Minutes - 20090210 Work Session - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

little to do with the ERCD. All we can say about the proposal is that it does represent change, but whether the change will be beneficial or not- for ERCD or any other area of county government- is mere conjecture. Most troubling to me is the dilution of focus, effort, and the goals of the ERCD that will inevitably occur if this reorganization is completed. Conservation programs are very different from public works, social services, or administrative departments. Historically, ERCD exists entirely because the more traditional branches of county government were not able to provide the focus to the environmental priorities that Orange County residents want. Eliminating ERCD as an independent - and when necessary, adversarial voice will seriously compromise its effectiveness and the influence of the APB. As one who recently joined the APB to have a more visible impact on the preservation of agriculture and farmland in the county, this is somewhat discouraging. In the proposed organization the ERCD mission will have to compete for funding and attention with the short- range needs for public services. In my experience, this is a losing proposition and future Orange County residents will suffer. I do not believe the County Commissioners should lightly abandon this clearly expressed priority. Two careers ago as a senior manager with IBM. I was often asked to participate in audits of organizations that were not meeting their financial or business goals. As I review the reorganization proposal I am left with a number of (to me) serious questions. What is the overriding driver for change? Where is the list of organizational problems and failures that are being addressed? Where are the specifics of the solutions provided by the reorganization? How are the missions of each department going to be enhanced by the reorganization? What are the staffing impacts (who leaves, who stays)? What roles are eliminated or created? Where are the cost savings? What alternatives have been considered? And, lastly what are the measures for success and who is going to be accountable for them? Unless there is a document available that includes these specifics (which I have not seen, obviously) I recommend that the commissioners defer consideration of this reorganization proposal until one is. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Allan Green November 28, 2008 The other two memoranda, one from the Agricultural Preservation Board and the other from the Commission for the Environment, are incorporated into these minutes by reference. Commissioner Gordon said that she is concerned that the ERCD function will be diluted and not enhanced, and there are no cost savings. She has many concerns with this proposal and does not support it. She believes these functions belong in at least two departments. Commissioner Yuhasz said that if this department is for the management of public assets, then he does not understand why the parks are not included in this. He said that there has been concern about ERCD being merged into another department and losing its focus. He said that folding ERCD could prove that this department may be the dominant department. Commissioner Pelissier agreed with many comments from Commissioner Gordon. She said that it seems that the real issue is trying to get people to work together. She has some serious reservations about this reorganization proposal. Commissioner Jacobs thanked the Manager for responding to the directive from the Board and for looking at promoting efficiencies. He appreciates the willingness of the