###

How should the county government be organized? That was arguably the biggest question pondered during today’s meeting of the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors, and there proved to be no consensus.

The more specific query under consideration was whether the county would function more efficiently if its structure were reorganized so that all department heads (except those who are independently elected) reported to the county administrative officer, who would then function more like a CEO who, in turns, reports to the Board of Supervisors.

Under the current structure, the various department heads all report directly to the board, an arrangement that has both advantages and challenges, according to a study recently completed by an analyst in the Human Resources Department.

As it turns out, Humboldt County is an outlier, compared to the reporting structures of 15 other Northern California counties, analyst Beth Rogers explained at today’s meeting. The most common arrangement is for department heads to report directly to the county administrative officer or executive, though two counties (Sonoma and Tehama) use a hybrid model, with some department heads reporting to the CAO/CEO while others report directly to supervisors. Still other counties have individual supervisors assigned to communicate with specific department heads.

“Humboldt was really unique in that we have our appointed department heads report directly to the board as a collective body, rather than to a single individual,” Rogers said.

CAO Elishia Hayes. | Image via Humboldt County.

The current county administrative officer, Elishia Hayes, who has been in the role for about three and a half years, said these organizational questions have been under discussion for many years now. For her part, she said she has consciously tried to develop open communication, collaboration and trust within the organization.

“And if your board were to move to a CEO model, I certainly would not be a leader who seeks power or desires to micromanage,” Hayes said.

She suggested moving in the direction of that model with a hybrid approach wherein a subset of departments — Aviation, Human Resources, Child Support Services, the library, the Public Defender’s Office and the Agricultural Commissioner — start reporting directly to her office. 

“I think those are probably the departments that you interact with the least and the departments that I interact with the most,” she told the board.

Second District Supervisor and board Chair Michelle Bushnell said that under the current system, she’s had some problems with lines of communications getting “dropped,” which impacts her ability to do her job efficiently.

First District Supervisor Rex Bohn, however, said he’d rather keep things as they are. He noted that, of the 20 department heads asked to respond to the county survey, only 11 did so. Bohn interpreted that as a sign that the non-responders are fine with the status quo. He also said that he’s reluctant to switch things up without knowing how long Hayes will stay in her job.

“If you can guarantee me you’re going to be here for the next 15 years, I wouldn’t have an issue going to this [new structure], but I don’t know what I get next,” he said.

Steve Madrone, the Fifth District supervisor, said he likes being able to contact department heads directly and feels that the current system works pretty well. But Natalie Arroyo, who represents the Fourth District, disagreed. 

“I believe that the current system that we have results in there being somewhat scattershot feedback to department heads … ,” she said. “I believe it really limits the communication and the clarity … and I find it incredibly frustrating. So for me, this is not working, what we are doing.” 

Arroyo voiced support for exploring a hybrid model, and she referred to her experience on the Eureka City Council, which received most of its information via the city manager, who, in turn, oversaw the day-to-day organizational operations.

Third District Supervisor Mike Wilson also took note of the high non-response rate to the survey, saying, “If we had a CEO model, we would have all of the [department head] responses.” He also pushed back against Bohn’s argument, saying this decision should be made without regard to who’s currently in the CAO spot or any other position.

“It’s irrelevant to me,” he said. “As a matter of fact, if we were to change this to CEO model, it may be we re-evaluate whether or not the person in that seat is the best person to do that job.” He agreed with Arroyo and Hayes, saying the hybrid model may help streamline some things. Even under that kind of model, supervisors could still communicate directly with department heads, he said.

During the public comment period, several higher-ups in the CAO’s office spoke highly of Hayes and her management style but said they’d support whichever direction the board chooses.

“It’s kind of glaring that no department head made public comment,” Bushnell observed afterwards. 

In the ensuing conversation, the board asked more questions about the hybrid model, with Bushnell, Arroyo and Wilson saying they’d like to see some more analysis. Arroyo, in particular, said she would appreciate having to check in directly with fewer department heads.

On the topic of communication, Madrone said, “My problems have been more with the with the elected department heads, to be honest. I wish we could direct them a little more — not to be too controversial,” he added with a chuckle. “They are elected independently, and I respect that absolutely, but one of them doesn’t even return my phone calls or emails at all.”

He didn’t specify which department head he was referring to.

Ultimately, the board unanimously agreed to have staff explore the hybrid model further and in about three months with a list of options to consider, including sticking with the status quo. 

Seriously, though, what is up with the federal government?

Every year, the board revisits its wish list for state and federal legislation: What new laws and policies would improve matters for us here locally? But this year isn’t like other years, and today’s discussion — led largely by lobbyists with the firm Shaw, Yoder. Antwih, Schmelzer & Lange (SYASL) — soon turned to the uncertainty and upheaval being generated by President Trump.

Last night via social media, Trump announced his intention to freeze trillions of dollars in federal grants and loans, effective later today. (Those plans were later at least partially and temporarily blocked by a federal judge.) That’s above and beyond what some are calling a “firehose” of executive orders that came from the White House on Day one.

“I mean, we can all read the news and read all the executive orders as they come out, but understanding how they’re going to be implemented is a little bit more of a black box,” Arroyo said. She added that local officials may need more help than usual from legislative analysts who can investigate the local repercussions of some of these new policies.

