Management of County Government


Early in its term, the 1994-95 Grand Jury reviewed responses to the reports from the 1993-94 Grand Jury, in particular those regarding creation of the now dismantled Agricultural and Environmental Management Department, which apparently went forward without the benefit of appropriate management review and analysis. It also held preliminary meetings with all members of the sitting Board of Supervisors. As a result of these two activities, the Jury became interested in determining:

	_	 How the County is being managed

	_	 Whether it is utilizing modern professional business tools and techniques 

	_	 Whether it is actually being managed or governed at all.  

An examination of the County's policy making and management structures was then initiated.

The Grand Jury first endeavored to understand the complexities and issues affecting the difficulty of governing the County.  It noted that the County of Santa Barbara occupies approximately two thousand seven hundred and seventy four (2,774) square miles, and held a population of almost four hundred thousand (400,000) in 1994.  Forty-three percent  (43%) of this population resides in unincorporated areas, where the County Government serves as the "city" administration to provide essential services for large, diverse, and heavily populated areas of the County, such as Goleta, Orcutt and Isla Vista.  The County's appropriations for fiscal year 1994-95 totaled approximately $400 million dollars, and it employs approximately four thousand staff members.[1]

The Administrative structure of Santa Barbara County Government, as outlined in the "Master Organization Chart" provided as Exhibit A at the end of this report, includes:

	_	The Board of Supervisors

	_	The Administrative Officer and his staff

	_	Fifteen (15) departments whose heads are non-elected, of which two (2) report directly to the Administrative Officer, and thirteen (13) who serve at the pleasure of the Board of Supervisors

	_	Five (5) departments with elected department heads

	_	Sixty-five (65) boards, commissions, and committees

	_	Eighteen (8) elected judges

	_	A Probation Officer appointed by the court

	_	Three (3) Court Administrators.

Like all county governments, Santa Barbara County has faced serious challenges within the last few years due to the net loss of approximately $10 million over a two year period (a loss of $26 million due to a property tax shift and a $16 million inflow from Proposition 172 funds)[2], and delays and uncertainties resulting from the unstable State budget which affected the County's ability for fiscal planning. 

Governance of the County was significantly impacted by two other factors:

	_	Philosophical differences between elected officials from North and South regions of the County

	_	The eighteen month period in which the legal winner of the Third Supervisorial District race was being contested in the courts.


The objective of this study was to answer the questions "Who is managing the County?" and "How is it being managed?" in terms of the structure, authority, and accountability; and to make recommendations, where possible, for improvements in this process.

The Grand Jury did not attempt to evaluate either the political philosophy of the elected officials, the direction of the actions taken by the Board of Supervisors, or the performance of individual departments, but focused only upon the quality of direction, governance, accountability and working environment provided by the Board and the County Administrator.


This study consisted of interviews with the five Supervisors sitting in 1994, the two new Supervisors elected on November 8, 1994, the County Administrative Officer, two Deputy County Administrators, two Administrative Analysts, and numerous elected and non-elected department heads and their staff.  Some individuals were interviewed more than once.  All of the documents listed in the References Consulted Section and in the Exhibits were studied and evaluated.  The Grand Jury accepted the various definitions shown in Exhibit C.


To gain an understanding of the management of the County, or lack of it, it was enlightening to obtain a historical perspective on the findings of others, and the development of the ordinances and policies that create the current environment for the functioning of the County government.

The 1982-83 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury Final Report contained a critique of the County Administrative Officer's office.  It found that sufficient emphasis was not given to operational planning and control.  It further found that no operational objectives are documented and there was no periodic program review or required analysis.[3]

The 1988-89 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury investigated the County management, with particular emphasis on the County Administrator's office, and enhanced its efforts by commissioning a consulting study by Richard E. Watson.  In overview, it found that the Board was not providing any long range planning, the administration of the County was confused and fragmented, and that it was difficult to assess accountability.  Their recommendations included (a) strengthening the County Administrator position, including consideration of transferring full authority for all non-elected department heads, (b) having the County Administrator prepare goals, objectives, and priorities for Board approval, and (c ) strengthening the evaluation system, since it was functioning without the setting of specific goals and objectives.  This report apparently led to the initiation of what is now called the Transformation Study.[4] 

