Wabasha County report

Wabasha County Government Study Commission Government Study Commission Wabasha County Justice CenterFOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: 8/3/2010 848 17th St. E. Wabasha, MN 55981Contact: Public Relations CommitteeEmail: wabashacommission@gmail.comWebsite: http://www.co.wabasha.mn.us/With the goal of government that fits people’s needs--Commission’s interim report looks at process and outcomesWABASHA, MINNESOTA —The preliminary findings of the Wabasha County Government Structure Commissionhave been released to the public. This interim report summarizes findings related to the County Board’s decision toabolish the administrator form of government, which is one of several forms that the Commission was charged withconsidering when it was formed in January 2012.Commission members say that they hope this report puts to rest questions of why the administrator form ofgovernment should be considered along with other forms available to counties under Minnesota law. WabashaCounty operated under the administrator form for eighteen years until December of 2011 when the County Boardabolished the position of county administrator.In the administrator form of government, a professional administrator handles day-to-day management of countygovernment and supervises non-elected department heads. The Wabasha County Board can manage and supervise,but it does so only when it gathers as a body during posted public meetings.The Survey Committee, which prepared the report, wanted to understand why the administrator form ofgovernment was abolished in Wabasha County.“They hoped the County Board would share its information that supported the Board’s belief that the administratorform of government needed to be abolished,” said Katie Himanga, Commission chairperson, “but when thecommittee asked the board members who supported the decision for the information, they were referred to theBoard’s strategic plan done in 2011 with the assistance of Rev. Rick Carlson.”After reviewing available data and interviewing two board members and all department heads, the committeeconcluded: 1) that Wabasha County is in good financial shape; its finances have been managed conservatively andthe County has adequate reserves; 2) the strategic planning process the County Board used was flawed, whichbrings into question the plan’s proposed changes to county services; and 3) the Board’s desire to reduce cost mayhave contributed to abolishing the administrator form of government, but it was not the primary reason.“The entire Study Commission has looked at state laws, information on ethical decision-making, the MinnesotaAccountable Government Innovation and Collaboration (MAGIC) Act, legal opinions and information on allaspects of our current county organization and governance. It’s been a steep learning curve,” Himanga said.To try and get an outside perspective on the effectiveness of the administrator, coordinator and county board-runforms of government, the Survey Committee also gathered information from 25 similarly sized counties.Perhaps the greatest assistance the Commission has received has been feedback from county staff about what theydo, the number of citizens served, the services provided and the support they need on a day-to-day basis to workefficiently and effectively.The full Commission will now continue the process of evaluating the individual options available to WabashaCounty with the goal of having a recommendation ready by the end of the year./Users/newsweb03/Desktop/Wabasha report/interim_report_PR_final_final.doc

On August 2, the Study Commission met with Ramsey County Manager Julie Kleinschmidt to learn about themanager form of government.For more information about the interim report and the Wabasha County Government Study Commission, contactKatie Himanga at (651) 380-9680.BACKGROUND INFORMATION ABOUT THE COMMISSION:The Government Study Commission was created by court order January 27th, 2012 in response to citizens’concerns. According to the order, “the Commission is to conduct its study in an objective way, and its findings andrecommendations are to be fact based after thorough study.”The Commission’s purpose is to study the form of county government as described in Minnesota Statutes 375A.0-375A.13, which allows for five different forms---or options----for county government. If the Commission’s finalreport “contains a recommendation that a referendum be held on an option, the referendum shall be held asprovided in section 375A.12. A referendum on an option may not be initiated by a resolution of the county board ora petition of voters until after the study commission has completed its study.” The Commission has one year tofinish its work.Members of the Commission are: Katie Himiaga – Chair; Steve Erwin J.D. – Vice-Chair; Shirley Anderson –Secretary; Commissioners Merl Norman, Mike Wobbe and Richard Hall; County Attorney James Nordstrom;Sheriff Rodney Bartsh; and Wabasha County residents Thomas Peyla, M.D., Judith Schotzko, J.D., CharlesSpringer, Randy Eggenberger, Judith O. Jordan, Mike Morath, D.V.M., and William Hager. ##/Users/newsweb03/Desktop/Wabasha report/interim_report_PR_final_final.doc

