AG 2001 03 26 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Programs as being unaccountable and unresponsive. Many report that their counties are highly satisfied with Area Programs. In December, 2000 Piedmont sent a questionnaire to all County Commissioners in Cabarrus, Rowan, Stanly, & Union counties asMng 4 questions: 1) Do you support shifting governance of Area Programs to counties.2 2) Rate Piedmont on a scale of J to 5 on accountability to your Board (1 = very poor; 2 = very high). 3) Rate Piedmont on a scale of I to 5 on service quality. 4) How can Piedmont enhance accountability to our counties? Seven commissioners responded to the questionnaire: 1) None supports county governance. 2) Piedmont received an average rating for accountability of 4.57 (equals 91.4%). 3) Piedmont received an average rating for quality services of 4. 71 (equals 94.2%). 4) Suggestions for enhancing accountability: a) Appoint a County Manager to the Piedmont Board (1) (another specifically wrote advising against the idea of having county managers on the board). b) Develop with counties regular written reports (5). c) Regular presentations to County Boards (1). Cabarrus, Rowan, Stanly & Union Counties need not take on the risks & liabilityfor the governance of our Mtt/DD/$A system over a question of accountability. Piedmont is absolutely committed to providing accountability to our counties in any reasonable form and amount they ask for. CRITICAL CONCERNS H.B. 381 is an UNFUNDED MANDATE 1. H.B. 381-122C-88 amends 122C and mandates that"Counties shall appropriate funds that serve the local program area ..." a) While the Legislative Oversight Committee (that wrote H.B. 38t) has been charged through its "Services' Subcommittee to develop a comprehensive reform plan to define whatpopulations are to be