The Quiet Cabal: How County Staff Justifications Threaten Public Trust
In every corner of government, from the city hall to the county administration building, officials are tasked with balancing efficiency, service delivery, and political survival. For senior county staff, this balancing act often demands moral compromise, justifying minor acts of dishonesty “for the greater good.” But when rationalizations pile up, a dangerous phenomenon emerges: a closed culture of self-protection not unlike the “Blue Wall of Silence” long associated with police departments.
At first, the justifications are small. A grant is misrepresented slightly to secure vital funding. It is then rewarded with praise, followed by a Board of Supervisors approval that the CEO can give up to 10% of salary bonuses per year. A less-qualified contractor is selected because they “know the system.” A whistleblower is isolated to “preserve the department’s reputation.” Each act is easily justified to ensure the ‘smooth functioning” of government.
We do not have to look any further than the county’s purchase of the Ranch House property in 2011. I call this the petri dish of county shortfalls. A $4.2 million grant (of taxpayer funds) completely replaced a three-bedroom building and added three more units. This project reflects Governor Newsom’s failed spending policies with homelessness and mental health. Ed Scofield was quoted, “if we don’t spend it, somebody else will.”
Over time, all of these rationalizations develop into something one can only describe as a cabal — an informal network of mutual protection, where transparency becomes the enemy and loyalty becomes the highest virtue.
Much like law enforcement’s “Blue Shield,” where officers often cover for misconduct out of loyalty, senior county officials may come to see themselves not as servants of the public, but as defenders of an insular system, rewarded with excessive total financial compensation packages. Information is withheld under the guise of “protecting the public interest.” Missteps are hidden to “maintain public trust.” Accountability is delayed, deflected, or diluted until it is meaningless.
But here is the hard truth: such systems always implode. In an era when citizens demand ever-greater transparency and accountability — armed with smartphones, social media, and relentless public records requests — the old cabals cannot survive indefinitely. What is justified internally as “good governance” is increasingly seen by the public as corruption. Small scandals snowball. Citizens, already distrustful, become hostile, employees start to turn on one another. Lawsuits pile up. Elections swing wildly. Eventually, the system collapses under the weight of its unethical behaviors.
County governance thrives only when it operates on trust — trust that staff are forthright, that transparency is not feared but embraced, and that accountability is a tool for improvement, not a weapon to be avoided. Senior county officials must resist the easy temptation to rationalize dishonesty for the sake of short-term gains. Newly elected officials and newly hired senior staff have to maintain integrity. They must all work together to maintain the public good as servants of the community.
Senior county staff and supervisors are currently drafting a resolution for senior staff total financial compensation that will affect the county for the next three years. These excessive compensations have got to be reduced and reflected in the upcoming 2025-2026 budget.
My recommendations:
Offer senior County staff the opportunity to resign with six month’s pay
Eliminate telecommuting
Eliminate the ability for CEO to give up to 10% bonuses a year
Streamline departments reflecting a zero growth for over a decade reducing the number of directors in CDA having only two positions: CDA Director and an Assistant Director
Same with the executive office, combining the responsibilities of Assistant CEO, Communications and Public Information, Information and General Services Director
Eliminate the newly created position for Director of OES
Ultimately, the board of supervisors are the firewall which votes to approve the compensation resolution and budget, or not.