Wilson, meanwhile, noted that the Biden administration passed three major infrastructure bills that included substantial support for rural economies while the first Trump administration had zero. 

“In the current administration, there’s no discussion about investment in rural America at all on the agenda,” he said, adding that we’re all likely to know more in a few months. 

“So I would ask that maybe we think about coming back in three months to take a look at those priorities again,” Wilson suggested.

At the state level, legislators and Governor Gavin Newsom alike are focused on the recent devastating wildfires in Los Angeles County, which will have huge economic impacts. The state legislature already approved $2.5 billion in aid for the region, which will inevitably “make things a little bit tighter elsewhere” in the state budget, SYASL partner Karen Lange said.

The county’s main state legislative priorities include:

• regulating hemp-derived products in the state’s cannabis marketplace,
• securing resources to support offshore wind and provide community benefits,
• more funding for public health infrastructure and prevention,
arranging for the donation, sale or lease of government property (namely, the Employee Development Department building on K Street in Eureka) to the county, and
• providing allowances for rural counties to include mulch in the organic material required under a new state composting law.

Per recommendations from Madrone and Wilson, the board added one item to this legislative wish list: incentives for land and water stewardship and energy resilience.

Madrone and Bohn said they’ve spoken directly with the North Coast’s new State Assemblymember, Chris Rogers, and are optimistic about his intentions and abilities. 

The motion to approve these legislative priorities passed unanimously.

Contract for security system upgrades

Earlier in the meeting, the board held a surprisingly lively debate about security systems, with disagreement about whether or not the county should hire a Redding-based company to replace door access systems and security cameras at various county facilities. 

County staff’s recommendation, which was placed on the consent calendar for approval, called for upgrading the existing systems, which aren’t well integrated, with new Verkada-brand technology through an existing contract with the Redding-based company Development Group, Inc. (DGI). 

Bohn arranged to have the item pulled from the consent calendar, and he explained that he objected to the fact that this contract didn’t go through an open bidding process. He objected even more to bypassing local companies, including the county’s current vendor, Advanced Security. 

“My problem is, when we have a breakdown and we need a technician, we’ll have to bring a technician [from the] Bay Area [or] Redding, and I’m sorry, I’m just big on buying local,” he said. “Drives me nuts when I see people driving a car from outside the area.”

Bushnell agreed, saying the county wants its sales tax revenues to come to the county, not elsewhere.

But the county’s IT systems supervisor, Ulf Engert, said the current vendor has had trouble meeting commitments and providing adequate support. Humboldt County Clerk-Recorder and Registrar of Voters Juan Pablo Cervantes called in to voice his own dissatisfaction with the company. 

“Our current security arrangement at the Elections Office is anything but efficient,” he said. “Whether this board decides to deal with this vendor or another, the status quo is not working out. … It says something when you have as many department heads buying into a shift in vendor, and I think that’s something you all should consider.”

Deputy County Administrative Officer Jessica Maciel explained that the no-bid contract is permissible because of the county’s existing contract with DGI. [CLARIFICATION: The contract did not require a request for proposals (RFP) under Section 6.8 of the county’s Purchasing Policy, which permits purchasing through state cooperative agreements. According to county Public Information Officer Cati Gallardo, the state conducted its own competitive bid process, and the county leveraged that process, selecting DGI as an approved reseller.] A Verkada representative said shipping could be arranged in a way that keeps sales tax revenues in local coffers. 

While Bohn held firm on his desire to put this out for bid, Arroyo and Wilson voiced willingness to make the leap to a new company, with Wilson saying the small amount of money that might be saved by pulling this back for further negotiations might not yield a better result in the long run.

“At some point, I have to believe in the professionalism of our staff in analyzing this,” he said. 

After some more debate, Wilson made a motion to accept staff’s recommendation to jump ship on the security vendor, with the understanding that sales tax on the equipment would be kept local. However, the item needed a four-fifths margin to pass, and both Bohn and Bushnell voted “no.”

Arroyo then made a motion to release a request for proposals for security services, and that motion passed with a vote of 4-1, with Wilson dissenting.

Diversity, Equity and Inclusion

Like many organizations, the county has been working to improve its workplace culture and productivity through diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives since before “DEI” became such a potent political wedge issue. Today, the board heard about the results of the latest annual assessment of those efforts.

“The long and short of it is that … you all, as a county, have seen improvement,” said Dr. Isaac Carter, a former Humboldt County resident, now a consultant with Coaching Imperative. He soon added this caveat, however: “These results are promising and encouraging, but I do … want to make sure that we [don’t] mistake improvement for achievement.”

Employees have reported that the county has shown improved policy awareness and accountability on these issues, with cultural and behavioral shifts resulting in more educational opportunities and a more supportive environment. They also report improved policy awareness and accountability from supervisors, Dr. Carter said.

“I believe the important thing for you all to keep in mind is, are you providing an opportunity for people to grow?” he said to the board.

Dr. Jeremy Clark, the county’s DEI manager, said there is still room for growth and outlined some of the work that’s still being done.

Arroyo said she hears from community members who’ve experienced racism in the community, and she sees the importance of creating a space where people feel a sense of cultural connection and comfort. 

“It seems like something that we can continue to support, from my perspective, without a lot of  controversy,” she said. “It’s creating a space where people are allowed to take some time together to really feel connected to each other, and therefore more connected to their job and the meaningful public service that they do, and to me that’s worth a lot.”