On March 19th, the Board of Supervisors was briefed on the Department of Social Services (DSS) Administrative Board, which currently is a one person Board (Deputy County Adminstrator). This Administrative Board provides some local oversight to DSS. The state provides the majority of DSS’ oversight through formalized processes and reviews.
The presentation provided the Board of Supervisors with options to change the current local oversight process to a more expansive one that could create increased opportunities for outside pressure to influence DSS leadership and staff to rule on child welfare cases for political reasons. (Since this meeting the Board voted to direct staff to develop a plan for the Board to review to change the current structure).
On the surface, increased oversight would seem reasonable in response to an investigation demonstrating widespread DSS misconduct. However, that is not the case that Courtland Supervisor David Ross – who has been a vocal advocate for these new oversight procedures – has presented to the community. Over the last year, whether his intent or not, Mr. Ross’ actions have undermined DSS credibility. Mr. Ross has yet to disclose the information that leads him to believe there are widespread problems in Spotsy DSS. Currently, his public stance seems to be based on one child welfare case and a limited understanding of the complexities of the child welfare system. I’d imagine Mr. Ross would take exception to citizens defining his career as a supervisor by one poor vote or decision. However, he seems to have no reservations about holding DSS to that standard. The tragedy in this scenario is DSS is not in a position to defend themselves and Mr. Ross is publicly exploiting that vulnerability.
We must have oversight and accountability, but it must be administered by individuals that are knowledgeable and have a sincere desire to operate objectively without predetermined outcomes. Mr. Ross is very effective at portraying himself as not having ulterior motives and investigates only to find the truth. If I thought less of Mr. Ross, I might have written this off as naivety or as a misunderstanding that will resolve itself. However, I believe Mr. Ross is far too knowledgeable and calculating to conclude this will resolve itself without pressure to force him to relent his pursuits – or show the community his justification for seeking to overhaul DSS’ oversight procedures.
Ultimately, my concern is not Mr. Ross, but the long term viability of our DSS that serves and protects our most vulnerable neighbors. We need dedicated and professional DSS employees. While we will always have compensation and workforce issues to address, we must not encourage the trend of publicizing alleged mistakes as a substitute for the extensive formal appeals process. Publicizing mistakes and foregoing this process gives the public the impression there are widespread violations – which contributes to distrust in the community. Rather than operating as a neutral advocate for his constituents and working to extinguish the attacks against DSS, Mr. Ross chose to fan the flames of discord. This choice not only undermines DSS, but also his ability to more effectively advocate on behalf of his constituents.
Salem Supervisor Paul Trampe and Battlefield Supervisor Chris Yakabouski defended Spotsy DSS when a citizen accused them of stealing children. Lee Hill Supervisor Gary Skinner offered some opposition to Mr. Ross’ efforts on one occasion. But to truly stand tall, the support offered needs to be as dedicated and persistent as Mr. Ross’ efforts have been to undermine them.
Mr. Ross has failed to demonstrate publicly that DSS has widespread issues or that the current local oversight procedures are inadequate. Mr. Ross seems to be misplacing his frustrations with the DSS process onto his own Spotsy DSS employees, citizens, and possibly some of his own constituents that are forced to operate in an imperfect system. Mr. Ross may claim that he has numerous families that have contacted him or that his inquiries are to ensure there are not widespread issues. If that is Mr. Ross’ intent, there are likely better ways to pursue those ends.
There is little in life more tragic than having your child removed from your care. Naturally a parent is going to hold deep distain for DSS. This is unlikely to change due to the sensitive nature of its work. DSS has a difficult job that requires flexibility among DSS workers to make judgments whether a child is in immediate danger. To have a stricter process could tie the hands of DSS workers and lead to even more removals. Too lenient a process and children could be left in harms way. When we don’t approach these difficult issues with knowledge, care, and caution we undermine the process and make it more difficult to strike that appropriate balance that child welfare cases require.