of 8Wabasha County Study Commission - Interim ReportFindings and ConclusionsPhase 1—DiscoveryJuly 26, 2012BACKGROUNDThe Wabasha County Study Commission was appointed by JudgeTerrence Walters on January 27, 2012, to objectively study andrecommend the best “form and structure of county government”for Wabasha County, Minnesota. The Commission was appointed as ar e s u l t o f a p e t i t i o n f i l e d b y a n u m b e r o f Wa b a s h a C o u n t y r e g i s t e r e dvoters. The petition was filed in response to a 3-2 decision by theWabasha County Board, supported by majority Board membersRoschen, Norman and Harms and opposed by Board members Halland Wobbe, to abolish the Administrator form of government inWa b a s h a C o u n t y, t h e r e b y e ff e c t i v e l y t e r m i n a t i n g e m p l o y m e n t o f t h et h e n - i n c u m b e n t C o u n t y A d m i n i s t r a t o r.Majority Board members, collectively or as individuals, haverepeatedly cited the need for cost reduction as the primary reasonfor their action, stating that the County could not afford theAdministrator salary due to the poor condition of its finances.They have also stated that a strategic planning process was utilizedt o a r r i v e a t t h e i r d e c i s i o n . H o w e v e r, a l l t h r e e m a j o r i t y m e m b e r srefused to be interviewed by the Study Commission t o c o n f i r m a n dfurther discuss their rationale and process. Majority Boardmembers Harms and Norman had been appointed to serve on theStudy Commission, however, Harms resigned shortly after theprocess began and Norman chose to quit attending meetings.In order to accomplish its goal of making an informed andobjective recommendation of the best form and structure ofg o v e r n m e n t f o r Wa b a s h a C o u n t y, t h e S t u d y C o m m i s s i o n d e t e r m i n e dthat it first needed to: 1. Seek facts to fully understand the rationale behind the Wabasha County Board’s majority decision to abolish the Administrator form of government. 2. Seek facts to fully understand the process used by the Wabasha County Board’s majority members to determine the type of changes to be made. 3. Seek facts to fully understand the financial condition of Wabasha County.

of 8METHODOLOGYThe Study Commission’s approach encompassed extensive surveys andi n - d e p t h i n t e r v i e w s w i t h a l l c o o p e r a t i n g Wa b a s h a C o u n t y B o a r dmembers, all Wabasha County Department Heads, and the formerWa b a s h a C o u n t y A d m i n i s t r a t o r. I n a d d i t i o n , t h e C o m m i s s i o nsurveyed board members and department heads from twenty-fiveMinnesota counties of similar size to Wabasha County. TheC o m m i s s i o n a l s o r e v i e w e d Wa b a s h a C o u n t y f i n a n c i a l r e c o r d s a n ds u p p o r t i n g d o c u m e n t s f r o m i t s m o s t r e c e n t f i s c a l y e a r, a l o n g w i t hvarious other sources of information.SUMMARY FINDINGS and CONCLUSIONSBased on its review, the Wabasha County Study Commission hasconcluded that while cost-reduction may have been a contributingreason to abolish the Administrator form of government, it foundno convincing evidence to support the contention that it was theprimary reason. Rather, the Commission found considerableevidence to support its conclusion that the Administrator formwas abolished primarily as a means of terminating the employmento f t h e t h e n - i n c u m b e n t A d m i n i s t r a t o r, w h o s e p u b l i c l y - s t a t e d v i e w sdid not always agree with the philosophical and ideological viewsof majority Board members Roschen, Norman and Harms. TheCommission based its conclusion on highly consistent survey andinterview response findings, along with a detailed analysis of theactual reduction in cost resulting from the change, which hasturned out to be far less than what had been claimed by themajority Board members at the time their action was taken.The Study Commission has further concluded that the process usedby the Board to determine what changes were to be made, did notconform in any way to generally accepted, best-practices strategicp l a n n i n g . M o s t n o t a b l y, C o u n t y D e p a r t m e n t h e a d s w e r e n o tallowed to participate other than to provide a brief description oftheir respective departments and fill out a survey. The process wasf a c i l i t a t e d b y M r. R i c k C a r l s o n o f H e a r t a n d M i n d C o u n s e l i n g i n N e wPrague, MN. The Commission found no evidence that Mr. Carlsonhad relevant strategic-planning experience, and he refused ourrequest seeking additional information. The Heart and Mindwebsite describes Mr. Carlson as a therapeutic counselor with aMaster of Arts in Counseling from Sioux Falls Seminary and aMaster of Divinity & Doctor of Ministry from Bethel TheologicalSeminary. The site makes no mention of strategic planning. TheStudy Commission has, therefore, concluded that the process usedby the County Board to determine the changes to be made was not alegitimate strategic planning process, nor do we believe itsconclusions were based on an objective, well-reasoned analysis ofthe situation.

