Act complaint filed a couple of weeks ago after Supervisor Maureen Mulheren tried to improperly reconsider the item after it had been when a controversial letter in support of Dr. Miller’s appointment to the position signed by most of her employees was belatedly introduced.
The attached summary blandly adds: “This item is an administrative clean up as the classification was established on December 19, 2023 and approved by the Board of Supervisor’s but was not added to the Position Allocation Table due to an error in the resolution. In order to correct the failure to add the classification to the Position Allocation Table, Human Resources is asking to add the position to the allocation table, establish the salary based on the three comparator counties, Humboldt, Lake and Sonoma and in addition, delete 1.0 FTE, Director Behavioral Health and delete 1.0 FTE, Director Public Health.”
(Sonoma County has a “Director of Health Services.” Humboldt County has a “Department of Health & Human Services.” Until last February, Lake County had a “Health Services Director,” a Mr. Jonathan Portney. However, Mr. Portney was fired by the Lake County Board of Supervisors in February after a truncated “turbulent tenure,” clashing with other Lake County officials as senior staffers resigned in protest. At that same meeting, former Mendo Health Officer Noemi Doohan was hired as Lake County’s Public Health Officer.)
At the May 7 Board meeting, Supervisors Williams and McGourty said they wanted to see a “comprehensive plan” for the Health Services consolidation before they voted on creating the “Director of Health Services” position. On May 21 Dr. Miller described some administrative efficiencies she has already implemented, but no consolidation plan, comprehensive or not. Will Williams and McGourty follow-up on their request for a plan? Or will they give up, as seems likely, and approve the new consolidation despite the controversy and absence of a plan?
Item 4d next Tuesday is the Budget Hearing for next fiscal year (July 2024 to June 2025):
“Noticed Public Hearing - Discussion and Possible Action Including Approval of the Mendocino County Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year (FY) 2024-25, Including All Recommended Actions and Adjustments and Possible Continuation to June 5, 2024, at 9:00 A.M., If Necessary (Sponsors: Executive Office and Auditor-Controller).”
The attached “Budget Deficit Turnaround Plan” mostly the same bland list of budget topics (without specific proposals). However, there’s a newly revised topic called “Expense Management” which discusses: “use of the retirement reserve,” “real estate/consolidations,” “GSA reorganization,” “business license evaluation,” “hiring freeze,” and, more ominously, “Funding Behavioral Health Wing.”
The use of the retirement reserve to help close the budget deficit and business license evaluation are not “expense management” items. And since there are no specifics about the real estate consolidations, that doesn’t sound like expense management either.
There’s nothing in the “Budget Deficit Turnaround Plan” about staff cuts even though all five supervisors have insisted that cuts must be made in prior meetings.
Under “Funding Behavioral Health Wing” the summary explains: “Secure a $7M loan from Measure B for the Behavioral Health Wing at the County Correctional Facility: Strategically utilize Measure B funding to invest in the Behavioral Health Wing, addressing critical facility needs and enhancing mental health services.”
Again, what this funding shift has to do with “expense management” escapes us. We also don’t know what they mean by “strategically utilize Measure B funding,” other than the ill-advised, previously approved “loan” from the Measure B fund with no payback plan and no estimate of how much will be borrowed. (It apparently depends on how much the PHF ends up costing which depends on how big the pending construction bids are and whether the County is reimbursed for upwards of $9.3 million from the state.)
Again this month, there’s nothing in the “Budget Deficit Turnaround Plan” about lagging tax collection or any other revenue enhancements.
On the positive side, albeit irrelevant to the budget gap, Supervisor Maureen Mulheren is sponsoring an uplifting collection of consent calendar proclamations: “June 2024 as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer+ (LGBTQ+) Pride Month in Mendocino County”; “June 14, 2024, as ‘Wear Blue Day’ in Mendocino County”; and “Recognition of the First Poet Laureate of Mendocino County” (Devreaux Baker). Further, the Social Services Department proposes a proclamation “Recognizing June 2024, as Elder and Dependent Adult Abuse Awareness Month in Mendocino County.”
On a sad note, the consent calendar proposes: “Disbandment of the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) Ad Hoc Committee Comprised of Supervisors Haschak and Williams.”
This was Supervisor John Haschak’s pet proposal from last year. Haschak wanted to increase the TOT to pay for In Home Support Services pay raises or reduce the deficit in some way. The Lodging Community rejected the proposal saying it would reduce tourism, and his own fellow ad-hoccer Supervisor Williams pointed out that a small TOT increase wouldn’t raise near enough to bring IHSS workers to the state’s minimum wage. Haschak will now fold his proverbial tent, having paid no campground TOT for it himself because his proposal, not to mention his metaphorical tent, fell flat.
Buried deep in the agenda for the second day of budget hearings on Wednesday is a table of “CEO Budget Adjustments” to departmental budget requests. All the “adjustments” are reductions. The largest reduction recommendations are in law enforcement, heretofore exempt from budget cuts by frequent declarations of the Board. The CEO proposes a $1.7 million cut in the Sheriff’s requested budget, the majority of which is equipment including a microwave system expense. The CEO recommends the DA’s budget be cut by over $1.8 million; the majority of the CEO’s DA’s office cuts are listed as “regular employees,” which might prompt some pushback from the DA, although the DA — like most departments — has been carrying a significant number of vacant positions of late. Smaller reductions are proposed for all the other general fund departments totaling about $13 million which represents about 15% of the General Fund. But none of the other recommended cuts are near as large as the CEO’s recommended cuts to the Sheriff and DA.
Supervisor Williams should be pleased that for the first time in months there are no retroactive items on the consent agenda for the Board to rubberstamp.
Item 5a on Wednesday’s closed session agenda proposes that the Board discuss “initiation of litigation” for an unprecedented 18 (!) cases. No details are provided.
Be First to Comment