The Santa Barbara County Administrative Office Management Review/Strategic Plan (commonly called the Transformation Study) by CMSI, an outside consulting firm, was commissioned in 1989 and submitted as a draft on June 25, 1990, at a cost to the County of approximately $166,000.[5]  After extensive interviews, reports of various study groups, and analysis of the then current County administration, the consultants concluded;

"For the majority of groups, the core issues that has (sic) the most impact on the County are ineffective leadership and leadership vision coming either from the Board of Supervisors or the Administrative Office.  Ineffective leadership vision was seen to drive four major issues:

	_	Lack of Mission, Goals;

	_	Inadequate strategic planning;

	_	Confusion over role and authority of Board, Administrative Office; and

	_	Poor decision making process." [6] 

One result of the Transformation Study was the amendment of Article X of Chapter 2 of the County Code, by Ordinance 3906 on February 19, 1991, for the intended purpose of strengthening the position of the County Administrator and clarifying the decision making procedures and accountability. The Statement of Intent unambiguously states, "The board fully intends to assign to the county administrator more clear and direct management authority and responsibility, and to hold him/her specifically accountable."[7] 

Another result of the Transformation Project was the MISSION - GOALS - PROGRAMS statement adopted by the Board in early 1992.  This statement laid out in general terms the basic mission and five goals of the County, as well as certain specific goals for 1992 and 1993. 


The Grand Jury has divided its observations relating to this study into six major areas:

	_	Organizational structure, including the County Code regarding the powers of the County Administrator, the Transformation Study proposals and the initial MISSION - GOALS - PROGRAMS statement

	_	The Board of Supervisors

	_	The County Administrator

	_	County departments with non-elected department heads

	_	County departments with department heads elected by the voters of Santa Barbara County


	_	The Citizens of Santa Barbara County.

Organizational Structure

Under the Implementation and Staging section of the Transformation Study it was stated; "For the Plan to be successfully implemented, there must be renewed commitment beginning with the Board of Supervisors down to and including representation of those affected."[8]  The Grand Jury could find no evidence that such commitment or effort was ever initiated.

The Transformation Study made twenty specific recommendations for the improvement of the leadership and governance of the County.  Nine of the recommendations were within the direct purview of this Grand Jury study and it found four partially implemented and five not implemented at all.[9]

When Article X, which relates to the position of the County Administrator, was adopted by the Board of Supervisors it generally followed the recommendations of the Transformation Study, except the Board added its own prerogative to deal with and transmit policy directly to department heads, rather than the Study's proposal to "..lay out guidelines for when it is appropriate for departments to work directly with the Board ..."[10]

Among other requirements, Article X states:

" The board of supervisors acts primarily on establishing a strategic vision, goals, policies and budgets to meet legal mandates and the needs of county residents, on 

carrying out its legislative and decision-making responsibilities, and on communicating with and serving the citizens of the county," and

"The county administrator acts primarily on effective overall management of county resources, long range financial and organizational planning, ensuring that the county departments are producing services and results in accord with board goals, policies, and budgets, improving management and information systems to guarantee most effective use of county personnel, money, facilities, and equipment, and other specific duties assigned to the administrative office."[11]

Witness testimony was that the consultants' original recommendation during the Transformation Study was to have a stronger County Administrator -- one with full authority with regard to all non-elected department heads.  The recommendation was modified prior to submission of the report due to (1) objection from department heads, (2) objections from certain interest groups, and (3) the desire of certain Supervisors to retain their ability to direct various departmental actions.

The Board of Supervisors

The Grand Jury interviewed all five of the 1994-95 Board of Supervisors and the two incoming Supervisors for the Second and Fifth Districts.  In four offices of sitting Supervisors where meetings were held, the Grand Jury observed stacks of reports and correspondence on their desks and the floor.  Most Supervisors expressed difficulty in properly reviewing and handling all of the data in these documents.

No Board member, even when questioned, identified to the Grand Jury a Santa Barbara County mission statement or goals. The Grand Jury later through a search of files and questions to various employees located a MISSION - GOALS - PROGRAMS statement adopted on January 27, 1992 and revised on February 4, 1992.  This document was re-submitted to the Board by the County Administrator on February 9 and 22, 1993 for re-adoption, but was referred to the Budget Committee of the Board on February 22, 1993.  The Budget Committee placed it on its agenda for March 8, 1993.  Apparently no action was taken, as the Clerk of the Board employees were unable to determine that it had ever been returned to the Board.  It was again placed on the Board agenda for February 7, 1995 by the County Administrator as part of the Report of Current Budget Status.  No record can be found of any Board action as of April 1, 1995.

