SLVWD Board Meeting Summary
October 19, 2023
Mark Dolson
Highlights:
Quail Hollow Road Failed Mainline Trench – Final Billing
Change Title of District Manager to General Manager
Response to Damaging Impact Director Fultz is Having on the District
Next Board meeting is at 6:30 PM on November 2nd
Preliminaries
There were no actions to report from the Closed Session prior to the meeting.
All five Directors were present.
There were no additions or deletions to the agenda.
There were multiple public comments on items not on this evening’s meeting agenda.
Bruce Holloway of Boulder Creek took issue took issue with the Board position that members of the public cannot raise a point of order in a meeting.
An unidentified speaker said that, in reviewing recent CTV meeting recordings, she had found numerous failures to accurately follow the meeting agenda. She also voiced concern about failures to accurately capture discussions in the published meeting minutes. She urged the Board to investigate this issue, and noted that this was particularly a problem for people who aren’t able to attend meetings.
Cynthia Dzendzel said she wanted to express her appreciation of Rick Rogers and all his years of service. She regretted not having been more vocal in her support for Rick and other staff who have gone above and beyond in their service to the District, and she said she also appreciated the contributions of the Board members.
Nicole Launder Berridge of Bracken Brae expressed concern about the District Manager leaving in the middle of negotiating a consolidation agreement. She said she appreciated all the help that Rick had provided to Bracken Brae over the past three years, and she hoped that there might still be a way for Rick to continue assisting with special projects post-retirement.
Unfinished Business
Quail Hollow Road Failed Mainline Trench – Final Billing
District Engineer Garrett Roffe introduced this agenda item. He said a final billing had been received from Anderson Pacific Engineering for their work on emergency repairs to the storm-damaged pipeline trench along Quail Hollow Road. Staff was recommending that the Board authorize an amendment to the already-approved $600,000 for an additional $367,646.99, bringing the total to $967,646.99.
Rick Rogers provided some further background. He said the Quail Hollow trench failed around a new pipeline following a storm in early 2023. This created hazardous travel conditions and necessitated a partial road closure. Further exploration revealed substantial undermining and erosion, with more and more voids being subsequently discovered. Consultants reviewed the findings and identified multiple possible explanations, but most pointed to the unusually large amount of groundwater generated by the winter storms eroding away the weak, sandy rock formation around the repair. The $967,646.99 is for repairs and repaving. A claim has been submitted to FEMA for this storm damage.
Director Ackemann and President Smolley expressed concern that the District had initially conformed to County specifications that were now known to be inappropriate for this environment (because a slurry backfill is not suitable in the rocks that make up the sandhills). How could the District ensure that this wouldn’t happen again? Is the County updating its standard? Is the District preserving a clear record of its experience? Garrett said the County has not updated its standard.
President Smolley moved to approve the Staff payment recommendation, and this motion was seconded. President Smolley also directed the Engineering and Environmental Committee to follow up by discussing how to document what happened and make sure that the District has a record of the proper type of repair.
There was no public comment. The motion passed 5-0.
New Business
Change Title of District Manager to General Manager
Director Hill introduced this agenda item. He said this change was motivated by the Board’s recent experience in recruiting a replacement for Rick Rogers. The term “General Manager” is more descriptive, is more standard, and makes it clear that the person is managing the entire district. Director Ackemann elaborated, saying that googling “General Manager” gets more appropriate hits than “District Manager.” She moved that the Board adopt the attached resolution, and this motion was seconded.
Board discussion was very brief, as all Directors agreed. There was no public comment, and the motion passed 5-0.
Response to Damaging Impact Director Fultz is Having on the District
This agenda item was introduced by Director Mahood and District Manager Rick Rogers. Director Mahood began by referencing a detailed memorandum from the two of them included in the Board meeting packet. She said she made a request at the October 5th meeting for the Board to discuss Director Fultz’s treatment of Staff in light of Kendra Reed’s resignation announcement and public remarks at that meeting identifying repeated negative interactions with Director Fultz as the motivation for her departure. It was also revealed to the public at that meeting that Rick moved up his retirement date because he could no longer tolerate the impact of Director Fultz on his health. Director Mahood’s reaction to this was that enough is enough. She said Staff are being impacted, and institutional memory is being lost.
