The Plumas County Board of Supervisors grappled Nov. 21 with how to properly place an item on the agenda, and who should properly do it under the Brown Act, which governs standards for open meetings by elected officials in California.
Item 5A, under the Board of Supervisors section of the agenda, was intended to address and adopt recommendations for changes primarily affecting the Plumas County Treasurer/Tax Collector’s office in advance of the 2024 budgeting process, but it ran into trouble before the meeting even started.
In a letter to the Board, Treasurer/Tax Collector Julie White asked that the item be removed from the agenda. At the meeting, she told the supervisors “it is not beneficial” for them to agendize items related to her office, and better for her to place issues on their agenda when timely.
“You don’t know what my office does,” she said, verbally requesting the removal. It would have been more appropriate for the item to be posted under the Departmental Matters section of the Board’s agenda, she said.
County Administrative Officer Debra Lucero put Item 5A on the supervisors’ agenda with a recommendation that they adopt four recommendations made by Clifton, Larson & Allen (CLA), an accounting firm hired in May to review processes in the Treasurer/Tax Collector, Auditor/Controller and CAO offices. Lucero’s memo to the supervisors listed the item for action, but the official public agenda did not, a requirement under the Brown Act, intended to provide for public transparency and discussion.
“Julie White is an elected official. We don’t tell her what to do.”
Jeff Engel, Plumas County supervisor
Board Chairman Greg Hagwood suggested receiving the recommendations and revisiting them at a later meeting. That would give White, the Board and the public an opportunity to review them.
Supervisor Jeff Engel objected to that. “Julie White is an elected official. We don’t tell her what to do. The CAO doesn’t tell her what to do,” he said.
If the supervisors were to accept the recommendations listed in Lucero’s memo, these recommendations should be given to White and White should respond to them “whenever she wants,” Engel said.
The CLA accountants were hired on a $728,000 contract to review the financial operations of Plumas County, Lucero said. The items under discussion directly affect the county’s ability to put together a budget, she said. As the county’s budget officer, Lucero said she is acting within her position to look at the financial operations of the county.
“I’m not trying to be the boss of our treasurer, tax collector or any other elected official. I’m simply doing what my job description says I should do,” Lucero said.
The county is a year behind in its audit, she said. If the 2023 audit is not completed by March 31, 2024, it will be two years behind in audits. Plumas County’s credit rating is a triple B minus, Lucero said.
A confused discussion ensued, with Supervisor Kevin Goss moving to receive the recommendations but not adopt them, then amending his motion, and finally withdrawing it on the advice of Interim County Counsel Sara James. The agenda needs to state action items clearly “so that the public is aware when they come to the meeting,” James said.
Hagwood summarized the half-hour discussion: “The Treasurer/Tax Collector is an elected position. Her office enjoys or suffers autonomy and sovereignty, and the board’s ability in terms of actions is something that needs to be explored… I think there needs to be a little bit of homework done in terms of authorities, abilities, and the like,” he said.
The CLA recommendations will likely be rescheduled for a January meeting.