The first goal of the MISSION - GOALS - PROGRAMS, as adopted in 1992 was: 


To adopt, annually, clear and achievable goals and program priorities that address our community's most important needs."  

The second goal was:


To achieve the goals and program priorities adopted by the Board of Supervisors by optimizing managerial and organizational effectiveness."[12]  

The above goals are consistent with Section 2-69 (a) of Article X quoted previously.  In spite of the foregoing, no Supervisor identified these to the Grand Jury as operational requirements. There was no evidence that any member of the Board was concerned with these requirements, and some were clearly indifferent.  This was not too surprising, as one Supervisor told the Grand Jury they did not believe in that "mission stuff."

No meaningful departmental mission statements, goals or objectives could be located through the Board, even though specified in the Transformation Study and in Article X[13], although one Supervisor suggested the Grand Jury might look at what the Health Care Services Department was doing.  The Grand Jury believes a clear understanding of policy, goals and objectives is essential to proper performance by the County Administrator and the departments. 

On April 11, 1994 a Performance Measurement Workshop was conducted for certain department heads by the Auditor-Controller, with support from the County Administrator.  A video tape from this workshop was viewed by the Grand Jury.  A result of this workshop was a submission by the County Administrator to the Board on August 3, 1994, entitled Santa Barbara County Performance Measurements, which was a compilation of performance measurements by the various department heads. The Grand Jury found that while most of these submissions had a Statement of Purpose and a list of potential items to be measured, for the most part it was a wholly inadequate effort.  The Grand Jury could find no evidence that either the Board or the County Administrator attempted to evaluate the submissions or request more refined data.  

The Auditor-Controller, in a letter to the Board for the Agenda of February 7, 1995, responding to a Board request, proposed a scaled down new effort.  On February 14, 1995, the Board by Minute Order directed the County Administrator to implement a Performance Measurement program in departments to be selected by him.[14]  The County Administrator and the two Deputies have each recently attended a two day workshop to prepare for this implementation.	

Individual Board members stated that they had differing relationships to the non-elected department heads.  Their testimony, and that of department sources, suggested that some individual Board members inject themselves into day to day operations, and tend to micro-manage when it suits their interests.  One Supervisor even bragged to the Grand Jury how a problem was solved through direct interference by the Supervisor in the interrelationship of two departments by entering into an  issue below the department head level.  The Board policy of direct relationships with non-elected department heads, when combined with "hire and fire" authority", appears to undercut the County Administrator in his efforts to manage the County's activities.  The Board purports to maintain their "historic relationship" with non-elected department heads with regard to "policy,"[15] but testimony suggests that "policy" is frequently interpreted individually, rather than by a majority agreement of the Board.

Board Members did not agree among themselves regarding the duties of the County Administrator, even though these are detailed in Article X of the County Code.  Some members had varying interpretations, and one did not even accept the validity of the existence of this ordinance.

Although Article X refers five times to "accountability," primarily in relation to the County Administrator,[16] the Board has not seen fit to complete a performance evaluation of the County Administrator during his entire tenure.

The Grand Jury found no Board directed incentive programs designed to promote and effectively reward innovation and creativity, make the government more flexible and innovative, improve delivery of higher quality service, improve responsiveness to its customers, offer more choices, or accomplish productive change.  The Grand Jury did review the Suggestion and Awards program operated under a Suggestion Review Committee,[17] and a letter to the Grand Jury from the County Administrator's office providing additional information.  During the last six years, there was an average cash award of $6,550 to 24 recipients, with the awards dropping off somewhat after the first three years.[18]   This program, while meritorious, does not address the needed impetus to major change.

Most Board Members stated that they have little or no control over the elected department heads, except through budget appropriations.  Those elected department heads who testified stated that they are directly responsible to the county electorate as a whole, and not to the Board of Supervisors or the County Administrator.  

The County Administrator

The County Administrator, when questioned, did not identify to the Grand Jury any departmental mission statements, goals or objectives, although specified in the Transformation Study and Article X,[19] except for a statement that the Auditor-Controller and the AEM Department had developed some.

