County’s New Top Administrator Abruptly Resigns

Declaring that Ventura County is “near financial chaos,” the man hired to run county government just a week ago resigned without warning over the weekend after deciding he could never muster the support to fix “overwhelming problems,” county officials disclosed Monday.

The unexpected resignation of David L. Baker left county officials stunned and facing a growing crisis in leadership. With the county already reeling from a major Medicare fraud fiasco, Supervisor John K. Flynn compared Baker’s departure to that of “a five-star general leaving in the middle of battle.”

Baker, 50, who took over the Ventura County administrator’s post Nov. 22 after leaving a similar job in San Joaquin County, sent supervisors a blistering six-page assessment of problems he said he was unaware of when he agreed to take the job. They include:

* A “cash flow” problem that has raised the auditor’s concerns about the county’s ability to meet payroll for its 7,100 employees. “This is an alarming, irresponsible situation, if true,” Baker wrote.

* The historically weak role of the chief administrative officer compared to the Board of Supervisors and certain department heads. This has fostered “end runs” around the chief administrator’s office to gather needed votes from supervisors, he said.

* A Health Care Agency that is known for “withholding information, unresponsiveness, untimeliness and a reluctance to place information in writing where greater accountability can be satisfied.”

* Inadequate planning for long-term building projects, such as a new juvenile hall proposed in Ventura.

* Too much reliance on the auditor for fiscal forecasting and debt financing. In addition, the county administrator is subject to “information filtering” about finances from the auditor, Health Care Agency and public safety departments.

* The need to revamp a county ordinance that funnels all money from Proposition 172’s public safety tax to the county’s law enforcement departments. Unless altered, the ordinance will create a “dramatic and ongoing” imbalance between funding for public safety and all other county-run programs, such as libraries and health care, he said.

* A general atmosphere of fear for “good employees” to speak out on the need for better performance. “They fear for their livelihood,” Baker said.

* Philosophical and personal divisions on the five-member Board of Supervisors. “You each know about the issues among yourselves and how you do and don’t work together,” he wrote.

Baker wrote the letter Saturday and left instructions for copies to be faxed to each of the supervisors early Monday. Many county officials were shocked by his sudden departure, saying he had given no indication of his plans last week. But several officials said they agreed with many of Baker’s conclusions.

Supervisor Frank Schillo said he also has been concerned about many of the issues Baker raised in the letter, chief among them the state of the county’s fiscal health.

Schillo pointed to the county’s failed attempt last year to merge its mental health and social services agencies as an example of the kinds of financial decisions that have plagued the county over the past year.

In addition to the $15.3-million settlement of a civil fraud case relating to Medicare billings, the county is facing the loss of additional millions as the result of audits sparked by the failed merger.

Moreover, Schillo said individual county department managers and the board as a whole have lacked the foresight to understand the predicament, much less do any belt tightening to avoid future problems, especially if the county falls on hard economic times.

Supervisor Kathy Long, however, said she is puzzled by Baker’s assertion that he was unaware of the extent of the county’s fiscal problems. Long said board members were as open as possible during the recruitment process about the county’s money problems.

And if new information came to light, Baker should have shared it with the board, she said.

“I would have preferred, as a professional, that he had drafted this [letter] and then met with board members and said, ‘Here are the problems, what are we going to do to work on these?’ ”

On Monday, county Auditor Tom Mahon disclosed that a $2-million deficit forecast for this fiscal year has grown to $5 million. But Mahon insisted there is no need for alarm.

“We have serious problems, problems that require immediate prompt attention,” said Mahon, an elected official who has worked in county government nearly three decades. “But we have had problems before and we have been able to handle them. We just need to take the necessary corrective action.”

Mahon said he would soon be going to the board with an analysis of the county’s finances and options for closing the deficit. The magnitude of the shortfall most likely means there will be significant cuts in some county programs, Mahon said.

The auditor denied Baker’s assertion that the auditor’s office does a poor job of providing financial information to the county administrator and the Board of Supervisors. “We have done basically what we are supposed to do,” he said. “What the CAO and board members have asked us to do.”

In his letter, Baker said Ventura County’s government structure gives too much power to the six elected officials who run public safety agencies, collect taxes and audit county finances while hogtying the ability of the chief administrator to recommend actions that benefit the entire county.

This makes the CAO ineffective in tackling fiscal threats and encourages the elected officials and other department heads to bypass the administrator’s office, going directly to supervisors to support their programs, Baker said.

“This encourages business by lobbying rather than solid business analysis and prudent public policy,” he wrote.

Flynn, a 23-year veteran of the board, said he agrees with Baker. But that is a problem endemic to county government across the state, Flynn said. He also agrees with Baker’s assertion that some county department heads are too autonomous.

“We always talk about the county family,” Flynn said. “We are family, but our walls are too high.”

Barry Hammitt, executive director of county government’s largest labor union, said the county has had a weak county administrator position for at least 25 years.

“You have six very independent elected department heads and then you’ve got a lot of other department heads,” Hammitt said. “The standard has always been that instead of sending something through the CAO, it’s who can go around and get the three votes on the board. And then whoever gets those three votes gets whatever they want.”

Hammitt said there was “absolute encouragement” of that system under former county administrator Richard Wittenberg. Wittenberg was “a political animal,” Hammitt said, and when Lin Koester took over from him four years ago, he was unable to change the organization.

Wittenberg, who is now chief administrator of Santa Clara County, declined to specifically address Hammitt’s assertion.

“I think the whole thing is kind of silly,” Wittenberg said. “All I know is when I was there the county was looked upon, through many awards, as one of the best-run counties in California.”

Among the most controversial issues Baker addressed is the county’s practice of earmarking Proposition 172 public safety revenues for four county agencies: the Sheriff’s Department, the district attorney’s office, the public defender’s office and the Probation Department. The money is generated by a local half-cent sales tax that was approved by voters in 1993.

Under a local ordinance, the Board of Supervisors is restricted from using any of the $195 million the county has received in the last six years for any other department.

That is a fiscally foolhardy practice, Baker warned.

“Over time, while it guarantees rich resources for public safety, it does so at the expense of other community programs and non-safety employees,” he wrote.

The Board of Supervisors will meet in emergency session today, where they are expected to reappoint Deputy Chief Administrator Bert Bigler as the county’s interim administrative chief. Flynn said he favors an “open, honest public discussion” of the issues raised by Baker.

“He was very honest,” Flynn said. “Maybe that’s what we need. A big dose of honesty.”

Baker had been eagerly anticipated by county leaders. Ventura County supervisors lured him from San Joaquin County, where he was highly regarded, with a $157,874 annual salary. With benefits, his pay package was worth $239,832 a year.

In his letter to supervisors, Baker waived his rights to any compensation. He also said his resignation was “the most painful professional decision I have ever made.” In closing, he asked the supervisors to treat him well.

“I hope each of you will use discretion and not say anything damaging about me,” Baker wrote. “I don’t deserve that.”

Baker, reached at his Lodi home late Monday, said he is “grieving,” but is certain he made the right decision.

“It’s like a friend who tells you something that no one else will tell you,” Baker said. “This is the best I can do to tell them as accurately as I can that there are problems here and that they are significant.”

*

Times staff writers Fred Alvarez and Gary Polakovic contributed to this story.

*

* REACTION

Responses from county leaders, employees to resignation range from angry to concerned. B1

* IN HIS OWN WORDS

The complete text of David Baker’s departing letter. B6