The Democrats brought out another distinguished person who has served this country with honor to complain about a GOP ad that contains the cut and run statements of the party.

Having been a member of the military, even if you are highly decorated, does not make a person an authority on war any more than working for a nuclear facility would make that person an expert on the use of a nuclear bomb.

Unless these folks have attended the Command and General Staff College and the War College then they really don’t have the background to run wars. Remember, Congress ran Viet Nam and the UN ran Korea.

UPDATE:

Captain's Quarters is reporting Terrorists Warn Zarqawi: Back Down For Elections

This is not a good outcome for the cut-and-run crowd.

This series has been about how a small California County (Sutter County) responded to Citizen input. I find it disheartening that such a series is even necessary but it appears that the last bastion of Citizen involvement in government is slowly disappearing. Citizens are welcome when they pat you on the back or help fund your campaign but not if they have alternative suggestions or criticism. Too many small local governments operate under the policy that “this is the way that we have always done it, don’t confuse us with the facts.”

I am sure that in the Executive Offices of Sutter County this series is being considered a political hit piece. In fact, it is nothing more than a representation of how far a local government would go to avoid making changes or even to take an objective look into how they approach a small independent Commission. The only politics here is being pushed by the County CAO. If this were really a political issue I would think that Mr. Edward would have waited a few months until California’s silly season of elections.

The State Controller found issues in how the County Administrative Offices maintain time cards. Nothing historical, simply estimates of what they think that they did. Imagine telling your boss that you think that you worked 40 hours this week. Do you really think that you will get a paycheck? It is clear that the County CAO thinks that the State of California and Federal governments should pay Sutter County based upon “ESTIMATES” of time worked.

I really hate to see states get too involved in local government activities. When they do it in California it usually means that it will cost you more than any benefit received. However, I suggest that the State Controller should apply SARBOX internal control requirements on California counties. Doing so would put a stop to the activity that you have read in the series. Mr. Combs likens his job to that of a large corporation CEO. Complying with SARBOX in Sutter County would be a giant wakeup call into corporate reality.

Additionally, in the real corporate world, boards of directors are being expanded to include alternative points of view (similar to the job of the elected Auditor-Controller). Boards no longer depend entirely on their CEO for information and guidance. CFOs are playing a bigger role in the corporate environment. They are no longer Yes men and women, they are independent.

With the looming problem of escalating post-retirement benefits confronting all of California, one has to wonder how that problem will be approached if government is unwilling to try to reach a consensus on a $200K program.

This presentation by Mr. Edward was not a major problem until Mr. Combs responded. In stead of fighting and looking at a bit of criticism as being political he could have simply taken a few simple steps.

• First, put the LAFCo website on the County homepage.
• Second, provide email links to all members and addresses for members who are not part of the County.
• Third, take the LAFCo services to a Request For Proposal (RFP). The County could then bid to keep the services.
• Fourth, provide LAFCo with a policy to review and approve of all Revenues and Expenditures.
• Fifth, require all time spent on LAFCo projects be substantially documented so that the Commission knows the status of all projects.
  

It is time for the Sutter County elected Board of Supervisors to take a long and hard look at the “Team Sutter” concept. I believe that Mr. Combs’ actions support my previous contention that “Team Sutter” is about the County and not about the citizens that it serves. Using the age old policy of “this is the way that we have always done it, don’t confuse me with the facts” is not working. This policy will not allow the County to address the serious issues of the 21st Century.

I find it “peculiar” that government immediately discounts citizen input that is not 100% supportive of the government position. “It is an amazing leap of logic” to believe that the Board of Supervisors and County staff are all seeing and that the citizens that they serve “who have little or no knowledge of the entire issue.” “To be candid, this assertion is absurd.”

How will Sutter County respond to a State requirement for its LAFCo to be independently audited? Would they suggest that the County’s outside auditor for the job? This would clearly be a conflict of interest.

