Non-Interference Ordinances are Common, Part II

Yesterday our attorney sent all board members 11 pages of "non-interference"ordinances from counties around the state.  From non-charter counties and charter counties alike.

These ordinances are very common throughout the state of Florida---because they are an effective deterrent to "One" member of a 5 member board attempting to usurp the overall board's power, destroying morale and running good people out the door in the process....

These policies are common because the issues that we are facing in Escambia County right now have obviously been dealt with by other counties in this state in the past--and these ordinances are effective and work if they are enacted.

So even though online its

"Blah blah blah blah....Bergosh is bad...Blah Blah Blah...We don't need this...Blah Blah Blah.....we can't do it because were not a charter county....blah blah blah....It's a head in the sand ordinance....blah blah blah.....everybody's corrupt.....blah blah blah.......blah blah blah"

....even though there is a lot of this going on....the folks peddling this garbage are wrong. 

We're losing good folks, and we won't be able to get any good staff--let alone a quality administrator--if we don't take action and adopt a non-interference ordinance so that employees know they are protected.  I hope I can get two more votes so we can make this happen......All these other counties have figured this out, isn't it time we did as well?  Look at the variations below:

This is Why Part II

This email, above, is an actual email actually sent from an actual commissioner to our previous administrator Jack Brown.

Now, some may consider this sort of a written assessment of an administrator's employee to be routine.  I can say from my perspective I do not believe it to be. In my 13 years of elected public service locally I have NEVER sent such an email to either an administrator or a superintendent--presuming to thrust my own opinion upon the executive about the performance of one of his employees. 

The administrator is charged with hiring, firing, and discipline of employees---not commissioners, not board members.

Can we discuss concerns?  Sure.  Can we ask for information?  Of course.  But essentially calling for termination--and then putting it in writing?  It is intimidation of not only this particular employee of the organization--but also of the administrator.  Should 1/5 of the administrator's boss (the full 5-member BCC) have this unilateral ability?

No.

From the email above--one can easily see that this particular commissioner had a huge problem with this particular employee--but apparently the administrator felt differently.

Perhaps the administrator had spoken to the other four commissioners, and perhaps the other four commissioners strongly supported this individual employee?  Who knows--but the fact that this particular employee remained on staff despite one commissioner's continual negative assessment (s) over time points to that as a possibility.

And therein lies the reason why the administrator supervises and controls staff.  The administrator is much more cognizant of an individual employee's level of expertise, value, performance, and work ethic (as well as a particular employee's  "fit" within the team.) The administrator is the hour by hour, day to day, week to week "supervisor" of employees---not individual commissioners.  Do we as commissioners have close working relationships with employees?---of course!   Can we work together?--absolutely!

But negative assessments are strictly in the wheelhouse of the executive, the administrator, for the obvious reasons as stated above and also as they are enumerated in statute.

Otherwise an organization will hemorrhage and talented staff will run for the exits......Sound familiar?  (This is the impetus for my bringing a badly needed Non-Interference Ordinance)

In this particular instance described in the above email--regrettably--the employee in question

This is Why, Part I

This email, above, is an actual email actually sent from one County Commissioner to our former County Administrator Jack Brown.  I have redacted names and other information so that readers will not know which commissioner sent this....and to whom this email refers.

In other words, the point here is not to pinpoint names, etc.  The point is to have readers look at this email and ask themselves if this is a reasonable email.  Is it rational, measured, and professional?

Or is it demeaning and threatening?

And is it overly-heavy-handed to demand an immediate meeting with the administrator with the demand that not only the administrator come, but also HR personnel and Legal Personnel?

If I was the employee on the receiving end of a "demand" email like this one---I'd feel like my job was on the line, on the spot, if I did not do exactly as I was being directed by this one commissioner.

And about the veiled threat of  "I'll start making them famous"  at the bottom of this email...What the hell does that even  mean--is that a threat?  Does that mean these employees will be publicly called out, humiliated, and/or demeaned if they do not immediately acquiesce to the whims of 1/5 of the Board??

I think we are going to have a tough time keeping any Administrator or senior staff if they are

Non-Interference Policies are Common

As I look into this issue and take a deeper dive, I find non-interference ordinances to be quite common.  Not only here in Florida-but throughout the country.

Unfortunately, these rules become necessary when individual board members want to individually (and unlawfully) exercise "oversight."  I say unlawfully because oversight is a board function as a whole, not a function for an individual board member.

Some commonalities among these policies are the express language provisions that board members are absolutely entitled to speak with staff, ask questions of staff, and make"inquiries and information requests."  See this one pager from San Diego.

Here is a simple one from Oakland.

This one from Leon County Florida (section 3) is similar to the one I am proposing for Escambia County.

