Loading...
December 10 2012 December 10, 2012 1 PERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS DECEMBER 10, 2012 MEMBERS PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT Jimmy B. Clayton Heidi York, County Manager Kyle W. Puryear Sybil Tate, Assistant County Manager B. Ray Jeffers Brenda B. Reaves, Clerk to the Board Frances P. Blalock Angie Warren, Human Resources Director David Newell, Sr. The Board of Commissioners for the County of Person, North Carolina, met in recessed session for a special called meeting on Monday, December 10, 2012 at 5:00 pm in the FEMA room at the Human Services Building for the purpose to meet jointly with the Board of Health and the Department of Social Services (DSS) Board. The meeting was facilitated by UNC School of Government representatives for the group to discuss options related to consolidating human services. Chairman Clayton called the meeting to order at 5:04 pm. Person County participants:  Jimmy Clayton – Chair, Board of Commissioners  Ray Jeffers – Vice Chair, Board of Commissioners and Commissioner Representative on the DSS Board  Commissioner Frances Blalock, Board of Health Member (Commissioner Representative)  Commissioner David Newell  Commissioner Kyle Puryear  Brenda Reaves – Clerk to the Board of Commissioners  Heidi York – County Manager  Sybil Tate – Assistant County Manager  Angie Warren – Human Resources Director  Steven Bailey – Chair, Board of Health  Claudia Berryhill – Member, Board of Health  Jack Hester – Member, Board of Health  Jeff Noblett – Member, Board of Health  Doris Pillow – Member, Board of Health  Janet Clayton – Director, Health Department  Angeline Brown – Chair, Social Services Board  Dolly Denton – Member, Social Services Board  Margaret Jones – Member, Social Services Board  Carlton Paylor – Interim Director, Department of Social Services December 10, 2012 2 UNC School of Government participants:  David Brown – Director, Applied Public Policy Initiative  Margaret Henderson – Facilitator  Jill Moore – Associate Professor of Public Law and Government  Aimee Wall – Associate Professor of Public Law and Government Introduction and Expectations: Ms. Wall introduced herself and the rest of the UNC School of Government (SOG) team, including Margaret Henderson, Jill Moore, and David Brown. Ms. Wall explained that she and others at SOG have been tracking a developing issue over the course of the past year—namely, how are human services agencies and their governing boards structured in North Carolina’s counties? How are they presently organized, and what has changed in light of the recent passage of House Bill 438? This would be the topic of the evening’s facilitated discussion, led by Ms. Henderson and informed by Ms. Wall and Ms. Moore. Ms. Wall emphasized that SOG staff are participating as educators in the interest of informed debate; they have no stake in whether or not Person County decides to implement changes to its human services. To begin the discussion, Ms. Henderson asked Person County participants to introduce themselves and to each offer at least one value or process that the group should honor. The group suggested the following:  We have two good boards. (Commissioner Puryear)  Don’t change the things that are working now. (Mr. Hester)  No news is good news—community seems satisfied with services. (Chairman Clayton)  Citizen participation and input on boards. (Ms. Reaves)  Good staff who create positive first impressions. (Ms. Tate)  Advocacy from boards is an asset in the community. (Vice Chairman Jeffers)  Perfect score on accreditation. (Mr. Noblett)  Departments work well together as currently configured. (Ms. Clayton)  Positive communication between department heads. (Ms. Warren)  Keep the focus on Person County, not a wider region; Health and Department of Social Services (DSS) boards provide a political buffer for the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC), but BOCC has the last word. (Ms. Berryhill)  What we have works well, so there’s no reason to change. (Commissioner Blalock)  Good customer service and working environment. (Mr. Paylor)  Quality staff and relationships with directors. (Ms. York)  Working relationship between directors and staff should remain as open as possible. (Ms. Brown)  Continuing citizen participation and involvement; mandated professions on the Board of Health brings together more diverse perspectives and professional expertise. (Mr. Bailey) December 10, 2012 3 Discussion of County Options: Ms. Moore gave a presentation entitled “Local Human Services Organization and Governance”: December 10, 2012 4 December 10, 2012 5 December 10, 2012 6 December 10, 2012 7 December 10, 2012 8 December 10, 2012 9 December 10, 2012 10 December 10, 2012 11 December 10, 2012 12 December 10, 2012 13 December 10, 2012 14 December 10, 2012 15 Ms. Moore summarized that no counties are implementing Option 1 noting that Wake, Buncombe, and Edgecombe are implementing Option 2; the latter two counties have pursued this change since the passage of House Bill 438. Bladen, Brunswick, Mecklenburg, and Montgomery are implementing Option 3; all but Mecklenburg has made this change since the passage of House Bill 438 with many more counties, including Person, are evaluating their options. December 10, 2012 16 December 10, 2012 17 Ms. York explained that the county’s Health and DSS directors each report to their respective boards. As the county manager, she does not supervise either director. Chairman Clayton added that he likewise has no direct authority over these positions; disputes are resolved by the State Personnel Board. Ms. York said that confusion from employees has driven management to explore alternatives for change. One such alternative is to remove Health and DSS employees from State Personnel Act (SPA) jurisdiction, in favor of having them governed by the county’s personnel policies. Commissioner Newell asked if SPA policies are different from Person County’s. Ms. Warren affirmed that there are important differences: for example, county personnel grievances stop with the employee’s manager, while SPA personnel grievances are elevated to the appropriate director and ultimately to the state. In general, there is a greater state role with SPA employees. Ms. Moore explained that under Option 1, the BOCC is the governing board for both Health and DSS. Those departments’ employees remain under the SPA’s jurisdiction because there is no consolidation; by default, state law prescribes that Health and DSS employees are governed by the SPA. Under Options 2 and 3, the Health and/or DSS departments or other agencies are combined into a consolidated human services agency (CHSA), which may be governed by a newly appointed board (Option 2) or directly by the BOCC (Option 3). After consolidation, Health and DSS employees are removed from the SPA’s jurisdiction and put under county personnel policies unless the BOCC affirmatively acts to keep them under the SPA. The default is for CHSA employees to go under county policies, but the law gives the BOCC the option to elect to keep them under the SPA. Ms. Wall explained that Options 1 and 3 require the appointment of a Public Health advisory committee while Option 2 does not, and none of the three options requires the appointment of a DSS advisory committee. Ms. Wall speculated that the reason for this might be that NC law already contains a specific list of required positions the legislature could point to for existing Health boards, but no similar language for existing DSS boards. Ms. Moore said that if the BOCC assumes the Board of Health’s duties (Option 1) or the Consolidated Human Services Board’s duties (Option 3), the commissioners also assume responsibility for requirements such as accreditation. What is a human services agency? Vice Chairman Jeffers described this as “the great unanswered question.” Under the new law, could Person County combine DSS with its Veterans agency, and leave the Board of Health out of this consolidated arrangement? If so, could it then remove DSS employees from SPA jurisdiction? Ms. Moore affirmed that this is an option under the new law. December 10, 2012 18 Ms. Moore informed the group that no matter what agencies they may consolidate, the composition of the Consolidated Human Services Board remains the same. For example, the board must include both a psychologist and a psychiatrist who must be county residents. Also, although a normal board member’s term is 4 years, the BOCC could appoint some members of the initial consolidated board to 2-year terms to create a staggered membership and ensure some continuity from one appointment cycle to the next. Vice Chairman Jeffers noted that if the BOCC appoints a consolidated board (Option 2), the Board of Health loses very little of its powers and authorities. Ms. Moore agreed, except that unlike the current Health board, the consolidated board would not appoint the Health Director. Instead, the County Manager would hire the director with the advice and consent of the consolidated board. Chairman Clayton announced a brief break at 6:22 pm. The meeting reconvened at 6:34 pm. Discussion of Public Health Data: Ms. Wall circulated a handout entitled “Person County Public Health Data.”. She explained that research identifies population as a driver of lower per-capita public health costs and FTEs, presumably because of economies of scale, and that SOG’s findings were consistent with this. For the purposes of this analysis, Person was grouped with 27 other counties in the “low population” cohort. Ms. Clayton explained that Home Health and Hospice is included in the “Other Revenues” bar in the chart displaying expenditures by funding source for fiscal year 2010. December 10, 2012 19 December 10, 2012 20 December 10, 2012 21 December 10, 2012 22 December 10, 2012 23 Human Services Changes: Catalysts, Context, and Concerns: Vice Chairman Jeffers identified a key frustration for the county under its current human services arrangement with the state: the county cannot hire a DSS director that does not meet the exact state standards, in spite of the fact that Person County provides some of the funding for DSS. Ms. York concurred, explaining that Mr. Paylor had been the “Interim” DSS Director for more than 2 years. She said that the county’s largest department should have a permanent director, but the county is unable to give Mr. Paylor this designation before he meets all of the state’s requirements (which he is in the process of fulfilling). If Person County consolidated DSS with another human services agency, it could remove DSS employees from SPA jurisdiction and thus acquire the ability to set its own qualifications for the position. Aside from the ability to remove staff from SPA jurisdiction, Ms. Henderson asked participants whether they saw other advantages (or disadvantages) arising from changes in its human services structure. She encouraged the group to be clear about what could be gained and what could be lost in any change. For example, she noted that it could become more difficult to recruit senior officials and staff from counties where employees remain under the SPA. Ms. Clayton said that removing employees from SPA would be a benefit for managers, because it would mean that state approval would no longer be required for position reclassification, but the move could be detrimental for employees, because the SPA is more protective and gives employees a property right in their jobs. Ms. York noted that the county’s other 280 employees do not enjoy this right, and they also differ from Health and DSS employees in that their leadership serves at the pleasure of the BOCC. Ms. Berryhill agreed with the notion that all county employees should be treated equally. Continuing the discussion of advantages and disadvantages, Ms. Warren identified a possible efficiency gain through the elimination of human resources responsibilities in Person’s DSS and Health departments, as those duties would be consolidated in her department for all county employees. However, she recognized that Human Resources could face the need to augment its staff to handle the increased workload. Turning to the subject of boards, Commissioner Puryear observed that smaller boards operate more efficiently, and it is sometimes hard to get everyone to show up. Chairman Clayton provided important context for the discussion of personnel status and why Health and DSS employees have traditionally been considered SPA employees. He explained that in the 1950s the state first required its counties to provide Health and DSS services to their citizens. Because some county oficials did not support the new requirement, the state protected its Health and DSS employees from local control and the potential for harassment or meddling this could bring. It also seemed wise to create a buffer between those service providers and local BOCCs in order to allow space for politically or socially sensitive decisions. December 10, 2012 24 Commissioner Newell asked who advocated for the new legislation. Ms. Wall replied that the NC Association of County Commissioners was its primary advocate. Vice Chairman Jeffers said that smaller counties sought changes in human services organization and governance because they wanted the same flexibility that the largest counties already had. Counties thus lobbied the General Assembly for the ability to explore efficiencies in these areas, which required the legislature to remove the population threshold it had previously established. Vice Chairman Jeffers explained that the initiative arose out of the association’s legislative goals process. As the association’s president-elect, he encouraged county participants to identify “what isn’t working” in their departments and discuss these matters with him to determine whether the association should pursue a legislative solution. Ms. Wall shared an example from Guilford County’s experience. Although the state had deemed the county’s personnel policies to be “substantially equivalent” in all six of the existing areas, county commissioners decided to leave Guilford’s employees under the SPA because they wanted to retain access to the free technical assistance provided by the state’s Office of State Personnel (OSP). Ms. Wall noted, however, that FTEs in that OSP group had been reduced over the past several years from 9 to 1.5. Ms. Wall explained that the concept of “substantial equivalence” comes into play only if a county keeps its employees under SPA. If a county consolidates two or more human services agencies, employees may be placed under the county’s personnel policies, and the substantial equivalence of those policies is no longer relevant. Mr. Bailey said he understood that retirement policies would not change for employees moved from SPA to Person County’s personnel system. He asked whether the same would be true for leave—would employees retain their per-paycheck accrual rates and accumulated totals? Mr. Paylor noted more information is needed from the OSP related to the leave transition for employees. The SOG representatives noted they would follow up with an SPA specialist and report back to Person County. Mr. Hester asked about potential consequences if the county could not recruit a psychiatrist to serve on its Consolidated Human Services Board. Ms. Wall said that the body would still be considered a governing board. When asked how many vacancies could exist at any one time, Ms. Moore stated that this is an unanswered question under existing law, but it is likely that at least a majority of the positions would need to be filled in order for the board to be functional. Ms. Wall noted that DSS boards at times operate for months with selected vacancies. Participants discussed other personnel models in the county. These include the Sheriff’s and Registrar’s offices, which have elected leaders and at-will employees. In addition, the ABC Board has two BOCC-appointed members, but its employees have a separate retirement system and are not really county personnel. December 10, 2012 25 Participants asked about the permanence of any human services changes the BOCC may undertake. SOG staff explained that changes could be re-considered as soon as the next BOCC meeting. This could involve separating consolidated departments, re- creating separate boards, and/or returning Health and DSS employees to SPA jurisdiction. Next Steps and Follow-ups: Ms. York said that her impression from talks with the BOCC is that commissioners have no interest in becoming a governing board. So the choice seems to be between (a) retaining separate human services agencies and their respective boards, i.e., the status quo; and (b) consolidating certain agencies and governing them with a consolidated board, i.e., Option 2. Ms. York said that she, Ms. Clayton, and Mr. Carlton would talk to each of their respective boards about the county’s options and then report back. Vice Chairman Jeffers asked SOG staff to stand by while the county deliberates and determines whether further SOG assistance is needed. As a follow-up, participants wanted to know more about the potential transition away from SPA, specifically the possibility of current SPA employees losing their leave if moved under the county’s personnel system. As noted above, the SOG representatives will follow up with an SPA specialist and will report back. Evaluation of the Meeting: Like Dislike/Proposed Change In-person presentation easier to digest than webinar None Informed presenters brought needed information into the room SOG cleared up the “fear factor” around the unknown All NC counties have the same options December 10, 2012 26 ADJOURNMENT: A motion was made by Vice Chairman Jeffers, seconded by Commissioner Blalock, and carried 5-0 to adjourn the meeting at 7:21 pm. _____________________________ ______________________________ Brenda B. Reaves Jimmy B. Clayton Clerk to the Board Chairman Note: UNC School of Government representatives contributed to the preparation of the minutes.