Director Mahood described the current crisis as the result of a long-standing issue with Director Fultz’s behavior with respect to staff. She said the memo lays out what Rick and she see as the problem: (1) Director Fultz is frequently perceived by staff as belittling and dismissive in his questions and comments at Board meetings, behavior that is not allowed per the District’s Responsible Workplace Policy, (2) Director Fultz frequently attempts to insert himself into Staff operations behind the scenes, contravening the Board Policy Manual directive that Board members are not to involve themselves in day-to-day operations, and (3) Director Fultz also engages excessively with customer complaints, yet another action that is inconsistent with the established rules. Director Mahood said there were both operational and financial costs to these actions. She added that Director Fultz’s behavior at meetings has ripple effects on Staff that may not be readily apparent, and she cited his frequent complaints about there being no identifiable benefits to increases in headcount. She said other Board members let these statements go unchallenged because they don’t want to encourage further comment from Director Fultz. One of the things she hoped to accomplish with this agenda item was to send a message to all Staff that the Board does not see them negatively.
Director Mahood closed by noting that previous efforts to limit Director Fultz’s negative impact behind the scenes resulted in little success. This is why she was asking the Board to accept the challenge of dealing with this publicly. The long-term goal is to increase the positive impact of the entire Board.
Rick Rogers shared his perspective as well. He said he participated in the development of the memo and stood behind it. For years, he has been complaining about Director Fultz’s behavior to Board Presidents and District Counsel behind the scenes. Now, though, he believes that keeping this private has been a mistake. He believes the public should know that this working relationship has been adversarial and has caused many problems. Director Fultz frequently requests additional data that Staff sees no benefit to providing. Director Fultz was also critical of Staff outreach during the CZU Fire. In addition, Director Fultz’s repeated suggestions in favor of laying off Staff have been very damaging to morale. In general, Staff feels that there is no support for them from Director Fultz. Other Staff members have privately voiced their concerns and are currently taking a wait-and-see approach with the new General Manager, as there is a feeling that Rick shielded Staff from much unwelcome interference. Lastly, Rick emphasized that this issue is independent of Director Fultz’s off-stated concerns about fiscal responsibility.
President Smolley attempted to set the stage for further discussion by saying he did not want this to be a discussion aimed at bashing Director Fultz. His hope was that the Board could seek ways to better support Staff. He did not want Staff to feel that the Board doesn’t care about them or to think that maybe they should also leave. President Smolley therefore presented the Board with two simple questions: (1) do you see a problem? and (2) do you have useful suggestions? He began with the first question.
Director Ackemann said she thought the memo laid out an appropriate recognition of a real problem. She said any agency as small as SLVWD lacks a lot of Staff redundancy, so a certain amount of collaboration and compromise are needed. Everyone is working under difficult conditions and has been for years now. She didn’t think Director Fultz has offered Staff enough grace, and said she had made her view on this clear on multiple occasions. She felt the Board had a responsibility to ensure the healthy day-to-day function of the District, and she asked what kind of job the Board was doing when the District loses multiple senior Staff.
Director Hill agreed that there was a problem here. He described himself as the new guy on the Board, but he said he had clearly seen times with Director Fultz’s questioning of Staff had been, he thought, unwarranted in its pointedness and abruptness. The issue, for him, was how to resolve this in a way that gets Staff and Board back in harmony. He said he personally took a coaching (as opposed to criticism) approach to Staff, and he suggested that this was something everyone could work on.
President Smolley confirmed that he, too, saw a problem. He said a Staff member contacted him after a Board meeting earlier this year to say that comments made by Director Fultz about how they were doing their work were offensive and demeaning.
Director Fultz declined to comment at this time. He said he would read a prepared statement later.
