Supervisors Delay Decision on New Policy to Reduce Liability Claims

By PAUL J. YOUNG, City News Service:

To give absent members an opportunity to address the issue, the Board of Supervisors Tuesday postponed voting on new guidelines intended to reduce Riverside County’s exposure to litigation and, therefore, save it some money.

Supervisor Kevin Jeffries placed an item on the board’s policy agenda titled “Administrative Protocol for Reducing Claims and Lawsuits Against County Agencies.”

Although Jeffries expressed a desire to move forward with implementing the policy without delay, he was opposed by board Chairman Jeff Stone, who said he wanted Supervisors Marion Ashley and John Tavaglione present before a vote, in case either man wished to make comments.

Both supervisors were away on personal business, leaving the bare minimum quorum to conduct Tuesday’s meeting. Some business had to be deferred due to a four-fifths majority being required, mainly to decide any matter involving appropriations.

With Supervisor John Benoit saying he was OK voting “either way” -- implementing the policy now or later -- the decision was made to postpone final action on the item until Nov. 25, when all board members are scheduled to be on hand.

Jeffries first broached the issue a month ago, when he proposed making individual county agencies responsible for picking up the lion’s share of lawsuit awards stemming from actions occurring within the agencies.

Jeffries expressed dismay regarding the outflow of money from the county’s risk management fund -- into which all agencies make a contribution -- and felt that publicly identifying the departments targeted in tort actions and having them shoulder their own legal settlement costs would prove beneficial.

Executive Office figures show the county’s liability payouts in 2013-14 totaled $20.92 million.

Jeffries suggested that department heads opposed to having to drain their budgets to cover settlements could appeal to the board -- in open session.

Critical of the concept was Sheriff Stan Sniff, who said it was fraught with “grave legal, budgetary and operational” shortcomings. In a letter to the board, Sniff said he would be exposed to “civil vulnerability” if placed in the position of arguing publicly about the different aspects of cases arising from the actions of sheriff’s personnel.

“I will submit that a (law enforcement) officer today can do everything appropriate and legal to the circumstance in question ... but still incur civil liability by the very nature of our business,” the sheriff said.

He argued for the status quo and that matters arising from lawsuits continue to be decided in executive session.

Several county residents lauded Jeffries for advocating increased public transparency. However, after assessing the sentiment of the board and the Executive Office, Jeffries decided to conduct meetings with agency heads to develop a more universally appealing strategy.

The “administrative protocol” that Jeffries submitted for consideration calls for:

• department heads to immediately notify the Office of County Counsel, Executive Office and Department of Human Resources of “significant incidents” that could lead to a lawsuit
• a prompt investigation whenever such incidents are reported
• implementation of general provisions “to increase accountability and reduce the frequency of future liability and litigation”
• regular reporting to the board of resolved or pending litigation

Jeffries noted in his proposal that the Office of County Counsel is trying to handle more complex litigation in-house to help control costs.

The supervisor seemed satisfied with the current level of contributions into the county’s liability fund. According to Jeffries, allocations are based on “80 percent claims history ... and 20 percent department exposure data.”