Article X of the County Code, and good management practice, requires the County Administrator to enter into performance agreements with each non-elected department head to detail the annual understandings regarding the key factors in accomplishment of the County and departmental goals and objectives.[20]  There was no evidence presented until late March 1995 that any existed, when the Grand Jury was advised that they were being developed as evaluations were being accomplished.

There exists a ten page evaluation form[21] for the annual review of the non-elected department heads.  At the time of our review, over the prior three years only one department head had received a complete evaluation, and apparently one other received a partial evaluation.  When questioned about this by the Grand Jury, most members of the Board of Supervisors expressed surprise at this, and apparently had never noticed that such evaluations, which they must approve, had not been performed.  In spite of the non-existence of annual performance evaluations, most department heads regularly received their annual merit payroll increases. One department head received such a merit increase while on extended sick leave for most of the year.  In late March of 1995 the Grand Jury was advised that evaluations of department heads had been started[[opthyphen]]-two were completed and the remaining would be completed by May. 	

The County Administrator has not performed many of the management functions required by Article X,[22] possibly due to:

	_	His relatively weak position, since all but two department heads are either elected or basically responsible to the Board, and the individual Supervisors maintain direct contact with the non-elected department heads,

	_	The fact that the major share of the County Administrator's time is spent on the budget and in meetings with the Board, leaving insufficient time for organization, management and control.

Non-elected (Appointed) Department Heads

The Grand Jury noted that many witnesses from different parts of County government independently used the term "fiefdoms" when discussing county departments.  This word, defined by the American Heritage Dictionary as "..the estate or domain of a feudal lord," suggests that each county department runs as an independent entity with few centralized controls, evaluations, or accountability.  The Grand Jury received witness testimony and documentary evidence suggesting that this does, in fact, describe the situation accurately.

There are presently thirteen (13) departments with non-elected department heads employed "at the will" of the Board of Supervisors, and two departments (Personnel and General Services) whose heads report directly to the County Administrator.  The County Administrator has hire/fire authority over only these two department heads.  Other department heads may be hired and fired only by majority vote of the Board of Supervisors.

Witnesses have described a tradition of strong departments and the development of informal authority by influential department heads in both County government and the private community. This has been described as "subtle back scratching" among department heads which bypasses the established lines of authority.

Departments have taken wide latitude in everything from whether or not to consult the Personnel Department on promotional examinations to a lack of mission statements, goals, and objectives for use in evaluating a department's performance. 

Although no standards or direction have been set for departmental missions, goals, and objectives,  some departments have initiated them on their own.  During the course of this investigation,  the Grand Jury encountered an excellent example of these policies and procedures in the "Customer Service Recommendations" created by the Santa Barbara County Health Care Services Department.[23]  The efforts of this department are to be commended and could be used as a positive example for others. 

Elected Department Heads

Those elected department heads who testified stated that they are directly responsible to the county electorate as a whole, and not to the Board of Supervisors or the County Administrator. There is no evaluation of their performance, other than by the electorate for whom sufficient information regarding that performance is difficult to obtain.

Detailed information from the Auditor-Controller regarding his programs for managerial improvement in the department was analyzed by the Grand Jury.  These include a comprehensive Mission Statement, Statement of Principles and Values, Departmental Goals and Objectives, and individual Goals for each Section of the Operating Division.[24]  The Grand Jury also reviewed status reports that indicated good follow up, and many examples of performance measurement and process monitoring, the use of which resulted in significant improvements in performance. Records indicated a thorough and thoughtful employee review program.

The Grand Jury reviewed the Mission Statement, Organization Statement, training program and the Work Evaluation and Review (WEAR) program of the Sheriff's Department and found them to be well done and productive.[25]  There was, however, no evidence of measurable goals and objectives, other than those in each employee's performance measurements in the WEAR program.

The District Attorney stated that his department had mission statements and departmental objectives.  He presented the 1992 Annual Report[26] and a Management Tools booklet, in which the Grand Jury could find no meaningful mission statement, goals or measurable objectives. When asked by the County Administrator to participate in the performance measurement program attempt in 1994, the District Attorney's office declined.  Testimony was that the primary management techniques used in the department were hands-on management and supervisor staff meetings.