Who on the Board of Supervisors is an expert in Health and Human Services or Road Construction, or even employee benefits and pensions? These ultimate decision makers depend upon staff for the facts. Staff comes and goes over time changing the dynamic of accumulated experience. That is acceptable to “Team Sutter.” Heaven forbid that a citizen attempt to insert such a change in dynamics.

Mr. Combs’ response perks up my “auditors” inquisitive nature and I wonder if there isn’t something more nefarious running below the radar that should be researched.

Citizens deserve a responsive government. Few of us have the money and power to influence Washington D.C. and Sacramento. We should, however, be heard in our local governments.

Part I
Part II

This is Part II of my opinion on how Sutter County CAO, Mr. Larry Combs, responded to citizen input to the Board of Supervisors.

This part starts with page 3 of Mr. Combs’ response. You can read Mr. Combs’ response and the letter that generated the response here. Scroll down and click on item 31.


Mr. Edward stated that Sutter LAFCo was not approving expenditures paid to the County.

STATEMENT: “Mr. Edward is again mistaken. The Commission adopts an annual budget each year. Like the annual County budget adopted by the Board of Supervisors, the budget contains specific appropriations which authorize specified expenditures to be made by the County staff. Certain expenditure items, such as some service contracts with outside vendors, require additional specific approval by the Commission.”

OPINION: Mr. Combs is mistaken and confused. Yes, the Commission does adopt an annual budget. However, the County and not the Commission control the costs “incurred” by the County. Here is a quote from Part I:

An anonymous County staffer stated "The funds are then transferred from LAFCO to the Planning Division via “Professional Services” to recover the cost of the staff time. It is this last portion that you see budgeted on Page C-32 under “LAFCO Contracts”. This entry is in essence a “pass-though” charge and not a cost to LAFCO."

I use this quote because it clearly indicates that Sutter County considers LAFCo revenues as a pass-through to the County. Had Sutter LAFCo had control over the work of staff they would have known that required work was not being performed.

What is important is that LAFCo is not informed of the time claimed by County staff. Additionally, the journal entries presented to the County Auditor do not include supporting information; such has hours spent working on projects and what those projects were. Folks, this is a blank check for the County without independent oversight.

The County’s hourly billing rates can be adjusted by the CAO without Commission approval. Again, only the ACAO, Mr. Coad, provides details that support his billings.

IMPORTANT NOTE: The memo under discussion in this post comes AFTER the California State Controller issued a report on the County Administrator’s Office. The report states, in part:

“The County Administrator’s Office personnel performing more than a single function are not preparing monthly personnel activity reports (time records) in accordance with the State Controller’s Handbook of Cost Plan Procedures for California Counties Section 2320, which in part states: ‘…Be prepared at least monthly, and fully account for the total labor hours of each month.’ Currently personnel are submitting monthly time estimates.”

Time estimates? Is that how LAFCo is being billed?

The report continues:

“Failure to comply with the personnel activity reporting requirements of OMB A-87 and the State Controller’s Handbook of Cost Plan Procedures for California Counties means that the distribution of personnel activity is not adequately supported and could result in the disallowance of associated costs in future cost plans.”

The State Controller questioned Mr. Comb’s department activity, why shouldn’t Mr. Edward? Why shouldn’t LAFCo?


The battle of billings continues. Mr. Edward noted that there was no contract for services between Sutter County and Sutter LAFCo. This was confirmed with staff.

STATEMENT: “There is, in fact, no written contract between the Sutter LAFCO and the County. No such contract is necessary between public agencies. The provision of staff and related services by the County to LAFCO has been approved by both agencies, and the mechanism through which the County is reimbursed is understood by both parties.”

OPINION: NO WRITTEN CONTRACT. Without a written contract how would LAFCo know what it is being billed for and at what rate? How would LAFCo know just what authority the County has assumed?

There apparently is some confusion on this point. Let me take you back to the May 26, 2005 quote. “Mr. Sandbrook asked if the reviews could be done in-house. Chairperson White explained LAFCO has no staff and have been contracting with the county to do their staff work. Mr. Coad added county staff has looked into it but finds it is not feasible .” [emphasis added]

It is clear to me that the Commission is uncertain of the responsibilities of “staff”. It is also clear to me that staffs first responsibility is to its primary employer, the County.

