Grand Jury Report Raises Concerns

“Who Represents Orange County Taxpayers?” as Costs Escalate

The Orange County Grand Jury’s latest report, “Who Represents Orange County Taxpayers?” has raised serious concerns about the unforeseen costs of employee agreements.

It has also raised the ire of both county employee organizations and the Human Resources staff, who have attacked it in the newspapers as biased, secretive and a “puppet grand jury”.

Grand Jury members are carefully chosen based on their independence, integrity and balance of views. Challenging the Grand Jury findings is anyone’s right, but that challenge should be based on facts and figures, not personal attacks.

What are the findings?

The Grand Jury questions the “annual leave” policy, which allows sick leave to be converted into paid time off and cash outs. Cost estimates were vague and contradictory when the Board of Supervisors approved this last year, but the Grand Jury says the program creates an immediate $29.5 million liability

The Grand Jury questions the Performance Incentive Program (PIP), which gives county employees a 2% pay boost on top of their normal raises. Presented to the board as a special bonus program for outstanding achievement, it is now paid to 98% of all eligible employees at an annual cost of $15.5 million yearly. Is this a true bonus, or an automatic raise?

The PIP agreement required semi-annual statistical reports monitoring its effectiveness. These reports were never made, so the Board was never updated as to how PIP really worked—or didn’t.

Are these numbers accurate? Are they too high? Let’s hope so, but any response should be based on verifiable figures, not personal attacks.

The Grand Jury is not attacking the employees or their representatives. Their report is entitled “Who is Representing Orange County Taxpayers?” That is not the job of the employee unions. Their job is to represent their members, and they do it well. It is the Board of Supervisors’ job to represent county taxpayers.

DID THE BOARD KNOW ENOUGH TO MAKE INFORMED DECISIONS?

The Board of Supervisors approved these agreements prior to my taking office. It is unclear what data was presented to the board and how reliable it was. On any proposal, supervisors must seek information from a number of sources, not simply rely on vague assurances from staff.

Since these agreements were approved, one CEO has been fired and two supervisors have left, one for retirement and one for the legislature. That Board’s bitter divisions over El Toro Airport may have distracted it from other issues. It is up to us, the current board, to assess the true costs and effectiveness of these programs, in light of the severe county and state budget contractions.

LEAVE POLICY IGNORED, PUTS EMPOYEES IN LENGTHY LIMBO

One practice that was not approved by the Board is the open-ended paid administrative leave, whereby county employees are sent home to wait for months as their cases are adjudicated, receiving full salary. Written Board policy is clear: the CEO must approve all leaves over 15 days. Yet, in 2003 alone, 18 paid leave extensions have been granted without the CEO’s knowledge or approval, in violation of Board policy. Without such oversight, cases languish and costs have escalated to $4.5 million over the past 5 years.

The Grand Jury’s job is to objectively analyze various county government practices and procedures. Naturally, these subjects are sensitive and controversial.

The Board of Supervisors has 90 days to respond to this report. Employee organizations and the Human Resources Department are free to provide us with their own facts about the cost of and effectiveness of these programs, as are our elected financial officers like the Treasurer and Auditor-Controller. Rational discussion and analysis will help us respond to these concerns, and hopefully learn from them.

The title of the Grand Jury asks the question “Who Represents the Taxpayers?” The Board of Supervisors does. Let’s do our job!