This memo summarizes responses to questions or directions from the IOC concerning these advisory bodies.
- The Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) Review of the Aviation Advisory Committee (AAC): The Department of Conservation and Development (DCD) and the ALUC has provided the following response to the IOC question of whether or not the ALUC and the AAC should remain as separate entities or if their duties and responsibilities can be combined.
According to DCD, the ALUC is a state mandated body that is charged with reviewing proposed land use applications that are within the area of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan; no other duties are assigned to it. There is very little overlap between the duties of the AAC and the ALUC. The AAC is a discretionary advisory body that provides input and advice to the Director of Airports, the BOS, and the Board’s Airport Committee on a wide range of airport issues. In the estimation of DCD, the AAC provides a vital interface and link to pilot organizations, airport staff, individual pilots and the communities surrounding the airport. Also according to the Department, most general aviation airports in California (like Contra Costa County’s airports), have an AAC. The DCD Director believes that encouraging and supporting an active and engaged AAC is an airport management “best practice”. For all the reasons cited, the DCD and the ALUC recommend to the IOC and BOS that the ALUC and the AAC be maintained as separate entities.
- Economic Opportunity Council (EOC): The Employment and Human Services Department (EHSD) has provided follow-up information on questions raised during 2015 IOC meetings about the proper use of Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) funding. At that time, some EOC members had raised concerns about whether CSBG money was being allocated correctly; members questioned if too much was being allocated towards staff and administrative costs and not enough towards programming.
Since the 2015 IOC meetings, the EHSD Department Head and Community Services Bureau (CSB) Bureau Chief have met with the State and the EOC Board on a number of occasions to review the use and allocation of CSBG funds and the role of the EOC in fund oversight. (See Attachment 2.) The State has determined that there was no inappropriate use or allocation of CSBG funds and gave this information to the EOC Board. Subsequently, the State approved the 2016 budget for the current CSBG contract with Contra Costa County.
On March 5, 2016, the State met with the EOC Board to answer program or funding concerns of the members. Also at that time, State experts from the Community Services and Development Department provided a comprehensive orientation to the EOC Board, explaining the oversight role of the EOC in relation to CSBG funds. It is planned that dialogue of this type with the EOC Board will continue. Currently the Department is working with the State, County Counsel and the CAO to review and update, if needed, the Joint Powers Authority that is required to receive CSBG funds. Any proposed changes will be brought to the BOS for consideration.
- Contra Costa County Advisory Council on Aging (ACOA): When this matter was discussed at the IOC in 2015, neither the Bureau Chief for Aging and Adult Services nor the Chair of the Advisory Council on Aging had been able to complete the Triennial Review because of a lack of stable Council membership and departmental staff support.
Since that time, a new Bureau Chief has been hired and has begun working with County Counsel and the Chair of the Advisory Council to rewrite the ACOA Bylaws. Two significant changes proposed to the Bylaws will be to revamp the membership structure of the body and reduce the number of appointees so that a quorum can regularly be achieved and representation across all areas of the county and stakeholder groups will be assured. Any changes to the Bylaws will be brought to the BOS for review and approval before taking effect.
In addition to rewriting the Bylaws, the new Bureau Chief and the Chair of the Council have been reviewing the ACOA mission statement and mandated responsibilities under the Older Americans Act, the functions of the Council, and the current work group structure. They have also developed and filed their 2015 Triennial Report with the Clerk of the Board’s Office (COB). (See Attachment 3.) They have reviewed past work products and have discussed a plan for recruiting and using a newly structured Council. Key to the success of a revamped ACOA will be regular staff assistance for the Council; the Bureau Chief and EHSD Department Head are currently considering their options for addressing this need. EHSD’s goal is to support the Advisory Council in recruiting members, helping them get their work plan accomplished, and being compliant with Brown Act and Better Government requirements for holding open meetings and soliciting public input.
- Agricultural (Ag) Task Force: When this matter was initially before the IOC in 2015, the Ag Task Force had not met regularly and the Triennial Review Report on the Task Force had not been submitted by either the Department Head or the Task Force Chair. Because a new Department Head had recently been named, the IOC determined that this matter should return to the committee in 2016, after the new Department Head had time to review the situation and develop recommendations for how best to seek advisory input from residents and county-located agri-businesses.