The Citizens of Santa Barbara County

The Civil Grand Jury is composed of nineteen citizens from all parts of Santa Barbara County. Most of them have no prior background in government, and their traditional "watchdog" role is free from pressure by any outside group.  Even with the power of the Grand Jury to obtain information from governmental sources, and the generally cooperative effort by these agencies, the Grand Jury has considerable difficulty  determining what is actually going on in some areas of County government.  It follows that if the Grand Jury finds it difficult to locate and comprehend information about government functions, it must be almost impossible for an average citizen to do so.

An example is the budget of Santa Barbara County, a large technical document in which the costs of many actual services are rarely identified.  It has often been necessary for departments to do special research in order to provide cost figures for Grand Jury inquiries into matters such as transporting minors to and from Juvenile Hall, housing employees at the County parks, and various other programs.

County departments generate massive numbers of reports and statistics.  Anyone wishing to gather facts on a relevant issue from the sources must be able to obtain all current relevant documents, review the contents, and cross-check with other sources.  Much of this data is not available to the average citizen.  Another problem is the extremely vague and legalistic language in which government documents are written.  Unfortunately, the very style of this bureaucratic syntax makes it almost impossible for anyone to draw a solid interpretation of the facts on a given issue.  The Grand Jury has spent many hours with various officials in attempting to find out exactly what these documents mean.  The average citizen rarely has this opportunity.


The data reviewed from 1982 to date indicate the recurring theme of a lack of professional management as shown by the absence of strategic initiatives, performance measurements and accountability.  Some Supervisors were aware of this lack and considered it a problem; others did not find the lack of management tools utilized by the Board of Supervisors and the County Administrator to be a significant problem.  The line between setting policy and managing day-to-day county operations is apparently unclear.

The Board and County Administrator continue the historical pattern of focusing their efforts on crisis management and how to fit the current years estimated resources into the prior mode of operation -- rather than how to re-evaluate and/or re-structure the operations to better serve its constituency in a more efficient manner.  Several Supervisors used the difficult periods of revenue loss and budget uncertainty as an excuse for not addressing improved management performance, rather than the recognition that professional management techniques are the solution to maintaining and/or improving service to its citizens within the existing constraints.

A partial explanation of this lack of progress in improving management practices appears to be that the County is a weakly interconnected system which is resistant to change for the following basic reasons:

	_	The citizens of Santa Barbara County elect the Board of Supervisors and the five elected department heads and, in general, are responsible for the government. Most citizens base their vote on personal preferences, a particular agenda, support of a special interest group, dislike of an opponent, or one of many other reasons. Their decisions are mainly based upon the media exposure and the evaluation of candidate positions, and it is extremely difficult for them to obtain accurate information on the candidates skill and/or their inclination and ability to govern the County in the best interest of its citizens.

	_	The Board of Supervisors is elected to govern the County and fulfill other legal functions.  Many candidates are elected primarily on a narrow agenda, rather than their managerial skills or promotion of the well being of the County as a whole. They apparently find it easier and more politically rewarding to focus on narrow issues and micro manage operations than to provide the necessary vision, and promote performance measurement and accountability.  As one Supervisor told the Grand Jury, "To affect change one must use up political capital, and most elected officials are reluctant to do that."

	_	Elected Department heads are chosen by the entire electorate, and also are selected more upon a few issues, rather than managerial skills.  Some of these officials appear to provide lip service frequently when dealing with the Board of Supervisors in jointly addressing important County issues.  The fact that these officials are frequently unopposed in the elections removes an essential form of accountability.

	_	The County Administrator spends most of his time involved with the budget and Board of Supervisors' business matters, rather than managing the County functions, an unfortunate problem that has existed for many years.  It is not entirely clear whether this lack is a result of the County Administrator's reluctance to exercise leadership and perform the functions in his job description, or whether the Board through its actions and their lack of leadership prevent him from effectively accomplishing these duties.

	_	Non-elected department heads are basically chosen by, and ultimately report to, the Board of Supervisors, though responsible under the County Code to the County Administrator.  These departments, due to abdication of effective responsibility by both the Board and the County Administrator, operate with a great deal of autonomy and little or no accountability.  Whenever there are attempts to create new procedures, they are regarded as "fads" to be endured until the next change in philosophy by a new Board.

