Who Needs Supervisors?

Several “retroactive” Consent Calendar Items are on next Tuesday’s Board of Supervisors agenda. The Board of Supervisors (lead Supervisor John McCowen) have complained several times about retroactive contract add-ons — after all they basically send a message to the Board from the CEO and staff that the Board is irrelevant except for “retroactively” approving things that are already done.

For example, Item 4g: Approval of Retroactive Third Amendment to Board of Supervisors Agreement No. 17-098 with Mitchell, Brisso, Delaney & Vrieze Increasing the Amount from $250,000 to $275,000 for Litigation Services in Linda Morales v. County of Mendocino, et al. and Extension of Termination Date From June 30, 2018 to June 30, 2019. This is a child custody case filed in federal district court. Now Mendo wants to extend their contract with the outside lawyers who have so far lost the case to June of 2019 for an additional $25k. On the consent calendar. No discussion needed.

The County's senior staff apparently assumes they can just hand out money then turn around and ask the Board to “approve” the expenditure after the fact. (A safe assumption with this craven board.) This common County practice is bad for several reasons, not just the obvious one that all significant expenditures should go before the Board as a matter of routine procedure. It also insults the Board with the assumption that staff can spend large sums and the Board’s (and the public’s) opinion is irrelevant. Further, by putting it on the consent calendar it presumes authority that staff doesn’t have and it effectively precludes any discussion of preventing retroactive expenditures in the future.

Yet time and again, with only an occasional bleat from Supervisor McCowen but nobody else, retroactive expenditures appear on the consent calendar.

It's true that some of these pay outs are relatively straightforward, and that’s what the consent calendar is for — straightforward items that probably don’t need much discussion. But putting retroactive items on the consent calendar should be prohibited because staff should always have to explain why the item is retroactive and what’s being done to prevent more retroactive expenditures in the future. Otherwise the practice just gets worse.

Back in June Ms. Molgaard told the Board, “I do realize that this is quite a consent calendar and this has to do with the fact that an edict came down from our former chair of the board of supervisors [i.e., Supervisor John McCowen] that there will be no retroactive contracts. So we have worked very hard. … The fact that they are all being done in the month of June is what is different. I see that that is kind of overwhelming. But we can certainly come back and give more detail on anything that you would like.”

SO MOLGAARD knows that there was an “edict” from McCowen (which his fellow Supervisors presumably agreed with but never said so directly) that “there will be no retroactive contracts.”

DESPITE THAT, Consent Calendar Items 4h, 4i, 4j and 4k on Tuesday’s Consent Calendar are ALL retroactive (besides the County Counsel item mentioned earlier). And these four are all from Molgaard’s Department of Health and Human Services, the prime violator of the no-retroactive items rule. (The County Counsel’s office is also a frequent offender.)

Item 4h is a “retroactive” contract add-on for Redwood Quality Management/Redwood Community Services (run by Molgaard’s friend and associate Camille Schraeder): “Approval of Retroactive Amendment to BOS Agreement No. 18-068 with Redwood Community Services, Inc. to Provide Crisis Counseling Services and Community Educational Meetings for the Term of October 12, 2017, through a New End Date of January 31, 2019 (Extended from June 30, 2018), and for an Unchanged Amount of $114,257.14.” (This one is at least for no more money, but it is still retroactive and requires Board approval.)

Item 4i is another one: “Approval of Retroactive Third Amendment to BOS Agreement No. 17-084 with Crestwood Behavioral Health, Inc. Increasing the Amount from $482,449 to $491,449 to Provide Residential Treatment Services for Health and Human Services Agency, Behavioral Health and Recovery Services Clients for the Term of July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018.” (About $9,000 spent without Board approval.)

Item 4j: “Approval of Retroactive Agreement with Turning Point of Central California, Inc. in the Amount of $53,272 to Provide 60 Days of Crisis Residential Care for a Severely Physically and Developmentally Disabled Foster Child for the Period of August 1, 2018 through September 29, 2018.

(maybe Ms. Molgaard thinks that including the word “severely” makes it ok.)

And Item 4k: “Adoption of Resolution Approving Retroactive Agreement with California Department of Social Services — Adoptions Services Bureau in the Amount of $641,682 ($320,841 per fiscal year) to Provide Adoption Services for Health and Human Services Agency, Family and Children’s Services for the Term of July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2020.”

(Probably routine intergovernment transfer, but this needs Board review for budgetary considerations and perhaps to see if there’s a local source for these services in the future.)

So four more clear violations of the Board’s no-retroactive contracts “edict” just this week on the consent calendar. Molgaard seems to think she can violate Board edicts with impunity, despite the occasional "edict" from Supervisor McCowen.

* * *

Consent Calendar Item 4n is at least not retroactive, but it is a significant item which would effectively turn inland Homeless services over to Molgaard’s pal Camille Schraeder too: “Approval of Agreement with Redwood Community Services, Inc. in the Amount of $140,000 to Provide Resources for the Homeless at the Day Resource Center/Homeless Shelter in Ukiah, Effective when Fully Executed Through June 30, 2019.”

This obviously has no business on the consent calendar, but the fact that it is, is further evidence of staff’s dismissive attitude toward the Board.

Consent Calendar Item 4s is interesting because it appears to be the first indication that the controversial Cultural Services Agency consolidation is starting to bear some fruit, minor as it may be: “Authorization for the Mendocino County Museum to Allow Free Admission when Presented with a Mendocino County Library Card in Celebration of the Formation of the Cultural Services Agency and Library Card Sign-up Month.”

So again, this should be on the regular agenda because more of this kind of thing should be encouraged.

Next on the Consent Calendar is the apparent partial privatization of Code Enforcement: “Item 4v: Approval of Agreement with Don Folsom for Code Enforcement Field Inspection Services and Formal Code Determinations Related to Building and Construction Code Violations, as Well as Professional Services Related to Code Enforcement Actions, Including, but Not Limited To, Providing Expert Testimony, as May be Required for Court or Appeal Hearings, Training Code Enforcement Staff and Assisting in Policy and Procedure Development, in an amount not to Exceed $50,000, Effective from Date Agreement Becomes Fully Executed Through June 30, 2020.”

Mr. Folsom appears to be a retired Sonoma County (or perhaps Santa Rosa city) building inspector who lives in Yorkville.

Again, whatever the pros and cons of this proposal may be, it clearly requires Board and public consideration because having a contractor do on-the-ground code enforcement has obvious potential conflicts of interest and legal implications.

At this rate, why not put the whole agenda on the consent calendar? Oh, the Board can do the ceremonial stuff — the proclamations, the photo ops, the awards, the resolutions, the sitting while staffers give them self-serving snow jobs, the endless discussions of new wrinkles in the pot permitting program, the silent ignoring of public comment, the silly reports about the meetings they attended for no particular reason on the taxpayer’s dime, the reasons they are giving themselves and everybody else in high County positions big pay raises, etc.

But leave the real business of the County to the power ladies who really run the show. The Supervisors rubberstamp everything as it is, so why bother with the pretense that they’re in charge of anything at all?