Stealth positions

Quick, who’s the assessor of Butte County? The treasurer-tax collector? The auditor-controller?

If you’re like most county residents, you have no idea who these personages are. But your should: You elected them.

One of them, the auditor-controller, is a man named Dave Houser. He’s been in that position for more than 15 years, and until now nobody’s paid him much mind. With the advantage that incumbency and holding an obscure office provide, he’s easily won re-election every four years. This year he had no opposition, and on June 6 he won his fifth term in a walk.

Then, three weeks later, the county grand jury released its annual report, and Houser was much in the news. Turns out he’s got some serious problems in his office, including a “lack of management skills” and a “work environment where employees are fearful for their safety/well being.” And that’s not all, not by any stretch. (For more, see “Report slams Oroville, auditor,” Newslines, page 11.)

When the grand jury asked Houser how he received performance evaluations, his reply was, “I am reviewed only by the citizens of Butte County.”

That’s the problem. He’s correct, but the voters have no way of knowing whether he’s doing a good job. How well is Dick Puelicher, our treasurer-tax collector, doing? Or Ken Reimers, our assessor? Both have been in office for many years, and both just ran unopposed for re-election. Like Houser, they are “reviewed only by the citizens of Butte County,” who of course have no way of actually conducting a review.

That raises a question: Why do we continue electing these officers? If voters have no way of evaluating them, and if their positions have become little more than sinecures, why not make them appointed instead of elected positions?

After all, most of the department heads in county government are appointed. The Board of Supervisors hires a chief administrative officer, and he or she in turn hires the welfare director, the development services director, the public works director and several other department heads. It’s the CAO’s responsibility to make sure they do their jobs well, and they are accountable to the administrator—and, by extension, the Board of Supervisors.

Why not the auditor-controller as well? And the treasurer-tax collector and the assessor? Why even have these positions? Why not just subsume them under the chief administrative officer? These questions are worth asking. As the problems in Houser’s office indicate, and the grand jury recommends, changes need to be made. Now is a good time for the Board of Supervisors to establish a special commission to take a hard look at these obscure elected positions.

Some positions—district attorney, sheriff—are high-profile and should remain elected. But that’s not necessarily true of a post like county auditor. If the grand jury is correct, Houser should be out looking for work. Instead, barring a recall or resignation, he’s got a $116,000-a-year job on Easy Street for the rest of the decade.