When the idea of changing the management of county government to an “executive” structure was first floated, it was sold as a way to attract more candidates for Marin County’s top job.

It was pitched as one that would create little change over the way the county was being managed by a county administrator.

It certainly wasn’t sold as a model that was going to cost a lot.

Now the county’s top administrator, Derek Johnson, has created two deputy county executive jobs and plans to add two more assistant county executives to help him run the day-to-day operations of county government.

Over the past few decades, the office of the county’s top manager has grown exponentially. It once consisted of four administrators and two secretaries.

But that was long before the county government grew to 2,700 employees, making it the county’s largest Marin-based employer.

That was also before county supervisors began to eliminate elected management posts such as county treasurer and auditor, a move that created a finance department that works under the county executive.

Today, the office has 37 full-time positions.

Certainly, Johnson is perfectly within his management “lane” in deciding how he wants to see the business structure that he’s been hired to manage.

He has 18 department managers reporting to him.

That’s a heavy managerial load, especially when it comes to diligent fiscal oversight over staffing and spending.

But he says the county board’s ambitious goals are driving the change and it is Johnson’s job to provide the leadership needed to advance those initiatives.

Still, taxpayers deserve to know the short- and long-term costs of significant personnel moves before changes take place.

Public involvement may make those moves more challenging and time-consuming, but we’re not so sure that any capitulation of taxpayers’ right to be informed and involved was part of the board’s approval of the move to an “executive” form of management.

For instance, the county has been diligent in paying down its long-term pension obligation and supervisors need to be just as diligent in recognizing that expanding top-paid management has a long-term fiscal impact.

It now seems the management-structure change was a lot more than changing a title to reflect the current system. It came with other ramifications — and costs.

It also comes while the county has just started an estimated $500,000 review of its governance structure, a plan launched at Johnson’s request.

Johnson told the IJ that the structural change and the larger reorganization review “are different initiatives” with “different stakeholders.”

While supportive of Johnson’s reorganization review, we remain concerned about transparency and public involvement in the process.

So far, the county change to “executive” appears to be turning out to be a much greater change than what the public and supervisors were sold when it was approved.

County government, after all, is the public’s business.

How well the public is served and fiscal efficiency and effectiveness in spending taxpayer dollars should be important factors in any reorganization, whether it is the county executive’s domain or the running and performance of various departments. The public’s experiences and opinions should be part of any decision.

The supervisors can and need to make sure that is a top priority.