Notwithstanding the inherent difficulties in governing the County, and the political realities that are difficult to overcome, the Grand Jury believes that significant improvements can be accomplished.  If the Board of Supervisors can summon the will to do so, they can create the vision of an efficient governing body, institute the recommended professional management techniques and procedures and accountability, and permit and demand the County Administrator direct the County government to accomplish the desired results.


FINDING #1:  The Grand Jury finds that the Board and the County Administrator engage in crisis management rather than leading and governing. Although a Strategic Planning Process was strongly recommended in the 1990 Transformation Study,[27] required by Article X,[28] and considered essential to proper business planning, the County has never fully implemented this leadership process.   A detailed MISSION - GOALS - PROGRAMS statement was adopted on January 27, 1992 and amended on February 4, 1992 as the first step; however, strategic initiatives based upon this statement were never undertaken.


	RECOMMENDATION #1a:  The Grand Jury recommends that within the next sixty (60) days, the Board of Supervisors, assisted by the County Administrator,  assess the County's long term and short term needs, and revise, adopt and enforce the County MISSION-GOALS-PROGRAMS.

RECOMMENDATION #1b:  The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors direct the County Administrator to prepare, within sixty (60) days following adoption of Recommendation #1a, for Board approval of proposed strategic initiatives designed to accomplish the intent of the Board's Mission statement.  These two documents, when adopted, would establish a framework within which the County Administrator and department heads can develop their individual management programs. 

	RECOMMENDATION #1c: The Grand Jury recommends that a formal follow-up procedure should be established to ensure an annual review of the plan developed under #1b.  The currently successful programs of the Auditor-Controller and Health Care Services Departments could serve as models for other departments.    

FINDING #2:  Neither individual Supervisors nor the County Administrator identified any meaningful departmental Mission Statements, Objectives, Goals, Performance Measurements or other form of department professional management systems.  These procedures would facilitate accomplishment of the Board's Mission and other directives through the clarity of mission, measurement and accountability required to operate an efficient organization geared to promoting customer responsiveness, stimulating innovation and creativity, and providing higher quality services with increasing cost effectiveness.

RECOMMENDATION #2:  The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors instruct the County Administrator to direct and coordinate the development and implementation of appropriate Mission  Statements, Objectives, Goals and Performance Measurements and the supporting Performance Agreements with each Board appointed department head to implement the overall County goals within ninety (90) days of the completion of Recommendation #1b.  As part of their oversight function, the Board would review and evaluate the quality and timeliness of the ongoing program by reviewing the Mission Statements, Goals and Objectives, and Performance Agreements initially, and annually thereafter.

FINDING #3:   Departments headed by elected officials are responsible to the electorate and not directly responsible to the Board of Supervisors.  Nevertheless, due to the budgetary interrelationship, the Grand Jury finds that every department headed by an elected official, who has not already done so, needs to have a Mission Statement coordinated with the MISSION -GOALS - PROGRAMS, and the necessary strategic initiatives, objectives, goals, and performance measurements recommended above to improve performance and cost effectiveness.

RECOMMENDATION #3a: The Grand Jury recommends that each elected department head, who has not already done so, within the time allotted in Recommendations #1a and #1b, adopt a Mission Statement and implement the supporting strategic initiatives.

RECOMMENDATION #3b: The Grand Jury recommends that each elected department head, who has not already done so, within the time allotted in Recommendation #2, develop and implement management and measurement procedures to accomplish the intent of Recommendation #3a.  The currently successful programs of the Auditor-Controller and Health Care Services departments could serve as models for other departments.

FINDING #4:  Extensive witness testimony, admissions by several members of the Board of Supervisors, and observation of County management practices show that individual Supervisors micro-manage issues with individual departments, which the Grand Jury finds interferes with the efficient management and operations of the County and distracts the Board of Supervisors from their more important responsibilities of vision, strategy, goals, policy and legislation.

RECOMMENDATION #4a:  The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors cease micro-managing departmental operations and thus allow development of an efficient chain of command and permit the Board to concentrate on its primary obligation to establish a strategic vision, goals, policies, budgets and legislation to properly address the needs of the citizens of the County.

RECOMMENDATION #4b:  The Grand Jury recommends that the Board amend Article X to delete Section 2-69(c) and revise Section 2-69(d) to state that policy will be transmitted to non-elected department heads through the County Administrator by Minute Orders, rather than through the informal individual direction which currently exists.