President Smolley moved on to his second question (about what effective response the Board could pursue). He first requested comments on the possibility that the District Manager could excuse Staff (other than Secretary) from attending meetings to avoid negative interactions with Director Fultz.
Rick said he would hope this wouldn’t be necessary, but it could be a last resort. He said it would place a great burden on the General Manager, as it would be difficult for him to directly provide the required level of detail in response to Board questions. Many years ago, only the General Manager showed up at Board meetings, but the Board frequently sought more information.
Director Ackemann suggested that the future General Manager might want to weigh in on this. Also, if the General Manager was unable to attend a certain Board meeting, it would be challenging for someone else to step in.
Director Hill said he personally appreciated having Staff members come and present their own projects. It helps the Board to understand their performance and it helps them to understand the Board's concerns.
President Smolley said he would find the absence of Staff members to be burdensome because submitting all questions in writing in advance would require the General Manager to essentially transcribe Staff responses and wouldn't allow for real-time interactive exploration.
President Smolley next requested comment on the idea that all questions from Director Fultz could be exclusively directed toward the General Manager. This led to a more wide-ranging discussion.
Rick said the Board could do this, but he didn’t know if would solve the problem.
Director Ackemann said it would be hard for Staff to stay quiet if they were present. She didn’t know that just redirecting questions solves the problem. Instead, she suggested maybe empowering the General Manager to make decisions about Board interactions, particularly as these affect Staff (e.g., so that the General Manager could selectively tell Staff what questions they could ignore). Director Ackemann asked instead if there was a reason the Board was not considering censure, as this is typically considered in situations such as this.
Director Mahood said the Board could consider it, as well as a lesser action, a reprimand, but these responses seemed unduly contentious and not productive. She said the fundamental issue was that the Board would like Director Fultz to interact with Staff in a different manner.
President Smolley said that when censure comes up with other agencies, it is primarily a slap on the wrist that informs the public but doesn’t change anything. He said either Director Fultz could agree to change or the Board could devise a protective measure.
Director Mahood said it was common courtesy to alert recipients beforehand to any complex or contentious questions so as not to blindside them and to allow an informed response to be developed. She described experience with this in the Academic Senate at Stanford, and suggested the SLVWD Board could move toward this practice as well. Also, the General Manager could use discretion to block a question at a meeting. President Smolley asked if she was suggesting that all questions should be submitted in advance. Director Mahood said there were norms of behavior that don't need to be explicitly encoded in rules (e.g., treating people respectfully). Sending in questions is considered good behavior. She said four Board members were operating on one shared norm, and Director Fultz was not. If he were, this issue would largely disappear.
Director Hill said the organization didn’t seem to have a process for resolving issues that involve conflicts. He said his experience has been that this sort of issue is best dealt with promptly and mutually. He said he thought there was a need for sensitive conflict detectors and a process for early reconciliation. These are currently lacking. He suggested that some thought should be directed toward how to handle Board vs. Staff issues. Usually, he suggested, a neutral facilitator would be involved.
Director Ackemann said she appreciated this, but there was a power dynamic that can’t be ignored. Putting a Board member who can't be fired into mediation is problematic. Director Hill responded that it wasn’t clear that both parties were aware of how the other feels. Director Mahood disputed this. During her time as Board President, she saw more behind the scenes, and it was pretty clear that this has been a persistent problem. In a corporation, this would have been handled differently. In contrast, there is no way to force elected officials to change, and this makes it hard, because it’s not obvious what levers the Board has.
Director Ackemann said some kind of strategy was needed because Staff has brought this issue to the Board. Lack of action by the Board would send a message that the Board doesn’t care and is reinforcing the problem.
President Smolley suggested that the Board move on to discussing the option of removing Director Fultz from the Engineering and Environmental Committee. As Chair of that committee, he opposed this measure because he found Director Fultz’s participation useful. He said that Director Fultz and he sometimes had usefully different but aligned ideas.