of 8A n d f i n a l l y, w h i l e t h e C o m m i s s i o n w e l c o m e s a n d e n c o u r a g e sthoughtful, legitimate efforts to control costs, it has found noevidence to support the majority Board’s contention that WabashaCounty’s finances are in poor condition. In fact, the Commissionh a s f o u n d c o n s i d e r a b l e e v i d e n c e t o t h e c o n t r a r y. T h e M i n n e s o t aState Auditor has noted in its most recent annual audit that theCounty has more than adequate reserves in its General fund and itsHuman Services fund. Wabasha County benefits from an AA bondrating by Standard and Poor ’s, the best rating earned amongsimilar-sized Counties in the State. The County has relatively lowdebt and is current on all financial obligations including monthlyexpenses. Despite ever-growing increases in demand for Countyservices and annual cuts in operating budgets dating back to 2009,Department Heads have consistently stayed within their approvedspending limits while providing quality services to the residents ofthe County. Based on its analyses and findings, the StudyCommission has concluded that Wabasha County’s finances are verystrong and rate well-above most other Minnesota counties ofc o m p a r a b l e s i z e , t h a n k s i n p a r t t o t h e e ff e c t i v e f i n a n c i a ls t e w a r d s h i p o f t h e f o r m e r C o u n t y A d m i n i s t r a t o r.DETAILED FINDINGSThe following section expands on the Summary Findings andConclusions noted above.1. Seek facts to fully understand the rationale behind the Wabasha County Board’s majority decision to abolish the Administrator form of government. a. Findings from interviews conducted by the Survey Sub- committee: DEPARTMENT HEADS: Twelve Wabasha County Department Heads were interviewed. All of them indicated that the former C o u n t y A d m i n i s t r a t o r w a s a n e ff e c t i v e a n d e ff i c i e n t m a n a g e r t h r o u g h o u t h i s y e a r s o f s e r v i c e t o t h e C o u n t y. O n e D e p a r t m e n t H e a d , w h o h a s w o r k e d f o r t h i r t e e n d i ff e r e n t Administrators spanning two counties and thirty-two years of public service, cited him as the best. As with the Board members who provided interviews, nearly all Department Heads cited philosophical and ideological differences between the majority Board members and the former Administrator as the primary reason the Administrator form of government was abolished. Several believed the decision was based, at least in part, on the majority Board members’ desire to have more control over the day-to-day operations of County government. No Department Head believed the position was eliminated primarily to reduce costs.

of 8 Department Heads also consistently expressed concerns that since the Administrator form of government was abolished, there has been no single go-to person they can depend on for timely decision-making and functional expertise. Many cited the strong organizational foundation established by the former Administrator as one reason they have been able to continue to operate with minimal leadership. They also consistently pointed out that because they are unable to go to the Administrator for support, they now frequently seek answers and direction from the County Attorney’s office if they are unable to handle a situation on their own. While this arrangement has been adequate for now, some expressed doubts as to whether it represented a permanent solution in view of the markedly increased workload it has placed on the County Attorney’s office. All department heads mentioned the need to have decisions made in a timely manner—particularly in emergency situations—and the increased liability risk the County has incurred as a result of the elimination of the County Administrator position. COUNTY BOARD: Only Board members Hall and Wobbe agreed to be interviewed by the Study Commission. Both cited p h i l o s o p h i c a l a n d i d e o l o g i c a l d i ff e r e n c e s b e t w e e n m a j o r i t y b o a r d m e m b e r s a n d t h e f o r m e r C o u n t y A d m i n i s t r a t o r, a s t h e primary reason the Board voted 3-2 to abolish the Administrator form of government. Neither Hall nor Wobbe believed the position was eliminated primarily for cost- reduction purposes or as a result of a credible strategic planning process. Both stated that the majority Board Members who voted to abolish the Administrator form wanted more direct control over all aspects of County operations. The three Board members who declined to be interviewed, Norman, Roschen and Harms, have in the past cited the County’s financial condition and the need for cost-cutting as the reasons for the elimination of the Administrator position. Additional information about their rationale including clarification about why their statements differed from those of Department Heads and other Board Members could not be obtained due of their refusal to be interviewed by the Survey Sub-committee.b. Findings from financial research: Despite frequent statements by the majority County Board members that abolishing the Administrator form of government would result in substantial cost savings for the C o u n t y, l i t t l e f i n a n c i a l m o d e l i n g o r o t h e r d o c u m e n t a t i o n o f expected savings has been provided to the Study Commission. Since abolishing the Administrator form of government, majority members Norman, Roschen and Harms have, on a 3-2