A contract would define those responsibilities. In this particular case, both the County and LAFCo knew of its requirements and time limits yet they were not accomplished.


Hourly rates charged to LAFCo are not approved by LAFCo.

STATEMENT: "On September 7, 2004, the Board of Supervisors specifically delegated to me the responsibility for approving internal County billing rates. However, this authority has nothing to do with the hourly billing rates that are used to charge LAFCO for County services. In fact, all County rates are calculated in a very specific, and supportable, fashion to ensure that only justifiable costs are recovered.

LAFCO has been billed for County services since FY 2001-02, when it adopted its first budget since the passage of the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act of2000. The hourly billing rates are calculated by the County Community Services Department based on a standard, and long accepted, methodology for calculating weighted hourly rates. Specific rates were provided to the Commission when it approved its FY 2001-02 budget, and rate calculations are used each year in preparing the Commission's annual budget. There is nothing secretive, much less improper, about this process or the methodology used.”

OPINION: As an independent Commission, LAFCo has no requirement to accept rates established by the County. In the following discussion, you will see why there is a problem with the computations used by the County.

Again we find that a one-time decision has become a permanent decision. It really doesn’t appear that LAFCo is receiving $139 per hour in services from Mr. Combs. With the responsibility of having the Municipal Services Reviews completed falling on him, we now know that he failed to complete the task in a timely manner.

Efficiency, cost, and control rests with the County and not LAFCo.


Mr. Edward stated: Except for Mr. Coad, no billings for services are provided to support removal of funds from the Sutter County Local Agency Formation Commission. This is a serious and questionable activity as time-cards are required for billing under OMB A-87 and,
therefore, must be available to the Sutter County Local Agency Formation Commission for review and approval.


STATEMENT: “It is unclear to me what documents were provided to Mr. Edward by Mr. Stark. Whatever the case, summaries of the hours spent on LAFCO activities are provided to the Community Services Department staff which calculates the reimbursement that is due the County. OMB Circular A-87 has no applicability to LAFCO since it neither receives nor expends State or Federal revenue. As noted, the specific bills do not have to be approved by LAFCO.”

OPINION: Is this the proverbial two sets of books? Can you really have multiple billing rates? I think not.

Mr. Combs claims that “It is unclear to me what documents were provided to Mr. Edward by Mr. Stark.” Let me refresh Mr. Combs’ memory. Mr. Edward states:

“Attached to the Journal Entry were two memos from Mr. Clary, Community Services
ASO, to Mr. Stark, Auditor-Controller, one e-mail addressing billing rates to be
charged to LAFCo, and CAO and County Counsel Billing Rates analysis for LAFCo
billing.”

I would assume that Mr. Combs would have copies of memos that he issued. If not, a trip to the Auditor’s Office would have given him the opportunity to review the documents referred to by Mr. Edward. Instead Mr. Combs attempts to obfuscate the issue.

This may be the most important aspect of Mr. Edward’s report. Mr. Combs’ STATEMENT here, combined with the previous STATEMENT (above), only serves as an attempt to obscure the truth.

OMB Circular A-87 does not apply to LAFCo but the rates computed by the County under the OMB Circular A-87 requirements do. I am sure that Mr. Combs has taken the time to familiarize himself with the Accounting Standards and Procedures for Counties published by the State Controller’s Office. It has a nice discussion of acceptable methods for determining billing rates.

Nowhere in the guidelines will you find the elimination of vacation, sick leave and other so called non-productive time. In fact, they are part of the calculation. Additionally, the guidelines states that a labor rate should be computed for each pay range and step within. In the case of the County Counsel’s Office, different pay grades and steps were melded into one rate.

Using Mr. Combs’ theory the County could essentially have multiple billing rates that eventually endanger the County’s reimbursement of Federal Funds under the County Cost Plan.


Mr. Edward stated: Sutter County should take immediate action to remove itself from its current level of control over the Sutter County Local Agency Formation Commission. The Commission cannot be considered independent if its key staff also serves similar function with Sutter County.


