Editorial: Power shift illustrates need for Marin to hire quality administrator

Marin supervisors have a history of not wanting to get their hands dirty when it comes to thorny personnel matters.

More than a decade ago, they wrote themselves out of having the final say in most personnel disputes, handing that job over to the county Personnel Commission.

Now they want to codify a management pecking order; one that has largely been in place under Marin County Administrator Matthew Hymel. The change gives, in writing, more executive powers to the county’s top administrator in disciplining, suspending or removing board-appointed county managers, except for the county counsel.

Most of the county’s administrative staff, except for departments headed by elected managers, falls under this pecking order.

The proposed change also reflects the hierarchy in place in most Marin municipalities.

Given the five supervisors have elected political posts, Hymel, who is retiring from the county’s top management post, or his successors would be wise to informally confer with board members before taking such action.

But that may not always happen.

The change that’s being proposed only intensifies the importance of having the right person in the chief executive’s office.

The county has been fortunate in that regard, having Hymel in that trusted role. The county has also had the good fortune to recruit and retain top-notch department and division heads.

Whether the job is called county administrator or county executive, what matters is the person handling those responsibilities.

One problem with the proposed change is the removal of language giving managers facing suspension and termination “the right to be heard by the board at a public meeting.”

Yes, this could be politically uncomfortable, a so-called public airing of the Civic Center’s “dirty laundry.”

Rarely has this occurred, but the current policy is true to the public’s right to know about how their government’s business is being run.

The change may, in writing, give Hymel and his successors more management power. It would also streamline the decision-making process; however, at what cost to public access and oversight?

Supervisors should, at least, keep their hands on the county’s tiller, continuing their practice of having open interviews with department heads. Those sessions may be time-consuming, but they are important in terms of touching base and informing the board and the public about how those departments are being run.

In addition, supervisors should be cautious that giving up some of their power could possibly hinder their direct access to department and division heads.

County Counsel Brian Washington says the proposed change amounts to codifying the way the county is already run.

Supervisor Katie Rice, the board’s veteran member, says the change would be “fairly minor.”

But she did add that she found “some trepidation” among department heads with whom she discussed the proposal.

That’s understandable given that they don’t know who their next boss will be.

Changes in the composition of the Board of Supervisors often stirs similar bureaucratic discomfort.

For this proposal to have gotten this far, it already has the conceptual support of the board. But before they make a final decision, supervisors – and the public – should have an understanding of why the current rules are written the way they are and the possible ramifications of the proposed changes.

Hymel will be leaving soon and the change may not be the right fit for those who don’t share his management style.