of 8vote, established a new position and hired a CountyC o o r d i n a t o r. T h e B o a r d h a s r e t a i n e d o u t s i d e l e g a lr e p r e s e n t a t i o n f r o m M r. E r i c k K a a r d a l , a M i n n e a p o l i s l a w y e r,to provide legal opinions about the Coordinator form ofgovernment, and to prepare the Board for a prospectivereferendum in the event the Study Commission recommends aform of government other than the Coordinator form. SinceDecember of 2011, the County has been billed nearly $20,000 inlegal fees by Mr. Kaardal.Abolishing the Administrator form of government andestablishing the new Coordinator position does not appear tohave resulted in the level of savings initially claimed by themajority Board. At various times, those members have statedthat their actions would save the county $100,000 or moreannually. However, a comparison of the $71,000 startingsalary of the terminated Administrator position with theapproved $52,000-$55,000 starting salary for the newly-established Coordinator position yields a maximum startingsalary savings of $19,000, or less than $1.00 per year for eachresident of Wabasha County. Even when comparing the $92,000t h e n - c u r r e n t s a l a r y o f t h e f o r m e r C o u n t y A d m i n i s t r a t o r,whose experience encompassed thirty years of publicadministration, with the approved starting salary for theCoordinator position, the maximum savings would be $40,000,or less than $2.00 per year for each County resident. In bothexamples, the maximum savings were calculated before the$20,000 additional costs in outside legal fees and also do notconsider the additional liability risk placed on the Countydue to the lack of experience and expertise at the executivelevel. The newly hired Coordinator has acknowledged in theinterview process that she has no prior supervisory experience.Other Coordinator salary ranges in Minnesota start at $53,000and go as high as $112,000, making the newly-approvedWa b a s h a C o u n t y C o o r d i n a t o r s a l a r y r a n g e a m o n g t h e l o w e s tin the State. Actual current salaries of Coordinators inMinnesota counties of similar size to Wabasha County appearto range from $70,000 to $79,000, which raises a concern aboutthe level of expertise the County can attract and retain for itsnewly-established Coordinator position.A n d f i n a l l y, t h e C o m m i s s i o n h a s f o u n d n o e v i d e n c e t h a t t h eCounty Board gave any consideration to ongoing cost savingsa n d o v e r a l l e ff i c i e n c i e s b r o u g h t a b o u t b y t h e e m p l o y m e n t o f ahighly-experienced Administrator.It is the conclusion of the Study Commission that the majorityBoard members did not base their decision to abolish theAdministrator form of government on a well-reasonedanalysis of the actual financial impact of the change.

of 8 c. Findings regarding Personnel Comparisons: A comparison of duties between the former Wabasha County Administrator position and the new Coordinator job description shows significant similarities. Both jobs include Human Resource functions. The principal differences between the two positions are that the Coordinator position cannot make decisions independent of the County Board, nor does the Coordinator position supervise Department Heads generally, a l t h o u g h i t m a y s u p e r v i s e c e r t a i n s t a ff i f d i r e c t e d t o d o s o b y the County Board. By contrast, Minnesota statute provides that County Administrators have supervisory responsibility over all Department Heads. A n o t h e r d i ff e r e n c e b e t w e e n t h e j o b d e s c r i p t i o n s i s t h e l a c k o f e d u c a t i o n a l r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r t h e p o s i t i o n o f C o o r d i n a t o r. The Coordinator job description as developed by the County Board in May 2012 states that a bachelor’s degree in business, human service or a related discipline is “desired and a minimum of three years experience functioning as a human resources g e n e r a l i s t , o r, i n l i e u o f t h e a f o r e s t a t e d q u a l i f i c a t i o n s , a background and experience that clearly demonstrates the ability to perform the stated functions of the position.” By contrast, the abolished Administrator position required a degree in Public Administration, plus at least eight years of public administration experience. A Masters degree in Public Administration was preferred. T h e n e w l y c r e a t e d Wa b a s h a C o u n t y C o o r d i n a t o r p o s i t i o n w i l l oversee a governmental unit that has a budget of $29.1 million in 2012, and provides essential services to 22,000 Wabasha County residents.2. Seek facts to fully understand the process used by the Wabasha County Board’s majority members to determine the type of changes to be made. a. Findings from surveys and analyses of the 2011 Strategic Planning Process A complete understanding of the strategic planning process from the majority Board members’ perspective is not possible because Board members Norman, Roschen and Harms refused the Government Study Sub-Committee’s request for an interview. Despite having applied to the Court to be appointed to the Study Commission, Board member Harms resigned after two meetings and Board member Norman attempted to resign. When the Court would not allow Norman to resign, he stopped attending meetings and has said he will not attend future meetings. No information was provided to the Commission by those Board members.

