SLVWD Board Meeting Summary
December 7, 2020
Mark Dolson
Highlights:
Two new Board members sworn in.
Gail Mahood elected Board President.
All five current committees retained.
Board committee appointments deferred.
Public committee appointments deferred.
Workplace policies to get minor updates for legal compliance.
Next Board meeting is at 6:30 PM on December 16.
Special Order of the Day
Oath of Office
Newly-elected Directors Gail Mahood and Tina To were sworn in as Directors.
Election of Officers
President Henry called for nominations for Board President for December 2020 through December 2021. Director To nominated Gail Mahood. President Henry seconded this.
President Henry invited public comment. Larry Ford congratulated Gail and Tina on their election. Elaine Fresco said Gail would make a great president as she had lots of relevant experience.
There were no Board comments. The motion passed 4-0.
President Mahood requested nominations for Vice President. Director Mahood nominated Director Henry. Director To seconded this.
There were no public comments. There were no Board comments. The motion passed 3-0 with Director Fultz abstaining.
New Business
Director To proposed that the Board defer most of the first three agenda items until the vacant Board seat is filled at the upcoming 12/16 meeting. President Mahood suggested that these changes be discussed separately for each item, and Director To agreed.
There were no general oral communications from the public.
Board of Directors Meeting Times
District Manager Rick Rogers read the staff proposal to hold the regularly scheduled meetings online until pandemic restrictions are lifted. An attached resolution specified that regular meeting dates are the first and third Thursday of each month with open session convening at 6:30 PM.
There were no public comments. Director Fultz proposed a modification that eliminated three meetings (one each in July, November, and December) due to holiday conflicts. Director To voiced a preference for retaining the first July meeting. President Mahood expressed concern about needing to make up for the cancelled regular meetings with too many special meetings, which would potentially compromise transparency. She felt that there was likely to be sufficient business that she preferred to follow the staff recommendation. Director To moved to approve the Staff resolution, and Director Henry seconded.
District Counsel Gina Nicholls noted that the resolution in the Board packet had some problematic language, and she recommended striking the specific phrases in question. Tina amended her motion accordingly. The motion passed 4-0.
Standing Committees Composition
District Manager Rick Rogers read a memo recommending that the five standing committees be reduced to three by combining Engineering with Environment and Budget/Finance with Administration. His goal was to reduce the burden on staff; committees meet at least monthly, and he felt that the proposed change would reduce the required staff preparation time.
President Mahood invited public comment, but Director Fultz intervened asking for clarification. The 2020 Board practice was to call first for Director comment, followed by public comment, and then followed by further Director discussion. President Mahood said that she was following the agenda that had been prepared for this specific meeting but that her preference for future meetings will be to have one round of staff comments prior to public comment.
Beth Thomas expressed concern about the Staff proposal. She suggested that there is quite a bit of public participation in committees, and she asked whether the effect of this proposal on public participation had been assessed. Rick Rogers didn’t think there would be an effect on public participation, but he suggested that an alternative might be to limit the number of items on the committee agendas. He felt that the quality of Staff’s meeting preparations was being adversely impacted by the meeting workload.
Jim Mosher agreed with Beth. He said public members participate as decision makers on committees, and this proposal would reduce their ability to do so. He recommended seeking other remedies for Staff's concerns.
An unidentified member of the public expressed agreement with Rick Rogers and anticipated increased synergy in the combined committee meetings.
Another member of the public asked how the Staff proposal would affect the size of the committees. His concern was that larger committees could be less effective.
Director Henry said she shared Rick Rogers’ concern for Staff. She asked about possibly holding two separate one-hour committee meetings back-to-back (with an intervening break), each with limited agendas. She said the combined committees would have the effect of limiting the number of public members, but she also felt that fewer items should go to committees in the first place.
Secretary Holly Hossack suggested limiting committee meetings to two per month, alternating between committees. Her primary concern was that having three committee meetings in a row in the first three days of the month is difficult for Staff.
Director Fultz said he always likes to look at the potential impact on public participation. He foresaw the District going through a pretty large demographic shift over the next few years and said it will be important for people to participate on committees as a step toward serving on the Board. Independent of this, he didn’t see how the Staff proposal would reduce the amount of required Staff preparation except for preparing the agendas. He suggested that it would make more sense to shift the meetings to eliminate the dense packing at the start of each month. In addition, he observed that longer meetings, especially during the work day, would not be welcome. He suggested that the committees not be changed unless the change is dictated by some change in their respective responsibilities. Otherwise, it would be better to simply space out the meetings.
Director To agreed. She saw the undesirability of stacking committee meetings at the start of each month, but she also felt that having more people on more committees increases community involvement. She recommended that the committees be kept as they are but that each committee should determine its own meeting schedule. She also suggested that this discussion could be deferred until the new Board member is appointed.
President Mahood agreed with not decreasing the number of committees. She was open to Director Henry’s suggestion of shorter committee meetings but did not want the Board to specify the meeting times. Director Henry reiterated her belief that her proposal was workable and argued that meetings should be held during the day (rather than in the evening).
This led Director Fultz to offer some further background. He noted that the Engineering and Environmental Committees were split in 2015 or 2016 because the expertise and knowledge of the appointees were too disparate. Starting in late 2018 and early 2019, the committees were changed to increase the number of public participants from 1 to N (where N was up to the Board). In his view, combining committees would be a step backwards. He also cited the most recent Grand Jury report which criticized the District’s lack of public participation and transparency.
President Mahood asked if anyone wanted to make a motion to change the policy. Nobody replied, so the committees remained unchanged. President Mahood said that Rick Rogers’ goal was to start a conversation and that this conversation can continue. Rick Rogers agreed.