Since that time, the Department Head has reviewed the background, history and work of the Task Force and has prepared a draft proposal designed to re-energize and modernize the body’s efforts. The draft includes a revised mission statement and work program, delineation of powers, duties, membership, meeting plan and staffing. A copy of this draft is attached for Committee review and direction (Attachment 1); the Department Head will be present for the IOC meeting.
- Commission for Women: When this matter was reviewed by the IOC in 2015, the primary issues to be resolved concerned the size of the membership and whether or not there would be additional staff support provided. A determination was made not to approve additional staff support for the body.
On the matter of membership, the determination was made to reduce the number of members to a total of 20 seats (one from each supervisorial district, 15 At-Large appointees and one alternate). The Bylaws have been rewritten to reflect this change; review is currently underway in the CAO and County Counsel offices. As soon as this review is complete, the Bylaws will be submitted to the BOS for consideration.
- Emergency Medical Care Committee (EMCC) : The IOC asked the CAO to work with the EMCC and staff from the Health Services Department to review the EMCC's charge, work plans and Bylaws to ensure that they were not venturing beyond their advisory level duties and authority. That work has been done and the following has taken place:
- The Bylaws were modernized and rewritten, with County Counsel assistance, approved by the EMCC in December, 2015 and approved by the BOS on January 5, 2016, to become effective March 2016;
- The number of members was decreased by removing alternates for seats;
- The number of officers was downsized to be more consistent with the structure of other county advisory committees;
- Duties and the charge were more clearly delineated, to make sure that the body operates in an advisory fashion.
- Public and Environmental Health Advisory Board and the Hazardous Materials Commission: When this matter was before the IOC in 2015, the Supervisors asked the Health Services Department to consider whether or not there was enough overlap in mission, charge, duties and work plan to merge the Public and Environmental Health Advisory Board and the Hazardous Materials Commission. After review, the Health Services Department found that the Hazardous Materials Commission has an active and vigorous membership and a full range of duties that would not fit in well with the work of the Public and Environmental Health Advisory Board; they recommended no merger of the two bodies.
On the other hand, the Department believes that the Public and Environmental Health Advisory Body would benefit from restructuring. They have been considering how best to modernize this committee, but do not yet have a draft proposal for the IOC to consider. They are requesting an additional 60 days to complete their review and to prepare a response to the IOC.
- Library Commission: When this matter was reviewed by the IOC in 2015, the County Librarian was very newly appointed and not able to provide much information about the work of the Commission. The previous Librarian had not completed the 2015 Triennial Review documents nor had the Library Commission submitted review materials to the Clerk of the Board’s (CoB) office. The Supervisors directed the newly appointed County Librarian, who is also staff to the Commission, to complete the Triennial Review documents and prepare a status report on the Commission and its work for the IOC. The review (Attachment 4) was submitted to the CoB’s Office in January 2016 and is on public file there.
The Library Commission was created by resolutions from the BOS and the Mayor’s Conference in March, 1991. It has been reauthorized periodically since that time; it will automatically sunset on June 30, 2016 unless it is reauthorized.
The Commission consists of 29 members and 29 alternates. Each BOS office and each of the 19 cities in the county appoints one member and one alternate. In addition there are “special representative” members who are appointed by the Superintendent of Schools, the Contra Costa Central Labor Council, the Contra Costa Council, the Friends’ Council or the Contra Costa Community College District. The charge to the body is to provide advice to the BOS and the County Librarian. According to the report from the County Librarian, their primary work and outputs during the time she has worked with them has been to advocate for State funding (with BOS approval), share reports and information with other Commission members that are specific to their local communities on library activities, and provide a sounding board to county library staff.
The County Librarian is recommending that the body be allowed to automatically sunset on June 30, 2016 or rewrite the Commission bylaws to reduce the size of the membership and/or the frequency of the meetings and restructure their charge/duties. The reasons for the recommendations include the following:
- The large size of the membership and alternates has made it extremely difficult to recruit and keep seats filled;
- Also due to the large size of the membership, it has been very difficult for the Commission to develop a work plan and complete work projects; and
- Many of the current members serve on their local Friends groups in addition to being an appointed member of the Commission, so their advocacy and volunteer efforts have other established avenues to positively affect literacy efforts and library programs throughout the county.
The County Librarian has shared these recommendations with the Library Commission and the City Managers. The City Managers have not taken a formal position on the recommendations and have scheduled the County Librarian to make a presentation to the April Public Manager’s Meeting to discuss the review. The County Librarian and members of the Commission will be present at the IOC meeting. |