Director Mahood said this failed to address the feelings of Staff. She said she similarly valued Director Fultz’s expertise in finance, communications, and IT, and she wanted to retain this benefit. She described Director Fultz as a very articulate and smart guy, but she said this was separate from her concern about Staff. President Smolley said he had not personally queried Staff on the committee, but he could do so.
President Smolley expressed some uncertainty about how to proceed. He said the Board didn’t yet seem ready to make any motions, and he wondered if the Board might try delegating this to a committee. He offered Director Fultz another opportunity to speak, but Director Fultz again declined.
Director Mahood observed that President Smolley had overlooked the option of simply conforming to the District’s respectful workplace policy which provides a procedure that she recommended following. The policy specifies that a staff complaint will be made to the General Manager, who may refer it to District Counsel to undertake an investigation and report back. It also says that the General Manager may take interim action to protect the Staff member.
Director Ackemann supported this as a first step. She appreciated the thought the Board was putting into this and said these were great ideas so long as Director Fultz agreed and wanted to cooperate. She viewed an investigation as a reasonable step that holds everyone to the same standard.
President Smolley said he hoped that having this discussion in a public forum encouraged Staff to alert the General Manager or HR, and if necessary, to bring issues like this to the attention of the Board President. He thought Staff had probably been hesitant so as to avoid repercussions, but the Board was now urging Staff to let it know of problems.
President Smolley opened the floor for public comment, but he cautioned speakers that he didn’t want them to bash Director Fultz or to be adversarial to the Board. A number of people proceeded to speak.
Former Director Rick Moran said a proper remedy would be a training on effective communication. He noted that a 2018 Grand Jury made a similar recommendation. He personally participated in a subsequent training and believed that it resulted in a much more civil atmosphere. He said everyone should be assured of being treated fairly, and he recommended a training for Board members and Senior Staff.
An unidentified woman said the situation at the District was very bad prior to 2018 and that one Staff member had told her they thought everyone had PTSD in that era. She said there had been instances of Staff being noncollaborative as well, and she attributed the current concern to special interest groups trying to regain control of the Board. She advised that the best option was to abandon the discussion and refer the issue to the new General Manager. She said personnel issues were the General Manager’s responsibility, and the District might otherwise be exposed to liability.
Eric Martin of Boulder Creek said he agreed with the employees and believed the Board had failed them by not insulating them. He identified the General Manager as the responsible point of contact for the Board for policy stuff, and he advised submitting questions to the General Manger in writing. He said having Board members messing around in day-to-day operations was unheard of, and Board politics should not bleed over into District operation. He said having someone quit due to bad feelings was an indication of a hostile workplace, and the Board was complicit in allowing this to happen.
Jim Mosher of Felton thanked all five Board members for their dedication. He said he was very dismayed to learn of Kendra’s and Rick’s decisions, and that the District was now in a lot of difficulty. At the same time, he wasn’t surprised because he had witnessed Director Fultz's behavior at Board meetings. He expressed concern especially about the long-term impact on recruiting. In closing, he said he definitely saw this as a problem that needs to be addressed. He said Director Fultz had made important contributions, but everyone needed to be able to work with him, and the challenge was to work together as a team with respect and to be collaborative. Most importantly, he wanted Staff to feel supported. Lastly, he thanked Rick for his long service and wanted Staff to know that they worked in a community with ratepayers that respect them and really care about them.
April Zilber of Felton said she appreciated each Board member for their unique skills and contributions. She shared her personal experience on a non-profit Board where she felt that other Board members were being very demanding of her. She said just figuring out ways of framing questions so that Staff don't feel their competence is being questioned could be helpful. Enforcing Roberts Rules could also be helpful. She thought the Board could pose meaningful questions without having it feel punishing to Staff.
