Yesterday, we published a story that unpacks a little known, often glossed over portion of Measure A on the ballot — the power for county supervisors to confirm and remove some of the region’s most consequential public servants.
That includes those responsible for public health, emergency response and the legal defense of people who cannot afford an attorney. If approved in November, Measure A would allow four of the county’s five elected leaders to remove them at any time, for any reason.
I reached out to all five county supervisors to understand more about this proposed expansion of their own power. Only two agreed to an interview.
Supervisor Jim Desmond, a Republican who represents North County, said it would insert politics into roles that should have no influence at all.
“We’re supposed to be setting policy and direction,” Desmond said in an interview, “not have our thumb on the scale of who gets hired to carry out these tasks — except for the (top administrator), who we directly hire, but that’s all.”
Supervisor Joel Anderson, a Republican who also represents East County, said there’s a lot to like in this sweeping package of reforms, including the addition of independent oversight offices to monitor political violations.
But he said granting confirmation and removal power to the Board of Supervisors equates to a direct attack on civil servants. The whole idea of civil service is moving the machinery of government to meet people’s needs, he said, regardless of who is elected. These roles should be practical — not political.
Anderson compares it to what he called a “pothole filler.”
“Whether Donald Trump gets elected to this board or Joe Biden gets elected to this board, my job shouldn’t change as a pothole filler,” Anderson said.
“That pothole really has nothing to do with our leadership — that’s basic governance. But now the tentacles are going down deeper,” he said, referring to the board’s power and influence over the county’s day-to-day operations. “So, now you’re going to have more political thought about making sure (the board is) happy and that’s not good governance.”