At the Tuesday morning radio interview with KSCO’s Rosemary Chalmers, San Lorenzo Valley Water District Manager Brian Lee made several assertions that appeared to be at odds with Judge John Gallagher’s Dec. 13 decision.
Lee and SLV board president Gene Ratcliffe said the judge had ruled against Vierra in the conflict-of-interest case because of a single vote that Vierra took to approve payment of a bill, which Lee said the judge called a “small mistake.”
Vierra admitted five improper actions, not one
In fact, the judge ruled that Vierra had acted five times – not once – improperly making or participating in a decision that rewarded his firm and his wife with $12,006 in real estate commissions.
The judge also noted that Vierra did not deny these actions, which are a matter of public record. In his ruling, Gallagher made no reference to these as “small mistakes.”
He stated simply: “Mr. Vierra should not have voted on those matters related to the property.”
Lee also told Chalmers’ radio audience that the judge’s decision compelled the district to continue the case: “We’re still here because the judge said the district [not Vierra] made the mistake.”
Ruling was against Vierra, not SLV Water District
In fact, the decision that the district is contesting at today’s hearing resulted in a judgment against Vierra, not the district.
The district had separated itself from the initial lawsuit last year.
Last week, Lee offered another reason the district is continuing its legal battle: plaintiff Bruce Holloway.
In an email to SLV ratepayer Susan Kosek of Ben Lomond, which was included in this week’s board meeting packet, Lee said, “Blame for the legal expenses needs to be put squarely on the shoulders of the one person responsible: Bruce Holloway.
“Holloway is responsible, and only Holloway, because of his refusal to settle,”
Lee wrote Kosek.
“Vierra may have made a small mistake,” “but Holloway is capitalizing and benefiting from that small mistake.”
Earlier in the email, he wrote, “Suffice it to say, Holloway refuses to settle.”
Holloway offered settlement, district walked away
In fact, it was the district, not Holloway, that refused to settle.
Holloway and his attorney Gary Redenbacher presented a brief at a court-required mediation conference last August, offering to settle the case for just under $60,000.
“The district’s mediation brief was just a copy of their motion for summary judgment, saying they were 100 percent right and Bruce was 100 percent wrong – highly unusual.,” said Redenbacher in an email response to questions from the Press Banner.
From the water district, he wrote, there was: “No offer to settle, no compromise. It was a complete repudiation of any attempt at mediation or settlement.”
Redenbacher said the mediation – called to avoid a more costly legal battle – was over in a few minutes “because they [the water district] refused to even discuss settlement.”
“If someone agrees to mediation, at least in theory it means that he is willing to compromise,” he said.
“The district was absolutely 100 percent not willing to budge an inch.”
“I’ve been in over 100 mediations,” Redenbacher wrote. “This is the only mediation in memory where absolutely nothing was forthcoming – it was nothing more than an exercise in driving up attorney’s fees. In fact, that was my conclusion: That they only agreed to mediation to keep driving up the attorney’s fees in the hope that Bruce would quit.”
In the radio interview on Tuesday, Lee also said the district is obligated to pay all of Vierra’s legal costs because it claims he was a district employee fulfilling his normal duties.
“It’s not a district definition, it’s a legal definition,” he said.
Judge ruled Vierra was public official, not employee
In fact, the judge ruled in December, “There is no question that Mr. Vierra was a public official,” who exercised his discretion to participate in the decision.
“Although Mr. Vierra and his fellow board members tried to minimize his participation, the courts have stated, regarding the Political Reform Act, ‘It is not just the actual improprieties which the law seeks to forestall but also the appearance of possible improprieties.’ “
Lee also told Chalmers that “The district decided to defend Vierra as a way to save money.”
When the radio host questioned whether having the board’s own lawyer Marc Hynes, represented Vierra in the separated case represented a conflict of interest, Lee said “it was cost-effective to use the same lawyer.”
Water board decisions increasing legal fees
In fact, the legal fees in connection with Friday’s hearing of the water district’s request likely will push the district’s own legal bills in this case into six figures. If it loses, and chooses to pay Vierra’s court judgment and the legal bills of plaintiff Bruce Holloway, the total legal bill could exceed $200,000.
Lee told Chalmers’ that the lawsuit is continuing in court on Friday because “It was Holloway that has refused to drop the lawsuit.”
In fact, Gallagher made decision on Dec. 13 and ordered Vierra to pay $9,347, half to the state and half to Holloway
That ruling would have stood, and this case would be over if the water district board had not decided in January to ask Gallagher to admit he made mistakes and hear new evidence at a new trial.