Alina Layng of Boulder Creek said she had served for the past three years on the Engineering and Environmental Committee with Director Fultz. This most recent year has been her best experience as Director Fultz has had some wonderful insights, and the group has worked as a team. In contrast, the first two years of working with Director Fultz were extremely challenging. She said he had raised his voice both to Staff and to her, and she described the experience as horrible. Her goal at this meeting was just to add her perspective. She thought Director Fultz had some great knowledge, and if he could make appropriate changes, everyone would benefit. She said she ran in the last election specifically to unseat Director Fultz because of the way he was treating people.
Elaine Fresco of Felton thanked Director Mahood for writing this up and brining it to the Board, and she thanked the other Directors for taking it seriously. She agreed that Director Fultz has added many positive things to the District, but said this doesn't take away from the negative impacts. She was hoping to hear Director Fultz acknowledge some of these issues and resolve to change his behavior for the benefit of the District.
Barbara Sprenger of Felton said this wasn’t a new issue. The same pattern was present when she served with Director Fultz on the School Board. The only power a Board member has is to get other members to agree with them. She recommended two actions. First, give the Board President and the General Manager appropriate tools (e.g., establishing norms such as sending questions ahead of time and pursuing answers only when there is a Board consensus to do so). Second, she suggested that censure would send a positive message to the Staff.
Director Fultz read a lengthy prepared statement. He said there were two sides to every story, and that this would become clear over time. He described the past five years as stressful for both the community and the District, and he added that public service and conducting business in public were stressful as well. He said the community should be proud that water continued to flow. Director Fultz said there was more agreement than disagreement, and a truly transparent democratic process can appear chaotic at times. He said he did his very best to keep the focus on policy, not personality, and on his fiduciary responsibilities. He said the District’s respectful workplace policy makes room for legitimate differences of opinions, and a former Board member told him early on that Board members can ask anything within the limits of the law. The Board’s primary role is oversight, particularly with how money is being spent. The California Special Districts Association (CSDA) states, with regard to overseeing finances, that “Boards ensure sound policy exists and practices are in place." Director Fultz argued that it is impossible to fulfill this responsibility without asking questions. He said some of his questions had resulted in improvements to financial reports, and he thanked Stephanie Hill and Kendra Reed for this. He added that the inherent right of citizens to bring grievances to the Board was being infringed prior to 2018, and he suggested that the need for this kind of inappropriate control has now shifted to within the Board. In his opinion, the best approach is to let people have their say, and he suggested that any Board action would have a chilling effect on free speech. He said he would continue to behave as he always has. Otherwise, the District would be no different than a private agency where community concerns are ignored. In the past, there were undesirable outcomes due to a lack of Director questions. He was concerned that policy was now being weaponized against free speech. He wished Rick and Kendra success and happiness. He said there was room for continuous improvement in everything because we are all human, and he agreed with Rick Moran’s training suggestion. Lastly, he advised that, with a new General Manager pending, it was important to pause. He said he looked forward to establishing a good relationship with the new General Manager, and he would continue to do his best to focus on policy, but he would vigorously oppose any attempts to suppress his ability to question and communicate. He said everyone has direct accountability to those that they serve, the voters.
President Smolley said he saw no recognition in this response of the primary issue that is being brought up here, and he asked to hear from the rest of the Board.
Director Ackemann said she thought the conflict resolution training was a good suggestion, and she recommended that the Administration Committee (which she chairs) take this up. She also liked the idea of directing Staff to bring concerns about behavior through a process that holds everyone to the same accountable standard. Beyond this, she said this was a difficult issue, and the current Board wasn’t the first elected body to have an oppositional member. She urged that any steps be considered in the context of setting a precedent for future Board members. She added that the proper method for hearing from the public was to bring public input to Staff for them to engage with. When a Board member engages directly with the public, they cross a line from policy to day-to-day activity.
Director Mahood said she saw no acknowledgment from Director Fultz about his effect on Staff. Instead, he turned his speech into a polemic about his right to speak his mind. However, nobody is disputing this right. She described herself as really disappointed, and she said some acknowledgement would have been a start. This led her to think that maybe the Board did need to look at the idea of reprimand or censure. She added that conflict resolution training is helpful in theory, but that isn't what this is about. This is about behavior directed at Staff. She moved to direct District Counsel to undertake an investigation under the Respectful Workplace Policy regarding Director Fultz's behavior to Staff. Director Ackemann seconded.
