COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

Inter-Departmental Correspondence

Board of Supervisors

DATE:

April 4, 2007

BOARD MEETING DATE:

April 10, 2007

SPECIAL NOTICE/HEARING:

None

VOTE REQUIRED:

Majority

TO:

Honorable Board of Supervisors

FROM:

Rose Jacobs Gibson, President

SUBJECT:

Standing Committees of the Board of Supervisors

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt a Resolution establishing five standing committees of the Board of Supervisors and setting the standing rules for the committees.

VISION ALIGNMENT:

Commitment: Responsive, effective and collaborative government

Goals 20 and 22:Government decisions are based on careful consideration of future impact, rather than temporary relief or immediate gain; County and local governments effectively communicate, collaborate and develop strategic approaches to issues affecting the entire County.

BACKGROUND:

On January 9, 2007, the Board directed the County Manager to work with me to review the current committee structure and to make recommendations that would streamline committee assignments. Currently, Board members are required to serve on more than 50 regional, sub regional and County boards, as well as commissions, committees, ad hoc and subcommittees - some duplicative and often narrowly focused.

DISCUSSION:

This proposal would make the board committee process more efficient, effective and publicly accountable. Creating five standing committees would improve the direction, coordination and focus of the public decision-making process for the County’s increasingly complex issues, programs and services. The proposed five standing committees are:

§

Criminal Justice

§

Environmental Quality

§

Finance and Operations

§

Legislative

§

Housing, Health and Human Services

The revised standing committees would subsume numerous, sometimes duplicative and often narrowly focused subcommittees. Creating standing committees with defined subject matter, consistent rules and established processes would improve the County’s efficiency and effectiveness in developing and setting policy. It would give each Supervisor the option of raising an issue directly with the Board as a whole or directing it to a committee. Expert staff providing consistent information and coordination on complex policy and program areas would support committees, ensuring more comprehensive analysis of proposals. Moreover, an additional opportunity for collaboration among departments and with community partners is afforded with department generated items first being heard by a standing committee. Most importantly, standing committees would make the Board’s public decision-making process more transparent enhance access for the public and stakeholders to participate.

This matter was on the Board of Supervisors agenda on March 13, 2007, at which time it was continued for further consideration. Since that hearing, clarifications to the proposed standing committee process have been made which are reflected in this report and attached resolution. Specifically these clarifications include the requirement that standing committees would agendize submitted items within 30 days. Additionally, when standing committees share jurisdiction, joint committee hearings could be conducted. Board memos would reflect the standing committee action(s), including vote(s).

Finally, I have requested the County Manager to report back on the standing committee process within six-months of implementation. During that time the County Manager will work closely with departments on the transition process, structure, and subject matter alignment and will make additional recommendations as required to ensure a timely, accessible, efficient and effective committee process.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Public notice requirements represent the single largest cost associated with creating standing committees. Five committees meeting twice a month would result in an estimated $25,000 in FY 2006-07 General Fund for legal notice costs. Existing County Manager’s Office and County Counsel staff would provide support.

Standing Committees of Board of Supervisors

The five standing committees of the Board of Supervisors would consider policy, powers, procedures, outcomes, and provide oversight. Recommendations and reports of the committees would be agendized for consideration by the Board of Supervisors. The standing committee action(s), including votes, would be reflected in Board memoranda.

Process

Standing committees would comply with all requirements of the Brown Act. Committee reports and actions would be subject to the Public Records Act, as well as, the previously approved Board of Supervisors standing rules. Joint committee hearings could be conducted when two or more standing committees share subject jurisdiction. Items brought to a standing committee would be agendized within 30 days.

Committee Assignment

The President of the Board would ask each Supervisor to list their choice of three-committee assignments by priority. Each Supervisor would be assigned to two committees, and each would be guaranteed at least one first or second choice. Each Supervisor will chair one standing committee. Consistent with current practice, the President of the Board would annually appoint the standing committee members and the chairs.

Subcommittees

Standing committees, when appropriate, could establish subcommittees to consider and recommend to the full committee action on matters under their jurisdiction. The membership of subcommittees could include non-committee members. Subcommittees would also be subject to the Brown Act and the Public Records Act.

Ad Hoc Committees

The Board of Supervisors could continue to establish ad hoc committees when the subject matter and or desire for broad-based community membership is appropriate. Examples of such ad hoc committees are the Blue Ribbon Health Care Task Force, HOPE and the Jail Overcrowding Task Force.

Standing Committees

Criminal Justice

Jurisdiction: public safety; Bench/board; Joint Use Court Facilities; reentry; juvenile justice, Prop 36
Members:
Staff: David Boesch, Assistant County Manager
Contact: Nancy Guerrero 363-4121

Environment

Jurisdiction: natural resources, land use, planning, global warming; green building; watershed protection (WPARCC)
Members:

Staff: Peggy Jensen, Deputy County Manager for Community Services
Mike Murphy, Chief Deputy County Counsel
Contact: Christine Hollander

Finance and Operations

Jurisdiction: fiscal issues; outcome based management; audit; retirement; e-government; Fire Service; Planning & Building Task Force
Members:
Staff: Reyna Farrales, Deputy County Manager, Administrative Services

Brenda Carlson, Deputy County Counsel
Contact: Christine Hollander

Legislative

Jurisdiction: intergovernmental policy; elections; ethics

Members:

Staff: Mary McMillan, Deputy County Manager, Intergovernmental and Public Affairs

John Beier, Deputy County Counsel

Contact: Ashnita Narayan 363-4125

Housing, Health and Human Services

Date/Time/Locations

Jurisdiction: housing, children’s issues, public assistance, job training, economic development, health, mental health, alcohol and other drugs, environmental and public health, Emergency Services, aging, diversity (Diversity: Boards and Commissions).

Members:

Staff: David Boesch, Assistant County Manager

Contact: Nancy Guerrero 363-4121

Legislative/Policy Proposals

In addition to bringing items directly to the full Board, members may initiate legislation through the standing committee consistent with the following format:

San Mateo County Legislative/Policy Proposal Form

Author(s):

Department:

Project Name:

Vision Alignment:

Fiscal Impact:
Account #

Brief description of project, including desired outcome:

Brief description of problem being solved:

Implementation & communication plan:

Current policy/program/ordinance:

Reports and or data:

Partners/stakeholders:

Support/opposition:

Contact Person: