The scant information regarding the intentions of the county board and the possibility that critical decisions will be made with only a minimum of public input, forces me to speculate on the board’s plans for a hiring a permanent CAO and assistant CAO.
Since the fall, the county has been operating with Interim CAO Ray Espinosa, former county information technology manager/director.
If the board had been more open about their organizational plans, my speculation would not be necessary and the public would have a better sense of what is happening and why. Waiting until the official agenda and supporting documents are posted could mean that the public will have only two working days to digest the proposals; therefore, I will comment on speculation in the hope of preventing some bad decisions.
Essentially, the CAO is the day-to-day manager of the county. He or she is responsible for helping to form and implement the board’s policies and decisions, to help educate the board on the laws, regulations, and practices and to assure compliance with the complex web of contracts and agreements. Everyone except the elected officials and those directly reporting to the board, report to the CAO through various department heads. It’s a very big and very important job.
Since his appointment as interim CAO, Ray Espinosa has done an excellent job showing his ability to think clearly, meet deadlines, manage complex problems and gain the confidence of the board, employees, and public. The primary concern is his lack experience and professional education in this unique field. So far so good, but it is hard to predict how that will work out if we find ourselves in troubled waters.
It appears at this time that the board intends to hire Espinosa under contract as the new Assistant CAO and subsequently hire his boss, a permanent CAO. This presents some potential problems.
Done that way anyone taking the CAO job will inherit the contracted assistant preselected directly by the board; I have no doubt Espinosa could do the job of assistant, but one wonders if it makes sense to contract an assistant prior to hiring a CAO and getting his or her inputs and preferences for that position? That’s a formula for trouble muddying the chain of command and influence tree. Additionally, if the mix does not work out the county could be on the hook for a significant contract payoff.
If those are the board’s intentions, it would mean that they do not consider Espinosa qualified for the CAO job, probably based on his limited experience. It is also possible that the best candidate for CAO would want an assistant with a different skill set.
It’s an easy fix; the board should flip the process. Hire the new CAO first then move Espinosa to interim Assistant CAO without a contract. It’s a two-way street; the new CAO and Espinosa should try working together for a few months to see if they are compatible. After all, Espinosa may not want to work for the new CAO after he tries it for a while.
Then, if all is good, Espinosa can apply for the permanent position of Assistant CAO with the new CAO having major input. Alternatively, if Ray Espinosa chooses not to remain on the administrative side or he is not selected for the permanent Assistant CAO position, he retains the rights to his previous IT position per the board’s original promise.
I believe that will be the best solution to the succession problem.
Marty Richman is a Hollister resident.