Director Hill said he didn’t disagree with much of what Director Fultz said. The problem isn't that Director Fultz doesn’t have useful knowledge, but that Director Fultz had entirely missed the point that the Board’s concern is for Staff.
Director Fultz replied that there was more to be revealed here. If the Board’s intent was to have a one-sided investigation, it could do that, but he didn’t think it would be particularly productive.
President Smolley requested that Legal Counsel Barbara Brenner explain how she might go about conducting an investigation. Barbara said the policy was similar to what would generally be done to address a personnel issue, but the situation was different because Directors are not employees. She said the investigation would generally be conducted by an independent attorney hired for their expertise in labor matters. She recommended that the Board do this. She said she would take the first draft of a confidential investigation and test it for accuracy. The Board could then determine whether it wanted it to remain confidential.
Director Hill suggested that the Board had gone as far as it could this evening. However, since there was a motion on the table, further public input was permitted.
Rick Moran disagreed with the Board members, saying that he found Director Fultz’s statement to be “contritious.” He cited the endorsement of training and the “nobody’s perfect” statement as persuasive evidence.
Mark Lee agreed. He called Director Fultz’s statement “perfectly contritious.” He said Director Fultz was representing the people who voted him into office, and trying to punish him was ridiculous. He criticized the Board for weaponizing policy based on background conflict, and he urged Board members to stop wasting money, to drop this, and to get back to work representing the community’s interest.
Alina Layng supported the Board motion. She was a little disappointed that Director Fultz couldn’t take a little more responsibility for his actions. She said the “body count” was more likely five than two, and she speculated that the general knowledge of Director Fultz’s behavior contributed to the difficulty in attracting applicants to advertised positions. She said she valued Director Fultz’s expertise, but she hoped he would take more of an internal look at how he speaks to people, especially women.
Elaine Fresco said Director Fultz didn’t hear anything that anyone said about the way he has hurt the District. This is separate from how he has helped the District, and it is not about his policies. This needs to be acknowledged.
The unidentified woman said the toxic culture at the District predated Director Fultz. She said Kendra left simply because she didn’t want a public-facing job, and Rick was considering leaving even earlier so it was a stretch to call his departure “sudden.” She suggested that Staff needed to be taught how to act professionally, and that demonizing one person for problems that she had observed since 2014 was wrong. She closed by saying that hiring an attorney to investigate was way over the top. She said the Board should just follow its own policies.
Bruce Holloway complained that the original announcement (in September) of the District Manager’s accelerated retirement said nothing about his health or Director Fultz. The memo presented at this evening’s Board meeting led him to feel that the Board wasn’t really honest and had let the community down.
Jim Mosher said the public hadn’t realized how damaging Director Fultz’s behavior had been. He said the Board needed to take action.
Eric Martin vigorously disagreed with spending money on this issue. He suggested that insulating Staff from Board members would eliminate 90% of the problem. He characterized hiring an attorney to confirm that Director Fultz violated rules as closing the gate after the horse is out and not putting a lock on the gate. He urged the Board to simply fix things so that this doesn’t happen again.
Director Ackemann said she thought it was important to say, for the record, that the Board cannot reveal personal information brought to the Board in private. The Board was not authorized to say anything further about Rick’s resignation in September. She added that some of this information only came out later, and it was unreasonable to think otherwise.
Director Mahood agreed with Eric Martin and said she was a little surprised by District Counsel’s response. The policy does not mention an outside investigator, and she did not want to turn this into something new and expensive. President Smolley asked what an investigation would cost, how long it would take, and what it would accomplish. Barbara said she had never seen a policy like this and lacked any context for it so she would have to engage in further dialogue and explore further. In the end, though, she said the Board would be right back where it is today. Director Hill said he didn’t think this would solve the Board’s problem.
