By Nelson Rios
Having worked for twenty years in a county manager based system in the Mid-Atlantic region, I was well positioned to observe the structure and function of such a governing arrangement. I worked in the office of the county manager, and served three such managers during my tenure. Furthermore, I interacted with several neighboring local governments also functioning under a county manager/county administrator arrangement (whichever term used was merely semantic – – both such positions, as well as city manager/city administrator, were organized in essentially the same manner).
Suffice it to say that, under the new charter, San Juan County government may have been loosely organized as a county council with a county administrator. It never installed, however, the mechanisms, linkages, definitions and roles that evidence a county administrator operation, much less instilled the attitudinal changes necessary among staff, elected officials and the public.
Accordingly, it comes as no surprise that the Charter Review Committee now wants to revert to a system wherein elected officials also discharge administrative responsibilities. It is natural to return to something familiar, even if the familiar is fraught with conflict of interests and other political and operational problems.
In essence, governance with a division of legislative and executive responsibilities should include:
- A representative governing body, duly elected by the citizens it serves, and directly responsible to those citizens; its role is to govern through a legislative process;
- A chief administrative executive, hired by the governing body and directly responsible to its elected officials; her/his role is to implement and administer the policies and initiatives promulgated by the governing body
- Directors of major functional areas, or departments, directly responsible to, and only to, the chief administrative executive; their role is to assist and support the chief administrative executive to discharge her/his responsibilities;
- Additional function-based departmental staff with no more than three levels of supervision, all ultimately responsible to their departmental directors;
- And, perhaps most important, an abiding view by each level of the governing structure that the public is the customer and is to be treated accordingly – – and that customer service must be evident in all that is done in the name of the public.
Merely calling County government an Administrator style of government, and even developing the structure for such type of government, is wholly inadequate and doomed to fail. Key aspects to a successful conversion to this “new” form of operating include buy-in by all stakeholders, agreement on definitions and roles, firm adherence to the chain of responsibility (similar to the one detailed above), clear accountability within the system, and transparency of governance to the public. This path is not easy nor short, but necessary and very much worth the effort.
Unless a conversion process is wholly engaged, a county administrator form of government will continue to have problems and fail to meet its operational potential. And reverting to the previous system will be even more problematic for all involved, particularly the public it intends to serve.
**If you are reading theOrcasonian for free, thank your fellow islanders. If you would like to support theOrcasonian CLICK HERE to set your modestly-priced, voluntary subscription. Otherwise, no worries; we’re happy to share with you.**
thank you for sharing your experience and for outlining in a clear and understandable way what a county government with an administrator actually does! so… how do we the public assure that the guidelines you present are implemented, and more important, how do we assure that we don’t have any more unopposed “races” for something as important as county council? the public needs a choice, not unopposed candidates. if that scenario happens again, a strong write-in campaign will be the only chance of having a real election.
the third and most important thing is that if the public is not informed and engaged and dialoguing with our officials, we can’t effect any change in government. an engaged, committed, and active public is the most important piece of this. thanks for writing.
Sadie:
The first step is to preserve the county manager/administrator structure that was voted in with the new charter by voting NO on Propositions 1 and 2. The second step is to impress upon the County Council the need to engage a conversion process to accomplish the behavioral and attitudinal changes necessary for a successful transition to a divided form of governing.
Finally, a citizens committee whose purpose is to identify and groom candidates for County Council candidacy, perhaps tapping into participants of Leadership San Juan County, will go a long way in avoiding unopposed elections to the Council. There are other strategies that may be employed, as well.
Hope this is responsive to the questions you raised.
Another resource for identifying and grooming County Council candidates may be a County Advisory Committee, in particular for Orcas, the Eastsound Planning Review Committee (EPRC). That is where Patty Miller, Lisa Byers and Brian Ehrmantraut, among other Orcas residents, served the island, and the county before moving on to other positions. They also developed relationships crucial to effecting policy, laws and implementation while serving the EPRC
This is a really interesting discussion and it’s a pleasure to read all of your ideas without getting the urge to dispute (with civility of course) anything. Thanks for sharing these good ideas, Nelson. My hope is that the propositions will be rejected and the Council will set about appointing an outstanding professional as County administrator AND undertake an exploration of ways to improve the Charter without gutting it.
I forgot to mention the following in case some readers are not aware of the three ways the Charter can be amended.
1. The Charter Review Commission’s recommendations.
2. The County Council’s recommendation.
3. A citizen initiative.
All three require approval of the voters.
thanks, nelson. yes, this answers those questions.
i have a question regarding iniatives: wouldn’t a person have to write an initiative to overturn something, and then another to enact something else? this process seems cumbersome and overly arduous. can they be done in the same voting period? what percentage of the voters are needed to pass an initiative? a referendum? what percentage of the voters are needed to get an initiative on the ballot? a referendum?
please also explain the difference betw. iniatives and referendums and what each of them do and when you would use each: perhaps an educational article would be effective for this.
It seems a bit misleading to equate Proposition 2 with “reverting to the previous system,” especially since the position of County administrator or manager did not even exist under the previous system.
Proposition 2 preserves the benefits of having a County manager. What is at question is how to make that position best serve the citizens of this County. As Mr. Rios points out, accountability and transparency are key, but we need to be certain that the Charter itself is not hindering our ability to achieve these aims.
As it stands, public policy is implemented with oversight by a very powerful Administrator/manager. But who oversees the Administrator? Certainly not the citizens. We have no direct access, and must rely on the Council for that task. Under the current system, the Council’s oversight of the manager is limited to an annual performance review. (Of course, there is always the extreme option of firing the Administrator and starting all over with a new one.)…
. . . Any other involvement by the Council is deemed “over-involvement,” or “interfering with the Office of the Administrator,” or a violation of the “separation of powers.”
Minimally, the public should be able to affect policy through influence over their elected representatives whose job it is to remain vigilant in seeing that those policies are carried out. Reliance on an unelected official with no adequate oversight and not accountable to the public just doesn’t work— in theory, or in practice. Besides, no amount of rigid hierarchy will eradicate the inherent complications and messiness of a representative democracy, much as we would like it to.
All considerations with regard to changes to the Charter should refer back to the Charter’s original purpose: greater citizen control over County government. Our best chance for maximum representation, accountability and transparency in San Juan County actually lies with the passage of Proposition 1, but that’s…
. . . another subject altogether.
Ms. Ponder:
I respect your right to your opinion. But your conclusion “Reliance on an unelected official with no adequate oversight and not accountable to the public just doesn’t work— in theory, or in practice.”is dead wrong. The county/city manager form of governing is the most pervasive structure in the U.S. It may be a rarity in Washington state, but that does not negate its viability.
County managers serve at the pleasure of the governing elected body. Accordingly, one of this body’s oversight function is to monitor the implementation and administration of their policies by the manager/administrator on an on-going basis and usually culminating in an annual review. This annual review notwithstanding, the manager SERVES AT THE PLEASURE OF THE BOARD OR COUNCIL, so there are ample opportunities to correct the performance of the manager, as was done with one of my former county managers.
Finally, please re-read my editorial, as having a county manager in name only is…
… a travesty to the intent of the structure. Oversight, of the manager by the council, of the department heads by department directors, and of staff by senior supervisors is an integral part of the structure. So is clear accountability and transparency to the public. Proposition 1 does not address or encompass these elements. Neither does it address the type of attitude shift among elected officials county staff and the public essential to a successful conversion to an effective county manager operation. Accordingly, I will be voting “NO” on Proposition 1 and Proposition 2, and encourage other voters to do the same.