My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
AG 2001 03 26
CabarrusCountyDocuments
>
Public Meetings
>
Agendas
>
BOC
>
2001
>
AG 2001 03 26
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/25/2002 4:51:10 PM
Creation date
11/27/2017 11:45:14 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meeting Minutes
Doc Type
Agenda
Meeting Minutes - Date
3/26/2001
Board
Board of Commissioners
Meeting Type
Regular
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
262
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
You know my love of history, so pardon me if I draw upon a historical example: <br />the forms of the Roman Republic - such as the consuls, the Senate and the tribunes - <br />continued in existence for hundreds of years after the ascendancy of Augustus under the <br />Roman Empire, but they were almost totally without any real authority (which was held <br />very close to the vest by the Emperor and his imperial officials). You've always got to <br />ask the question: Who is the Emperor? Obviously, the "emperor' is the State, but the <br />key point is that under the draft scheme an intermediary is being inserted between the <br />State and the county program. And that intermediary is county government. The <br />question is: Who is really in charge here? And the answer is: the administering county. <br /> <br /> Under the draft legislation, the current area board is transformed into a purely <br />advisory board and the area authority becomes a subdivision of the administering county. <br />The essential powers currently held by area authorities are stripped away and given to the <br />administering county, such as the power to hire the program director, to make a budget, <br />to cor/struct and operate facilities, to charge fees for services, to enter into contracts for <br />the provision of services, and to establish an employee salary plan. The board of the new <br />county program, like the consuls, senators and tribunes of the Korean Empire, is a <br />vestigial remnant without any authority. <br /> <br /> Regardless of whether a program is single- or multi-county under the draft <br />legislation, the real power to control the county program rests in the "administering <br />county" as defined by Section 1.2 (a) of the draft legislation (amending G.S. 122C-3). <br />The control of the administering county over a multi-county program is made clear by <br />G.S. 122C-88(a) of the draft legislation. <br /> <br /> Certainly the administering county may use an interlocal agreement to delegate to <br />a multi-county entity many of the powers conferred by the draft legislation and otherwise. <br />However, the two most important powers, (a) control of the budget and (b) the power to <br />hire and fire the program director must be retained by one of the participating counties. <br />(The power, to own real property is also a power that cannot be delegated under the terms <br />of G.S. 160A-460. Further, a question arises about the area authorities current power to <br />obtain G.S. 160A-20 installment purchase financing and what would happen to currently <br />existing 160A-20 financings under the draft law). <br /> <br /> I question whether an administering county will really want to make a broad <br />delegation of power once it fully understands the extent of an administering county's <br />multiple exposures to financial liability. This should be remembered as we look at the <br />draft proposal: Under the proposed new structure~ the administering county is fully <br />exposed to the county program's liabilities. This is true in the case of both single- and <br />multi-county programs. Some of these liabilities include: <br /> <br /> Tort Liability The exposure to tort liability in mental health's high-risk <br />environment is considerable. This is especially true since much of mental health service <br />provision is accomplished through contract agencies. Under current G.S. 122C-142, the <br />area program has the duty to monitor these contracts to assure compliance with state laws <br />and regulations. Under the draft G.S. 122C-100.7, the responsibility to monitor to assure <br />compliance is shifted to the county program which is, as I have pointed out above, a <br />department of the administering county. <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.