STATEMENT: “To be candid, this assertion is absurd. As described above, the County provides staff services to LAFCO at the Commission's request, and, as defined in law, while working for LAFCO those employees are working for the Commission and not the County of Sutter. This is an efficient and effective means of obtaining services and saving the taxpayers' money. Further, since the County only appoints two of the seven LAFCO Commissioners, it is impossible for the County to "control" the Commission, and I believe none of the LAFCO Commissioners would agree that they are "controlled" by the County.”

OPINION: Mr. Combs left the best for last. As you have learned this STATEMENT is absurd.
Maybe I am confused so let’s take a closer look at the LAFCo staff.

The Executive Officer is the County CAO; the Assistant Executive Officer is the County ACAO; LAFCo Counsel is County Counsel; and the people who do the work are members of the County Community Development Department. Who is the primary employer of these individuals? SUTTER COUNTY! If the County has a project and LAFCo has a project which project takes priority? Nobody knows because there is no definition of who is responsible for what.

Mr. Combs is right in that the County only has two out of seven votes. Mr. Combs also knows that staff controls the flow, manner, and substance of data. If staff wants a particular outcome the data will support that outcome and will minimize the value of alternatives.

The other five Commission members may have simply accepted the status quo as being the way things are actually done. By Mr. Combs own statements, no other option has been provided to the Commission since 2001.

The Commission may in fact decide to work with County staff. But they should be presented that option on an annual basis. They should see and approve of the work and related costs on a monthly basis prior to the County being reimbursed. This is a simple task but Mr. Combs says NO NO NO!


STATEMENT: “I believe the superficial nature of Mr. Edward's research and analysis, as well as the manner in which his report was presented, indicate that his work was politically motivated and intended mainly to precipitate a newspaper headline.”

OPINION: Mr. Combs needs to get out of the political spin-control business. It is not in his job description.

This statement by Mr. Combs is demeaning and despicable. It is merely another attack on a citizen with a different point of view. In stead of looking for the simple solutions that I will outline in Part III, Mr. Combs decided on a political counterattack on Mr. Edwards. Mr. Combs did nothing to promote citizen involvement in Sutter County government and has tarnished “Team Sutter”.

I wonder, just how could this report have been presented to make it not “politically motivated”? Answer, don’t issue it.

It is the Right of every Citizen to comment on the actions taken or to be taken by their government. That means that you can concur with or dissent with those actions. You don’t have to have a PhD in the subject to speak your mind. You don’t have to tell the government who you discussed your opinion with. You should not be intimidated by the government for speaking out.

It is also the responsibility for the government to provide the citizens with the facts. In our nuanced world of government facts tend to move with the situation.

This three part series will demonstrate how one particular government responds to citizen “criticism.” I suggest you pay close attention to the use of descriptive words by the CAO to see if they actually answer the citizen’s statements to the Board of Supervisors. Here are a few examples:

Mr. Edward’s assertions are either incorrect or trivialPeculiar
It is an amazing leap of logic
It is ludicrous
To be candid, this assertion is absurd

As you can read, it is obvious that the citizen’s comments struck a nerve. What is important to understand is that this is all about a program that spends a couple hundred thousand dollars per year. What would the CAO response read like if this were a multi-million dollar program?

Here is my original post on the subject - Team Sutter Stranglehold on LAFCo

Before I get started I would like to provide two simple quotes from a publication called IT’S TIME TO DRAW THE LINE. “Here’s the real kicker, though: a LAFCO is not a county agency. It is an independent regulatory commission operating at the county-level that receives it powers directly from the Legislature. Further, a LAFCO has its own governing body that does not fall under the authority of the county board of supervisors.”

“A LAFCO is not a county agency. No county has a “Department of LAFCO” or “LAFCO agency.” To contrast, Riverside County has the Department of Building and Safety, which falls under the oversight of the board of supervisors. The Department inspects buildings to make sure that they are seismically safe and that they comply with state and local building codes. Riverside LAFCO, however, does not fall under the jurisdiction of the board of supervisors and is not a subsidiary of the county.”