RECOMMENDATION #4c:  The Grand Jury recommends that the Board modify Section 2-75(e) of Article X to provide that the County Administrator appoint all non-elected department heads, except the County Counsel, and modify Section 2-75(f) to state that the County Administrator shall take appropriate action upon completion of each department head's annual performance review.    

FINDING #5: Contrary to the clearly spelled out functional requirements in Article X, the County Administrator has not exercised leadership in directing and managing the County government.

RECOMMENDATION #5a: The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors immediately direct the County Administrator to perform all of the responsibilities prescribed for him in Article X, and that the Board ensure that the County Administrator has the authority and supportive environment in which to carry out his duties. 

RECOMMENDATION #5b: The Grand Jury specifically recommends that the Board direct the County Administrator to complete the performance evaluations of each non-elected department head and the Board should review the status of this process on a 	monthly basis until complete, and at least annually thereafter.	

FINDING #6: The County Administrator has held his present position for three years and there has not been a completed performance evaluation of him by the Board of Supervisors during his tenure.

	RECOMMENDATION #6:  The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors, within the next ninety (90) days, complete a thorough evaluation of the County Administrator's performance  to date, and evaluate his management skills to properly manage the functions of the County government - and exercise their authority to take appropriate action.

FINDING #7: Both the County Administrator's office and the Auditor-Controller have the authority to conduct managerial and operational reviews (management audits), and have demonstrated to the Grand Jury through several examples that they are capable of performing quality audits.[29]  Evidence is that at present such management audits must either be requested or used to address a specific issue in County government, rather than for scheduled periodic reviews.

RECOMMENDATION #7a:  The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors either (1)  direct the County Administrator's office, or (2) enter into an agreement with the Auditor-Controller, to perform management audits of each department under the Board's control on a five year cycle, and report the results to the Board.

RECOMMENDATION #7b: The Grand Jury recommends that the Board direct the County Administrator to coordinate the initiation of an effective annual self audit by each department headed by a non-elected department head, and report the results to the Board within thirty (30) days of its completion.

RECOMMENDATION #7c: The Grand Jury recommends that each department headed by an elected official should initiate a self administered management audit program, and request an outside review audit every five years by either the Auditor-Controller, the County Administrator, or an outside consultant and publish the results and recommendations.

FINDING #8: The County needs a positive incentive system to create an environment that promotes creativity and inspires excellence.  A system is needed to reward by bonus, or otherwise, appointed department heads and other key employees for exceptional performance in the accomplishment of the County's objectives, when such may be determined on a measurable basis.

RECOMMENDATION #8: After the development and full implementation of meaningful missions, goals and objectives, and when effective measurement tools are in place and savings obtained, the Grand Jury recommends that the Board annually set aside a reserve to reward appointed department heads and key personnel for exceptional performance where warranted. 

FINDING #9  The Suggestion and Awards program was a very good idea which has had limited success and participation is declining.

	RECOMMENDATION #9:  The Suggestion and Awards program should be re-evaluated to determine how it can be redesigned and promoted to make it more effective in encouraging creative and innovative operating efficiency and service improvement ideas from the County staff.

FINDING #10:  Due to the history of resistance to change by the Santa Barbara County government, which necessitated Recommendations #1 through #9 of this report, the 1994-95 Grand Jury believes that on-going monitoring of this subject is necessary and important.

RECOMMENDATION #10:  The 1994-95 Grand Jury strongly recommends that the 1995-96 Grand Jury immediately review and evaluate the responses of each of the Affected Agencies to these recommendations and follow the progress of the anticipated changes throughout their term. 

AFFECTED AGENCIES (California Penal Code Section 933c requires that comments to Findings and Recommendations be made in writing within 60 days by all affected agencies except governing bodies, which are allowed 90 days.)