Director Mahood withdrew her motion. She said some of what the Board has now is just hearsay, so having someone talk directly with individual Staff would provide more solid data.
President Smolley suggested that, as an uninvolved party, Barbara could simply interview Staff and Board members. Director Fultz objected that this would not constitute an independent investigation.
Director Ackemann said the primary tool available to the Board is censure, and the Board is trying to devise a response outside this default. She said the Board already had testimony from Kendra and Rick, and now from Alina as well. She felt that an interview would not unearth significant new information. What would the Board do with this? She suggested that the Board could put together a new policy with the new General Manager. Also, once the Finance and General Manager positions are filled, there will be an almost entirely new Senior Staff, so some kind of session with them might be helpful. Lastly, she said the Board could consider tracking the additional costs Director Fultz’s behavior is imposing on the District, and the Board should decide whether to censure Director Fultz.
President Smolley said he didn’t know that further interviewing of Staff would accomplish anything. He asked if the Board was considering censure.
Director Mahood suggested that the Board might be reaching its limit for trying to resolve this matter at the current meeting. She said she had been hoping for some acknowledgment from Director Fultz, and she now needed to think about this some more. She wasn’t optimistic about the effect of training, though, as she had observed absolutely no change in the Board members from the last training, and some people thought this was a waste of time because Director Fultz didn’t engage. She closed by saying that, if someone doesn’t really want to change, a training would only succeed in punishing the victims by dragging them into it, and she wasn’t willing to do this to Staff. She said she could not make a motion this evening.
President Smolley said he didn’t want to leave the discussion unfinished. He asked if Director Mahood would be willing to come back with a follow-up agenda item.
Director Mahood said hearing people's response to the current memo had provided her with new information, and she wasn’t prepared to make a snap decision. She hoped that Staff had experienced the Board as supportive of them and of a healthy work environment, and she hoped that everyone would work toward this.
Director Ackemann asked if it would be appropriate to task the Administration Committee with coming up with new guidelines. Director Mahood observed that the Board Policy Manual is revised annually in January, so this would be appropriate at that time.
President Smolley said the Board was considering ways to possibly further empower the General Manager and/or the Board President. He thought this could be appropriate for the Administration Committee.
President Smolley concluded the discussion by saying that it would be continued.
Consent Agenda
These items are deemed adopted if nobody pulls any of them for further discussion. Community member Bruce Holloway requested that the minutes for the September 14th Board meeting be pulled. He felt there was insufficient detail and context in the reference to an interaction that he was involved in concerning a public comment by another individual. He also objected to a summary of a subsequent public comment that he made. The summary described him as “disturbed,” and he found this demeaning; he said his actual statement was that “he was disturbed by the process.” He had a third objection to a separate summary of a public comment by Alina Layng; he said her statement “that she was confused did not mean that she was confused.”
This, in turn, generated a somewhat convoluted Board discussion. Director Hill initially offered a motion that the Secretary merely accurately record Mr. Holloway’s comments (verbatim) at this evening’s meeting. Director Mahood objected, saying that minutes should only be detailed for action items, and this interaction was far from an action item. She said she didn’t want the Board to start micromanaging minutes, as this is not how the process is supposed to work. Director Hill then withdrew his motion.
Director Ackemann brought up two separate issues. First, she referenced a memo from the District’s Legal Counsel saying that the Board can request that public commenters identify themselves, but cannot compel them to do so. Director Fultz was puzzled by this reference, and Legal Counsel Barabara Brenner explained that the memo was sent to Staff, not to the Board. Director Ackemann recommended taking this memo to the Administration Committee so that the committee could consider a policy on how to encourage public comment.
Second, Director Ackemann requested that future minutes spell her first name correctly (“Jayme”).
A motion was made and seconded to approve the September 14th minutes as written. There was no public comment. The motion passed 4-1 with Director Fultz voting against it.
District Reports
There were no Board questions.
The meeting adjourned at 9:05 PM.