Please keep these quotes in mind as you read through this series.


On September 15, 2005, Sutter County citizen, Mr. Ian Edward, wrote a letter to the editor that was published in the Appeal Democrat (local paper). Mr. Edward stated “I’ll make the same offer to Mr. Combs: Let me audit the records that you won’t let Mr. Stark audit (all of the records). It won’t cost the taxpayers a thing.” Mr. Stark is the elected Auditor-Controller of Sutter County.

On November 15, 2005, Mr. Ian Edward presented a summary of his research on Sutter County LAFCo. He did not perform an audit but made professional judgments about the records.

Sutter County has 5 elected Board of Supervisors. These officials are the policy makers for the County. They are also responsible for the hiring of the County Administrative Officer (CAO). The CAO’s website indicates “Like the CEO of a major corporation, the County Administrator is responsible to the Board of Supervisors for the day-to-day administration of all County departments. The County Administrator provides staff support to the Board and generally ensures that the Board's policy is carried out.” The Sutter County CAO is Mr. Larry Combs.

OPINION: Frankly, I don’t believe that at $100 million in revenues that Sutter County is a major corporation. I wonder if SARBOX were to be applied to Sutter County (like a major corporation) would it pass muster?

A 4 page memo was prepared by the Sutter County CAO to the Board of Supervisors for the purpose of refuting Mr. Edward’s statements. You can read both documents here. Scroll down and click on item 31.

LAFCo is an independent Commission established by the California Legislature. According to Webster, Independent means:

not subject to control by others: self-governing, or not looking to others for one’s opinions or for guidance of one’s conduct or, perhaps,

refusing to accept assistance or to be under obligation to others or,

showing a desire for freedom and absence of constraint.

The primary thrust of Mr. Edward’s comments is that LAFCo is not independent of Sutter County. Keep Webster’s definition in mind as I take you through Mr. Combs’ attempt to prove that LAFCo is independent.

The following is my opinion on Mr. Combs' memo:

Let’s put this into perspective with a bit of history. Staff and the Board of Supervisors can take all of the time that they want to discuss the issues during the meetings. This is as it should be. However, the public is put on the clock with a 3 minute limitation.

The Sutter County Grand Jury weighed in and stated “…but considering the attack that they [the Board of Supervisors] must endure from the public, who have little or no knowledge of the entire issue is uncalled for.” I simply ask, can you summarize a 6 page report in 3 minutes and still provide sufficient detail to look like you have more than “little or no knowledge of the entire issue”?

County CAO Combs immediately responded to Mr. Edward. Here is the statement from the official minutes:

“Larry Combs, County Administrative Officer, thanked Mr. Edward for his comments and noted that his information is incorrect and all issues raised are in law. Mr. Combs clarified that the law allows County staff to hold positions on LAFCO unless the Commission determines otherwise.”

Mr. Combs decided that he needed to respond in detail to Mr. Edward’s presentation. Here are his STATEMENTS and my OPINION on those statements.

STATEMENT: “Mr. Edward’s assertions are either incorrect or trivial .” [emphasis added]

STATEMENT: “Mr. Edward never consulted with any LAFCO staff member, or to our knowledge, LAFCO Commissioner. In fact, to the best of our knowledge, he has never visited the LAFCO office or attended a LAFCO meeting. He does not indicate that he has any personal background or expertise in LAFCO’s in general or the Sutter LAFCO in particular."

OPINION: Mr. Edward is a CPA. He understands that the County's records must stand on their own merit. If an explanation is required to substantiate the validity of the records then the County has a problem. What would happen if the person who created the documentation left the County?

I would note that Mr. Combs does not establish his claim of expertise on the subject. He does refer to his Assistant in this matter.

Since the Assistant CAO has LAFCo experience do we really need the CAO involved?

Staff provided information with regard to Sutter LAFCo. I will refer to their statements at the appropriate time.

STATEMENT: “Mr. Edward apparently relied exclusively on: (1) data provided by County Auditor-Controller Robert Stark.”