Here is Broward County's version (2.07)

Section 2-3 of Charlotte County Florida's charter has similar, but even stronger language, than what I am proposing. (page six of this document)

The Governor can remove board members and commission members that violate a non-interference policy.  This was an interesting case from a Hospital Commission where interference led to removal of the chairman of the board.

I believe such a policy is desperately needed in Escambia County to improve morale and to stem the losses we are sustaining via senior staff resignations.  I hope I can garner two more votes to move this forward on May 2nd.

Non-Interference Ordinance

This is the three-paragraph "one-pager" ordinance I am bringing to the May 2nd regular meeting.  Succinct, direct, tested, utilized elsewhere with great effect. 

A simple solution to insulate administrative staff.  We'll see if I can get three votes to move it forward!

Soul-Searching for a Solution.....And I found One!

The board of county commissioners needs to be a part of the solution to fixing the morale issues in our own organization.  I am all in on this--we can't take the loss of any more key players.  So I did some soul-searching, some research, and some talking to those who know more than I.  And I'm bringing a proposed ordinance next month that will help us as board members to help ourselves--and to help treat our staff professionally and allow them to do their jobs.

We have a couple of disturbing issues in the County right now that must be addressed.

Number One is the EMS/Public Safety Investigation that is ongoing.  This is an important matter that, once fully investigated and briefed to the board, will be addressed in the strongest of fashion.  I have confidence in that.  And I do believe several of the resignations we have sustained recently are and will be found to be directly attributable to that issue.  Additionally--the state investigation, once completed, will illuminate some competing allegations that have not been disclosed publicly as of yet and of which the general public is currently unaware.  So I urge, in the strongest manner possible, everyone to stop speculating and allow the investigation to run its course and allow staff and the board to determine appropriate course(es) of action ONCE ALL FACTS ARE FULLY KNOWN.  The mosh-pit of media speculation and innuendo that is being whipped up by those with agendas SERVES NO GOOD PUBLIC PURPOSE.  Remember--there are multiple sides to this issue.
 
But an equally troubling phenomenon that has also been a contributing factor in our large number of our resignations recently is the way our administrative staff is treated by the board.

So like I told Chorus Nylander on Channel 3 the other day--I have taken the last several days to do some soul-searching.  I have also reached out directly to several current and former high-level county staff.  Some are not mincing words:  "Jeff, the board holds us accountable and expects us to be perfect--but the board itself is not perfect--nobody is perfect.  The board holds us accountable, but who holds the board accountable?"  Said one recently departed employee.  "I can't take the attacks[from the board]" said another. 

In conversations with these and other folks over the last several days, the disturbing reality takes shape.  Staff is directed by board members and this creates tension among the staff and between other commissioners.  Critical decisions that are necessary to be made by commissioners so staff can move forward are not made by commissioners--leaving staff in a holding-pattern.  "Then is some instances--staff will be blamed for this inaction!?!"  said a former staff member with whom I spoke.

"Listen, staff can't do their job if they are being yanked around and told what to do and when to do it"  said a frustrated former staffer.  "Commissioners must recognize and respect that we are the ones that are tasked with day to day operations--not them.  Use the process, put in work orders, and let the staff do their job and priority order the jobs---and don't beat the staff up publicly--and morale will improve." said this individual.

"Otherwise, there is no way you are going to be able to hire another administrator--who would work under these conditions?  And believe me, any that are on the short list are watching and reading up on the board, watching the meetings, and they know about you before you even ask them the first question!"

So, in order to not set our next administrator and asst. administrator up for failure, and to try to foster some sense of order into the way the board treats its administrator and staff--I looked at what other counties are doing to reign-in individual commissioners that want to run the staff and drive day to day operational decision making.  We already know what the duties are for Administrators and Commissioners--this is delineated in statutes.  But in some instances the lines are blurred and this is problematic so it is time to get back to basics, in my opinion, and to put a tool in our tool-kit that will allow the board as a whole to insure staff is not micromanaged and that work is not directed, unlawfully, by INDIVIDUAL commissioners.  Several counties have come up with a clever way to do this.  According to an out-of-the area leader with whom I spoke yesterday evening, "You pass it as an ordinance, not a policy.  policies can and are ignored, but an ordinance has the force and effect of Law."  he stated.  "And this one works!"

So I took that ordinance, and I am sending it to our acting administrator and our county attorney TODAY and I will ask that it be brought it to the first meeting in May for consideration by the full board.  I hope I can get three votes to enact this because this ordinance, if implemented locally, will in and of itself be a signal to current and future administrative staffers that we are serious as a board about staying out of day to day operations.  Because under this ordinance there could be consequences (financial and/or legal) for any commissioner that doesn't stay in his "swim-lane."