Committee Appointments for Board Members
Rick Rogers introduced this item by reading the Staff memo. Director Mahood recommended that appointment of Board members to the various committees be deferred until the upcoming 12/16 Board meeting at which time the Board will once again have five members. She recommended that an exception be made for appointing two Board members to represent the District on the Santa Margarita Groundwater Agency (SMGWA) because the next meeting of this body is 12/9, and two of the three representatives are no longer on the Board. For SMGWA, President Mahood moved that Director To and herself be the two regular members with Director Henry as the alternate. Director Henry seconded. The motion passed 4-0. This item will be brought back to the agenda 12/16 (when it is expected that a new Board will be appointed) to complete the remaining committee assignments.
Director Fultz asked whether the Board member appointed on 12/16 would be considered for SMGWA. President Mahood said today’s appointments could be reconsidered at that time. District Counsel Gina Nicholls said this reconsideration would most likely be okay with SMGWA.
Appointment of Public Committee Members
District Manager Rick Rogers introduced this item by reading the Staff memo. It was noted that the District had received a considerable number of applicants. These applicants were advised in advance that their attendance at today’s meeting was optional, but it seemed likely that many were in attendance.
There were no public comments.
Director To recommended that this item be deferred to the first week of January so that the newly appointed Director could be included in the decision process.
Director Fultz argued for appointing committee members at today’s meeting. He felt it would be a huge disservice to the applicants in attendance to postpone the appointments.
Director Henry recommended that the Board members who are on the various committees should have an opportunity to review the applicants for those specific committees in advance. This would require waiting at least until the Board committee appointments have been finalized, presumably on 12/16. Director Henry did not feel that joining a virtual meeting constituted a major imposition for applicants. She said it should be possible to make public appointments on 12/16.
Director Mahood also preferred to defer the appointments. She noted that two people have applied both for committees and for the vacant Director position. She further observed that attendance at today’s meeting was not required and that many applicants were not present.
Director Fultz argued that it was a matter of respect to handle the business at hand when the Board invites people to a meeting. He also asked whether the status of applications for the vacant Director position was common knowledge. President Mahood responded that two people had personally told her about their applications. If these same people had spoken to Director Fultz, he would have the same information. Director Fultz expressed a general concern about making a decision in the presence of uneven distribution of information, and he asked whether President Mahood would share the names of the two applicants who had spoken to her. President Mahood declined.
Director To said that it took her an hour to review the applicants; consequently, she did not think a newly appointed Board member could participate meaningfully in a 12/16 decision.
Director Henry countered that the committee applications are currently a matter of public record and could be reviewed in advance of the 12/16 meeting. Hence, she saw no reason to delay.
Director Fultz asked whether the Director applications were a matter of public record at this point, and Counsel Nicholls said they were.
President Mahood requested a motion. Director To moved to defer appointment of public committee members until the new Director is appointed. Director Henry seconded. Director Fultz commented that no motion was required.
Director Fultz sought clarification as to when the public committee appointments would take place. Director To said she no longer had an objection to appointing on 12/16. Director Fultz said that some certainty was needed, and he proposed the next meeting following the Director appointment. Director To accepted this as an amendment to her motion.
Director Henry noted that a Board member must be appointed before 1/2/21 and said she couldn’t imagine why it wouldn’t happen at the 12/16 meeting.
Rick Rogers promised that the agenda would be prepared appropriately.
President Mahood asked the Board to clarify its expectations for public applicants. Would they be offered the chance to make a three-minute statement? Director To noted that with 20 applicants, this could consume an entire hour. The three other Directors expressed a preference for allowing public presentations.
Director To’s amended motion passed 4-0.
Personnel System Rules and Regulations
District Counsel Gina Nicholls presented the first of two housekeeping matters on this agenda. Each December, the District’s Personnel System Rules and Regulations are reviewed by the Board. No changes have been made to this document in the past year, but some changes are needed to maintain legal compliance. Counsel Nicholls explained that she would bring the revised document to the Board for its approval, but she first wanted to see whether the Board wanted to provide any additional input in advance.
There were no public comments.
Director Henry supported Counsel Nicholls’ plan. Director To noted that there should be some updates for gender equity.
Director Henry moved that the attorney meet with Staff and make necessary changes to the Personnel System Rules and Regulations to conform to current law. Director To seconded. The motion passed 4-0.
Respectful Workplace Policy
District Counsel Gina Nicholls presented the second of two housekeeping matters on this agenda. The District’s several-year-old Respectful Workplace policy requires reworking as it now contains elements that overlap with and potentially conflict with the Discrimination, Harassment, and Retaliation Prevention Policy approved by the Board in November. Counsel Nicholls wanted to preview her proposed changes and solicit any other Board suggestions.
There were no public comments.
Director Henry asked whether "Respectful Workplace" affects how Board members speak to Staff. Counsel Nicholls said it encompassed a wider range of communications than the anti-harassment policy, so the answer was yes.
Director Fultz agreed that an update makes sense. He asked for some examples of the kind of conduct that would be the focus of this revised policy. Counsel Nicholls explained that the most basic distinction between anti-harassment and respectful workplace could be an abusive situation where somebody feels that they are being demeaned or dealt with in a way that makes it difficult for them to perform their job in a way that is undesirable but not illegal. The intent is to provide a more flexible tool for addressing various kinds of potentially undesirable behavior that doesn't fall into the category of illegal harassment. For most interactions, the process involves encouraging communication as a first step. It is primarily intended as a tool for the District's internal use.
President Mahood moved that District Counsel be instructed to refresh the Respectful Workplace policy. This was seconded, and the motion passed 4-0.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:45 PM. The next Board meeting is December 16th at 5:30 PM.