OPINION: Mr. Combs knew full well what Mr. Edward’s was doing - well, maybe not. Mr. Combs apparently has forgotten his own writings.

“It is unclear to me what Mr. Edward wishes to accomplish, but as the records of the County are public, it is appropriate to cooperate with his effort. I would note, however, that his effort should not be allowed to interfere with the operation of your office or with the completion of necessary work.” Let us not forget the September 15 Letter to the Editor, noted above.

“I believe that those records are public information and Mr. Edward may "audit" them if he wishes to do so.”

Mr. Combs also tells the Auditor: “The Chairman has informed me that he told Mr. Edward that he was to use only the records in your office, as all of the necessary financial records should be there. If there are some pertinent financial records that would be resident only in the department, I am unaware of that fact.” [emphasis added]

Mr. Edward only used information provided by Mr. Stark? Isn’t that what he was told to do by the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors? Isn't that what Mr. Combs told the County Auditor?

LAFCos were created because counties were not neutral. However, Mr. Combs is insisting that Sutter LAFCo is independent even though it is treated as a division of a County Department. An anonymous County staffer stated "The funds are then transferred from LAFCO to the Planning Division via “Professional Services” to recover the cost of the staff time. It is this last portion that you see budgeted on Page C-32 under “LAFCO Contracts”. This entry is in essence a “pass-though” charge and not a cost to LAFCO." I am trying hard to follow Mr. Combs' logic that Sutter LAFCo is independent of the County.

STATEMENT: “(2) a consultation with ‘…an individual outside of Sutter county with knowledge of LAFCO.’ This is, given the seriousness of his allegations, peculiar, and brings into question the objectivity of his work. Mr. Edward should, at a minimum, reveal the nature of his relationship with Mr. Stark, and the identity of this ‘outside individual’ so the Board and public can discern his or her level of expertise.”

OPINION: First, Mr. Combs claimed that Mr. Edward’s presentation was “trivial” and now he is claiming that the statements are serious. These statements are within two paragraphs of each other on the same page.

As you read through Mr. Combs' memo you will see the telltale signs of trying to avoid straight answers. He uses words and phrases like "incorrect, irrelevant, ludicrous, peculiar, amazing leap of logic, he is wrong, is again mistaken, this assertion is absurd, superficial nature, politically motivated and intended to precipitate a newspaper headline.” It has always amazed me when government officials use such adjectives. I guess it makes them feel superior but it does little to promote a comprehensive and factual answer.

Mr. Edward did not perform an audit. He simply looked at the documentation provided by the County Auditor-Controller’s Office. The documentation reviewed was specifically requested by Mr. Edward and not fed to him by Mr. Stark. Yet, Mr. Combs assumes, without any evidence, that there was some backroom deal to make him look bad.

Let me get this correct. Mr. Combs recognized that the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors directed Mr. Edward to use the records in Mr. Stark’s office. Now Mr. Combs is claiming, without any evidence except for criticism, that there might be some sort of nefarious relationship between Mr. Edward and Mr. Stark because Mr. Edward used the records maintained in Mr. Stark’s office. That logic escapes me.

This is only the introduction to Mr. Combs’ response. Confusing and far less professional than I would expect for someone making a 6 figure income!

On to the meat of the response.


Mr. Edward claimed that Sutter County is not treating Sutter LAFCo as an independent Commission. He provided a number of reasons as to why he reached this conclusion.

STATEMENT: “Mr. Edward makes this conclusion based solely on a page that exists on the Sutter County website.”

OPINION: This was only part of the basis. If the Commission is truly independent the website should not be buried in the bowls of the County website.

The simple response to this part of the issue is to move the link to LAFCo onto the front page of the County website. Instead, Mr. Combs insists on making an incomplete argument.

