In a dramatic turnaround, the San Lorenzo Valley Water District Board of Directors voted unanimously on Monday, April 3 to spend no further money on the Terry Vierra conflict-of-interest case.
This means the water district will not finance an appeal of a Superior Court judgment against former director Vierra, will not pay that $9,006 judgment, and will not pay up to $101,583 for the victorious plaintiff’s attorney fees.
The district will still be on the hook for up to $170,000, but its actions Monday spared it another possible $210,000.
Payment of the judgment and the plaintiff’s legal bills, and the decision whether to appeal “will be his [Vierra’s] choice moving forward,” said board President Gene Ratcliffe in a statement Monday evening.
Ratcliffe revealed for the first time that Vierra had written the water district directors a letter requesting that the board pay his legal bills.
She refused multiple requests from the Press Banner to release a copy of the letter to the public.
Vierra did not respond to requests for comment.
The board’s actions were announced by Ratcliffe following a 55-minute closed-door discussion. Ratcliffe defended the board’s decisions to pay Vierra’s legal bills in the initial court case and the unsuccessful attempt to seek a new trial.
That executive session followed one hour of comments by 16 members of an overflow, standing-room-only crowd of 36 in the board’s meeting room in downtown Boulder Creek. Six people spoke in favor of the board continuing an appeal, and 10 – including two former board members, Randall Brown and Peter Lang – spoke out against appealing the conflict-of-interest case.
Ratcliffe’s statement followed weeks of comments by her and the district’s general manager, Brian Lee, vigorously defending Vierra’s actions and claiming the judge had ruled in error.
Prior to Monday’s vote, only director Bill Smallman had objected to paying Vierra’s legal fees and pursuing a new trial.
Holloway’s lawyer, Gary Redenbacher of Scotts Valley, praised the board’s action – and his client: “Bruce Holloway is to be commended for his efforts on behalf of the community to prevent local officials from violating crucial conflict-of-interest laws.”
It was unclear whether the board decision would prevent the district from paying two additional months of legal bills expected this month for its unsuccessful attempt to obtain a new trial for Vierra. Ratcliffe refused repeated requests to clarify this question.
The district hired appellate lawyer Michael Colantuono in December to convince Judge John Gallagher to reverse his own ruling and allow new evidence to be presented at a new trial.
Colantuono began work nearly two weeks before the board voted 4-1 in January to seek the reversal and new trial. Gallagher soundly rejected that attempt the same day it was presented on March 17.
The district’s lawyers filed a Notice of Appeal of the case to the Sixth District Court of Appeal four days later, on March 21. The directors met on March 22, but Ratcliffe said Monday they didn’t discuss the Vierra case because they hadn’t put it on the agenda. The filing deadline was March 24.
Galllagher had ruled Dec. 13 that Vierra, as a water district director, had violated California conflict-of-interest laws, under the Political Reform Act, when he participated in water district decisions in 2010 that resulted in the payment of real estate commissions to his wife and his real estate firm.
Here is a complete text of Ratcliffe’s statement:
“During tonight’s closed session meeting regarding the case of Bruce Holloway versus Terry Vierra, the San Lorenzo Valley Water District, etc. the board of directors voted to stop all financial commitments to the Political Reform Act case. The motion was made by director [Eric] Hammer, seconded by director Smallman and passed unanimously.
“We are continuing to defend our 1090 victory. When Mr. Vierra requested in writing that the district provide a defense, the board agreed to do so out of an understanding that elected officials are granted the same legal protection as employees under Government Code 995.
“No current directors were members of the board at the time that Terry Vierra’s actions took place, However, the board understood that Mr. Vierra’s actions were open to interpretation by the court, and that in the opinion of most who reviewed the case, including the judge, Mr. Vierra had attempted to do the right thing. Unintentional or not, the judge ruled that Terry Vierra violated the Political Reform Act.
“The district provided a defense for Terry Vierra. Now that a legal decision has been rendered and reaffirmed by the judge, the district’s obligation is complete.
“Mr. Vierra may pay the fine, and opposition attorney fees, or pursue an appeal. That will be his choice moving forward.”
