Agenda

Return

SD. 3

To:	Board of Supervisors
From:	Ted Cwiek, Human Resources
Date:	February 26, 2013

Contra

Costa

County

Subject:

Amend Ordinance Code Section 33-5.345 – County Probation Officer Appointing Authority and Clarify reporting relationships to County Administrator

APPROVE	OTHER
RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR	RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE

Action of Board On: 02/26/2013

APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED

OTHER

Clerks Notes:

VOTE OF SUPERVISORS

AYE:

John Gioia, District I Supervisor
Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor
Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor
Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor
Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor

Contact:	Ted Cwiek, 925-335-1766
cc:	David Twa, County Administrator

I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown.
ATTESTED: February 26, 2013
David Twa,

BY:	, Deputy

RECOMMENDATION(S):

INTRODUCE Ordinance No. 2013-09 amending and repealing sections of the County Ordinance Code to change the appointing authority of the County Probation Officer-exempt from the Judge of the Juvenile Court to the Board of Supervisors and make other non-substantive changes, waive reading, and FIX March 12, 2013 for adoption; and

ADOPT Resolution 2013/114 clarifying the reporting responsibilities between Department Heads and the County Administrator to update the lines of reporting relationships and to include the County Probation Officer-exempt in the list of Department Heads for whom oversight and performance evaluation responsibility are delegated to the County Administrator, effective April 12, 2013.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact occasioned by this realignment of appointing authority and reporting relationships.

BACKGROUND:

This Board Order and Resolution are due to the implementation of the State’s Criminal Justice Realignment under AB 109. Realignment legislation was conceived as a partnership between the State and county government. County Supervisors were very involved with the Governor in its design and enactment. The law specifies that responsibility for Criminal Justice Realignment program design shall occur through the facilitative leaderships of each County’s Chief Probation Officer, in partnership with other county departments and a broad group of community stakeholders. It also requires that the Realignment Plan and financing be governed by the County’s Board of Supervisors, who may choose to delegate specific administrative and oversight responsibilities to the County’s Chief Administrative Officer.

Currently in Contra Costa County, the County Probation Officer is under the oversight and management of the Juvenile Court, although the Board of Supervisors authorizes the departmental budget. This reporting arrangement and oversight no longer appears structurally ideal because of the very clear responsibilities placed on the Board of Supervisors through the Public Safety Realignment legislation. However, the County continues to see the benefit of a strong relationship between the Superior Court and the County Probation Officer; therefore, prior to the future appointment of any new County Probation Officer, the Human Resources Department will invite the Superior Court to designate a person from the Court to sit on a screening committee to interview a select number of candidates for the position. The screening committee will select the final candidates or candidate whose names will be submitted to the County Administrator for final interviews before appointment by the Board of Supervisors. The determination as to whom to appoint as the County Probation Officer will be a decision to be made by the Board of Supervisors in its sole discretion.

CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION:

The County will be hampered in its implementation of AB 109.

CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT:

None.