I am deeply concerned about the proposed shift from a county administrative officer to a chief executive officer model. This transition raises serious questions about transparency, public oversight, and financial burden. Removing department heads from board oversight in favor of a CEO risks limiting public input in critical county decisions, particularly regarding regulatory procedures and appeals.
This shift also has financial implications. The restructuring process will require significant administrative and legal adjustments, likely costing taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars. Given that existing regulations outline the Board’s role in overseeing decision-making, revising these policies to accommodate a CEO structure will necessitate extensive legal consultation and procedural modifications.
Additionally, this sudden change raises serious concerns regarding compliance with the Brown Act. Holding an in-person-only meeting, without recording or live streaming, significantly reduces public access to information and raises transparency issues. The public has a right to witness and participate in discussions that directly impact governance.
Beyond structural changes, I must also address a pressing issue: the conduct of the CDD Director. My company was explicitly told to commit a felony—to bribe the Sheriff—in order to maintain our cannabis license. This attempted extortion is a serious abuse of power, and yet no corrective action has been taken. If county leadership is to be restructured, those in power must first be held accountable. This governance discussion should focus on ensuring that public officials uphold their duties lawfully and ethically, not on consolidating authority to shield bad actors.
I urge the Board to carefully consider the impact of this leadership change on government accountability, regulatory integrity, and financial sustainability. The county must prioritize transparency, due process, and public trust before making such a significant shift in governance.
I am deeply concerned about the proposed shift from a county administrative officer to a chief executive officer model. This transition raises serious questions about transparency, public oversight, and financial burden. Removing department heads from board oversight in favor of a CEO risks limiting public input in critical county decisions, particularly regarding regulatory procedures and appeals.
This shift also has financial implications. The restructuring process will require significant administrative and legal adjustments, likely costing taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars. Given that existing regulations outline the Board’s role in overseeing decision-making, revising these policies to accommodate a CEO structure will necessitate extensive legal consultation and procedural modifications.
Additionally, this sudden change raises serious concerns regarding compliance with the Brown Act. Holding an in-person-only meeting, without recording or live streaming, significantly reduces public access to information and raises transparency issues. The public has a right to witness and participate in discussions that directly impact governance.
Beyond structural changes, I must also address a pressing issue: the conduct of the CDD Director. My company was explicitly told to commit a felony—to bribe the Sheriff—in order to maintain our cannabis license. This attempted extortion is a serious abuse of power, and yet no corrective action has been taken. If county leadership is to be restructured, those in power must first be held accountable. This governance discussion should focus on ensuring that public officials uphold their duties lawfully and ethically, not on consolidating authority to shield bad actors.
I urge the Board to carefully consider the impact of this leadership change on government accountability, regulatory integrity, and financial sustainability. The county must prioritize transparency, due process, and public trust before making such a significant shift in governance.
Sincerely,
Skiela Laiwa
707.708.9594