	1.	Board of Supervisors - response (Graffey,  Schwartz, Staffel, Urbanske and Wallace)
2. County Administrator - response 3. Auditor-Controller - response 4. Clerk-Recorder-Assessor - response 5. District Attorney - response 6. Sheriff-Coroner - response 7. Treasurer-Tax Collector - response EXHIBITS A. County of Santa Barbara County Master Organization Chart B. Office of the County Administrator Organization Chart C. Definitions D. Article X of Chapter 2, of the County Code, as amended by Ordinance 3906 on February 19, 1991 E. Job Classification, County Administrator F. County Mission-Goals-Programs, adopted January 27, 1992, and revised February 4, 1992 REFERENCES CONSULTED Proposed 1994-95 Annual Budget, County of Santa Barbara Final Budget 1994-1995 Fiscal Year, County of Santa Barbara Final Budget 1987-1988 Fiscal Year, County of Santa Barbara County of Santa Barbara Master Organization Chart Santa Barbara County Organization Charts, compiled by the Office of the County Administrator, November 1994 Santa Barbara County Administrative Office Management Review/Strategic Plan, draft June 25, 1990 (commonly called the "Transformation Study") by an outside consultant, CMSI Article X of Chapter 2, of the County Code, as amended by Ordinance No. 3906 on February 19, 1991 Administrative Officer's Report on Santa Barbara County Transformation Plan, August 10, 1990 Auditor-Controller letter to the Board, for Agenda November 15, 1994 "Performance Measures and the Management of County Resources" Population Estimates for California Cities and Counties, Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit, Report 93 E-1, May 1993 Customer Service Recommendations, Santa Barbara County Health Care Services, December 1993 Office of the County Administrator Organization Chart County Mission-Goals-Programs, adopted January 27, 1992, and revised February 4, 1992 Job Classifications for County Administrator, Deputy County Administrator, Administrative Analyst, Principal and Administrative Analyst I, II, III, and IV Santa Barbara County Executive Management Performance Evaluation - sample form Minute Order February 22, 1993, Item 93-18,673 Auditor-Controller letter to the Board re Performance Measures, Agenda date February 7, 1995 Sheriff's Department - Our Mission, Organizational Values and the Work Evaluation and Review (WEAR) Program Sheriff's Department - Typical completed WEAR reviews for 1994 Sheriff's Department Field Training Program manuals Sheriff's Department - Sample crime activity reports for 1994 Assistant Auditor-Controller letter to the Grand Jury, February 7, 1995 re Auditor- Controller Mission Statement, Goals & Objectives Auditor-Controller's Statement of Principles and Values, Mission, Objectives, and Long and Short Term Goals Detailed Goals for each Section of the Operations Division of the Auditor-Controller's department Detailed Status Reports for the Operations Division of the Auditor-Controller's office. Auditor-Controller Employment Performance Report forms and selected completed reports Office of the District Attorney of Santa Barbara County, 1992 Annual Report An informal compilation of reports submitted by the District Attorney 1982-1983 Grand Jury Report, Santa Barbara County 1988-1989 Grand Jury Report, Santa Barbara County Richard E. Watson consulting report dated April 21,1989 prepared for the 1988-89 Grand Jury Management Audit of the Resource Management Department by Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation, submitted to the 1886-87 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury Auditor-Controller letter to the Board of Supervisors, January 4, 1994 re County Assessor - Operational Audit Report Operational Audit - Santa Barbara County Assessor, November 30, 1993 Assistant Auditor-Controller letter to the Grand Jury, March 10, 1995 re Performance Audits Video tape of a County Performance Measurement Workshop, April 11, 1994 Santa Barbara County Performance Measurements, submitted to the Board of Supervisors by the County administrator on August 3, 1994 Agenda (Revised) Budget Committee of the Board, March 8, 1993 Deputy County Administrator letter to the Grand Jury, dated March 14, 1995 transmitting management audits entitled "Major Systems Assessment Report," "Child Protective Services Review" and "Management Review of the Health Care Services Department", all prepared in 1991 Santa Barbara County Employee Suggestions and Awards Program, Revisions through May 12, 1992 Auditor-Controller letter to the Board of Supervisors for Agenda of January 11, 1994 re Internal Audit - Five Year Audit Plan Deputy County Administrator letter to the Grand Jury, dated January 11, 1995 Assistant Auditor-Controller letter to the Board of Supervisors for Board Agenda of February 7, 1995 re "Performance Measures" Deputy County Administrator letter to the Grand Jury, dated March 30, 1995 regarding Employee Suggestion and Award Program Information Management Tools booklet prepared by the District Attorney's office Letter to the Grand Jury from Business Records Corporation, successor to CMSI, dated April 7, 1995, regarding definitions used in the Transformation Study REFERENCES CITED