Bill Grile, chairman of the governance advisory committee, declared that commissioners are “both administrators and policy legislators”. Grile went on to state that the committee had concluded, but did not explain how the conclusion was reached, that commissioners could not perform both functions effectively. The committee uses this conclusion to reach another conclusion that the county needs an administrator to free up time for the commissioners to work on critical policy matters. The committee never defines what these policy matters are.
The structure advisory committee also concluded the county needed an administrator to free up administrative time to allow the commissioners to go about the critical business of bringing revenue into the county. The committee doesn’t mention what options the commissioners might pursue. Recently I asked the commissioners to define the types of policy decisions they must make and how being freed from administrative duties would make this job easier.
Commissioner Main says most policy is already set at the state and federal level and the commission rarely has to make “policy” decisions. Interim Commissioner Parry regards everything as a policy decision from how they handle county resources to what bulk quantity of toilet paper to order but could not or would not give a specific example of a typical policy decision that comes across his desk. Interim Commissioner Messerle was equally vague but after lots of uhms and ahs came up with updating the county “codes and policy manuals”.
None of the commissioners had a plan for how they would use their extra time go about bringing in more revenue to the county but at this point Messerle reverses his support for the centralized power structure, the “let the buck stop here” meme promoted by local paper and now calls for a team that is “more than just one person”. Something, you know, like we already have.
The entire meeting is available at Coos Media Center, the governance discussion begins at [1:09:00]
…One thing we need to understand is we say administrator but its actually administrative structure that we really need to talk about and part of that is building a management team that is more than just one person to be able to administrate and manage it properly. So, I think the discussion the process we have been in for the last year has now gotten us to the point where it has ended up before the board of commissioners which is the endpoint that it needed to come to and now our process in the next period of time is to deal with it.
Is it Messerle’s contention that three commissioners and 26 department heads are NOT a management team but five commissioners, 26 department heads AND an administrator are a team? Does this make any sense? If Messerle had any leadership skills surely he could build a team with the existing structure. Instead, he Parry and a small collection of business people prefer to declare the county broken and the council management system archaic primarily because school boards, municipalities and hospitals, etc.. use a council manager model. The latter system is hardly modern and has been around for over one hundred years. Further, county’s have unique responsibilities that make comparing them to cities and school boards inappropriate. The governance committee argues the county should dispense with the status quo and change its system to a council manager form simply because everyone else is doing it…
Jody McCaffree points out that the county did have a strategic plan developed via the SDAT program with a group from the American Institute of Architects. Unfortunately, the plan was left to the South Coast Development Council, directed by Sandy Messerle, wife of Fred Messerle, and the plan died for lack of follow through.
Film clip used in the video above is from Billy Madison (1995)
In a neutral setting with clear rules this might be entertaining but now that Fred has flip flopped and wants a whole crew, not just a captain…. why bother
I think he needs to surround himself with his friends. Al wants an audience for a pissing contest,with the deck stacked. I would not fall for that one. He has a keyboard. Let him state his case here for all to see. He never answers directly the questions and points you make. Why should we expect him to do so there?
He’s just baiting you because that’s his only card to play, since he never provides proof for his agenda. Let his chamber buddies come on here to support him, where they don’t control the floor.
Here’s what we’ll do, Mary: I’m going to invite you to a Chamber luncheon and you and I can debate this issue in front of the City’s business leaders and anyone else who wants to attend. We’ll let them decide who is full of B.S.
Do you accept?
See how Al works. He has no proof whatsoever that an administrator would have saved solid waste from Fred and Cam’s mission to turn it over to Waste Connections but he continues to play this card. Does he believe his own lies?
Actually, Ricky, I can: I built a Pacific division of 14 sales offices in nine different countries and I never had a personal secretary. I shared an administrative support person with another manager. I was the only senior manager in the entire company that did not have a personal administrative support person. Why? Because I didn’t need a full time support person (and neither did a lot of those other senior managers) and I couldn’t justify using a precious headcount for personal use when I had needs in so many other places. To assume that an Administrator requires a cast of thousands is misguided. And for the record, oneinfiniteloop, I never stated that an Administrator would be a costly proposition. What I have stated consistently is that an Administrator would save the taxpayer’s money and save quite a few County jobs. Unfortunately, for lack of an Administrator, many people at Solid Waste lost their jobs – permanently. That is why I am so puzzled as to why so many on this blog want to continue down the same path. You know what they say about the definition of insanity…
Let’s not forget the $21K Fred just cost the taxpayer by tweaking the planning department fee schedule. We just paid for his error out of the general fund
It was nice that Mr. Petit recently acknowledged that the proposed administrator and other feifdom members will be a costly proposition. Perhaps the taxpayers can be told soon where these hundreds of thousands of dollars annually will be coming from. Of course, after almost a year discussing the matter, it would be nice to read just exactly what the taxpayers will gain for their money. Freeing up the dream team to do something that at least two have never done and do not know how to do is not a gain for the community.
Youtube, of course, it is perfect and I could use it almost every time they speak… What is really funny is that Fred has now gone from wanting a Captain to wanting a whole Joint Chiefs… ie an administrative team just like we already have. He has framed the debate for the candidates who want to be full time commissioners
Where did you find that movie clip? Couldn’t have been more perfect. Cant stop laughing
No, I saw the headline and couldn’t bring myself to read it
Are you going to comment on the lame duck editorial?
the matter of the proposed ordinance was not before the board Tuesday,…
And, anybody, what happened? Was Messerle’s blunder reversed or is Mr. Parry’s approved motion to place an administrator on the ballot standing? Thanks.
Mr. Wiley, what you ask is every day occurance in the Silicon Valley world from which Mr. Pettit came. Often because the founder / leader / CEO is unable to or refuses to or won’t give up contriol. Too often they are found to be ineffective and end up moving from company to company like nomads.
Al can you name a corperation that is the size of the county that the CEO runs without supporting staff. The commissioners could not yesterday. Matter of fact they were speechless.
Actually, I think we’ve delivered the reasons for change in a succinct and easy-to-understand message. I encourage all your readers to review the Structure Committee report and the Governance report. Should they have additional questions regarding either they can stop by my dealership and I’ll be happy to explain the situation in great detail.
– Al Pettit
Wow!
What a kick in the nuts this article is…
Proponents of a swift governance change have failed to produce a valid argument supporting a change nor have they provided evidence that said change will improve the county… Where a handful of business people think it is a good idea is irrelevant because another handful of business people will argue the opposite.
Mary – do you believe it’s coincidence that so many experienced business people agree that the County is overdue for a management restructuring? I don’t think it’s unreasonable to grasp that some – perhaps many – of the county’s problems are the result of a management structure that was conceived when the Edsel was around. You’ve stated many times that you can’t run government like a business, but is that any reason to run government into the ground? There are a number of services that I happen to believe the County should not be providing, but there are also a number of services that I believe ONLY the County can provide and I’d prefer that they not go away. Again – we can continue with the status quo and follow Curry’s lead. After all, they’re showing Lane, Douglas, Josephine and others how to handle a catastrophic budget situation, but with a few minor changes we might be able to avoid a similar fate altogether. I’m sure the latter is preferred by the County employees. Aside from a few County employees I doubt anyone’s life is going to change dramtically. The sun will continue to rise and life will go on – preferably with our County government intact.