Here is a quote from Mr. Edward’s report:

In 1997 the Governor signed AB 1484 and established the "Commission on Local Governance for the 21st Century". The Commission notified every County Board of Supervisors so they could participate and held hearings throughout California. One of the major outcomes of this effort was that LAFCO's should be independent. This has been a constant refrain since 1963; since under County control, LAFCO's statewide were not able to remain neutral and fulfill their purpose. [emphasis added]

Did you note the last sentence? Mr. Combs did not even address it. After all, it is better to infer a single “trivial” supporting document than address an important comment.

Here is Sutter County’s home page. Use the links provided and find LAFCo – NO SEARCH is permitted in this exercise. Keep track of the number of clicks required to find the LAFCo page. How many clicks did it take you? One would be nice.


STATEMENT: “In any event, as most people would infer by reading the very webpage that concerns Mr. Edward, LAFCO, by statute, is an independent agency.”

OPINION: If the webpage could be easily found you might find the assertion of independence. Independence is either by perception or in fact. In this case there is an appearance of not being independent. As you will see, that appearance becomes even cloudier.

What is ultimately important is that LAFCo could be independent by statute and still be treated as one of the family by the County.


Mr. Edward stated that it appears as if the County CAO, ACAO, and County Counsel’s Office are functioning in incompatible offices with LAFCo.

STATEMENT: “Mr. Edward reaches this conclusion based on his understanding of the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act of 2000. He is wrong. The Act does not prohibit a LAFCO from appointing the County Administrative Officer, et al, to serve as LAFCO staff members. It empowers LAFCO to hire whomever it pleases.”

OPINION: Mr. Combs is correct in that LAFCO can hire whomever it wants. He is wrong about the rest of his statement. This is simple. If LAFCO utilizes County Counsel for legal services then one would assume that County Counsel would represent LAFCO in legal action. This falls apart when the County sues LAFCO over a decision. County Counsel represents his primary employer, the County, and LAFCO is out in the cold.

The concept of incompatible jobs is simple. If you are employed by two entities with competing interests there is a potential for conflict of interest. It is easy to say that the law requires the LAFCo Commission members and staff to act independently but in reality your allegiance will rest with your primary employer.

I wonder if the Board of Supervisors and Judge might find it incompatible for Mr. Combs to be the County CAO and sit on the Grand Jury? Since the Grand Jury investigates the County could Mr. Combs be considered disinterested?

STATEMENT: Mr. Combs refers to a 2001 briefing of LAFCO (4 years ago). “…one of the reasons expressed by the Commission as to why it desired to continue to utilize County staff was for cost savings and efficiency.”

OPINION: Times change. A one-time decision appears to be a permanent decision.

Lets look at the term “efficiency”. The April 24, 2003 LAFCo minutes contain the following statement regarding the completion of required Municipal Service Reviews and Sphere of Influence in a timely manner:

“Commissioner Hager questioned whether staff could complete 40 municipal service reviews in the time that is available."

"Mr. Libby explained that the review of many of the entities would not be time intensive in that it may be just a matter of contacting the entity and validating existing boundaries .” [emphasis added]

That was 2003. Lets look at May 26, 2005. “Mr. Sandbrook asked if the reviews could be done in-house. Chairperson White explained LAFCO has no staff and have been contracting with the county to do their staff work. Mr. Coad added county staff has looked into it but finds it is not feasible .” [emphasis added]

“Chairperson White asked what would happen if the deadline was not meet. Assistant Executive Officer Coad replied he would have to consult with County Counsel.”

This was part of a discussion as to why LAFCo was being required to spend $165,000 to complete the mandated requirements that they were aware of in 2003.

Efficiency? You decide!

Please note that Mr. Coad referred to LAFCo counsel as County Counsel.

STATEMENT: “Mr. Coad, who has extensive LAFCO experience in another County, was appointed as the Assistant Executive Officer on February 28, 2002.”

OPINION: With “extensive LAFCO experience” one would assume that Mr. Coad (ACAO) would have been able to answer the question. This issue has been before LAFCo since at least 2003 (LAFCO minutes prior to 2003 are not on the website). Again, Mr. Coad does provide documentation for the hours that he charges and I applaud him for that. I guess applaud is a bit strong since time and billing is a basic requirement to document performance.

Part II will be coming soon.