of 8The strategic planning process was facilitated by an individualwho, to the best of the Study Commission’s knowledge, hadnever completed a strategic planning process for agovernment board. Five strategic planning sessions were heldbetween May 26t h a n d A u g u s t 9t h , 2011, at a cost of $5,000. Thesessions were attended by all members of the County Board. Nosessions were recorded despite advice from the CountyAttorney to the facilitator and the Board that they shouldbe. Interviews of department heads who had attended thestrategic planning sessions revealed that there was nodiscussion about the advantages or disadvantages ofabolishing the Administrator form of government or theh i r i n g o f a n e w C o o r d i n a t o r. A l l D e p a r t m e n t H e a d s s a i d t h e ywere not allowed to participate in the process, but wereallowed to observe the sessions as long as they took vacationtime to attend. Board Members Norman, Roschen and Harmshave stated at several County Board meetings that thestrategic planning process provided the reasons for abolishingthe Administrator form of government. Department headswho attended the sessions stated that the Board at no timeduring the process discussed their reasons or rationale forabolishing the County Administrator form of government.County Board members Hall and Wobbe expressed concernsabout the effectiveness of the process facilitated by Mr.Carlson citing a lack of statistical and anecdotalinformation upon which decisions could be based. AllDepartment Heads said that they had little or no input intothe process, their only opportunity being the second to lastsession on July 22, 2011, when they were given ten to fifteenminutes to present information about the duties andresponsibilities of their departments. Notes taken by theformer County Administrator and the facilitator hadconflicting information. The majority Board members choseto approve the facilitator ’s version as official minutes.Outcomes of the process included new vision, mission andv a l u e s s t a t e m e n t s a s d e v e l o p e d b y t h e f a c i l i t a t o r, a l o n g w i t h alist of sixty-nine action items which included elimination ofstaff and programs, as well as operational changes. The listwas not prioritized. The facilitator instructed the Board tostart making changes immediately despite the fact that noneof the sixty-nine items had been debated or discussed as part ofthe process.It is the conclusion of the Study Commission that the processused by the County Board to determine the changes to be madewas a highly arbitrary process that did not conform in anyway to generally-accepted, best-practices strategic planning.

of 83. Seek facts to fully understand the financial condition of Wabasha County. a. Findings regarding the County’s financial condition: Some members of the County Board, particularly members Norman and Roschen, have repeatedly characterized the County as being in poor financial condition. The Commission has found considerable evidence that the County’s financial status is actually very strong. The State Auditor ’s office has n o t e d i n i t s m o s t r e c e n t a n n u a l a u d i t t h a t Wa b a s h a C o u n t y has adequate reserves in its General fund as well as its Human Services fund. Wabasha County was recently upgraded by Standard and Poor ’s rating agency to an AA bond rating—the best rating of any county of similar size in the State of Minnesota—based on 2011 financial performance which was prior to the abolishment of the Administrator form of government. The County’s asset-to-debt ratio is excellent. The County has relatively low debt and is up-to-date on all of its financial obligations, including monthly expenses. Department heads consistently stay within their approved budgets, despite annual budget cuts dating back to 2009. The Commission found absolutely no evidence that the County Board completed any financial analysis that would support t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n t h a t Wa b a s h a C o u n t y i s i n p o o r f i n a n c i a l condition.WRAP UP and NEXT STEPThis report concludes Phase 1 of the Wabasha County StudyCommission’s work encompassing findings and conclusions from itsevidence discovery phase. Phase 2 of the Commission’s work willutilize these findings along with other sources of information,including public input, to arrive at its final conclusions. Phase 2will encompass a detailed analysis of all forms of Countygovernment allowed under Minnesota statute, with the finalresult being the Study Commission’s recommendation of the bestf o r m o f g o v e r n m e n t f o r Wa b a s h a C o u n t y. We e x p e c t p u b l i c a t i o n o fthe final report in fall 2012.

http://www.postbulletin.com	935
http://postbulletin.com	794
http://www.weebly.com	3
http://wabonline.weebly.com	3
http://172.16.64.2	1
http://m.postbulletin.com	1

Wabasha County report

by Post-Bulletin Co. on Aug 06, 2012

Accessibility

Upload Details

Usage Rights

6 Embeds 1,737

Statistics

Wabasha County report Document Transcript