Grand Jury report dings Colusa County

Colusa County government received some spirited criticism from the 2008 Grand Jury for not adequately meeting the informational needs of the public.

Criticism ranged from the way the board of supervisors presented information at meetings to not making the annual budget available to the public for viewing.

Although the harshest criticism came in the form of not having a county administrative officer, the grand jury’s recommendation to budget the position for next year fell on deaf ears and empty pockets. 

“There is no way we can do it,” said Supervisor Tom Indrieri, board chairman. “Not when we are looking at 10 to 15 percent cuts next year from the state.”

For the second year in a row, the board was taken to task by the grand jury for not having executive staff. The report stated the grand jury observed board-meeting agendas burdened with routine administration, personnel and departmental matters that should be routed through a CAO before being brought to the board.

Although Colusa is only one of two counties in California not to have an administrator, Indrieri said a full-time CAO and support staff would cost the county about $250,000 a year, something the board can’t contemplate without sacrificing the safety of the public.

“We would have to cut from the Sheriff’s Department, and that is something we just don’t want to consider,” he said. “Our budget would look even bleaker if we had to shell out a half million over the next two years for a CAO.”

Money woes were also the reason the county is disregarding criticism for having the county audit conducted by the same firm for the last three years, which the grand jury said was in direct violation of county policy.

“A change of firms would mean an additional $50,000,” Indrieri said, who noted it wasn’t required by law. “We don’t have it.”

The grand jury did recognize the “great strides” made by the county over the past two years in implementing contract controls, purchasing regulation, staffing stabilization and fiscal restraint.

The report noted the county hired a personnel director to relieve some of the burden and implement policy direction.

As for better informing the public, the grand jury recommended, despite financial constraints, that the county consider a means to present information so that the public might be better informed at meetings, possibly by videotaping proceedings and providing adequate information regarding the locations of roads, parcels and zones. The grand jury also suggested the county develop a comprehensive Web site where the public can access information and for the county to create an information technology department.

The grand jury stated that an IT department should be a high priority for the county, not only for public outreach but to improve interdepartmental communication and management.