One of these – suspending any public comment on agenda items until the end of the meeting – puts the board on a collision course with California’s Brown Act, which attempts to ensure public participation and discussion of issues before public bodies.
“The public’s right to comment on any agenda item up for consideration is not subject to suspension by the chair or the body,” said Terry Francke, a Sacramento lawyer and recognized public-access expert who helped write the Brown Act.
Francke was responding to an inquiry from the Press Banner about Ratcliffe’s action.
He quoted the state law: “Every agenda for regular meetings shall provide an opportunity for members of the public to directly address the legislative body on any item of interest to the public, before or during the legislative body’s consideration of the item.”
There was no vote to limit public comment. It was Ratcliffe’s decision, and no directors objected.
Also at the May 25 meeting, Ratcliffe initiated a move to change its published policy of pulling any item from the so-called consent agenda for public and/or board comment if any director or member of the public requests it. She acted with the assent of her fellow directors and board attorney Marc Hynes and also without any vote by the board.
The directors took no vote to accept the consent agenda, or to approve payment of the bills.
Not taking a vote on the consent agenda and not opening any item on it for public comment meant there could be no public discussion or questions about any of the district’s bills, and it also meant that individual board members might appear to be no longer accountable for them..
The consent agenda usually involves the acceptance of reports, including the list of bills paid, and new invoices.
The May bill list included the payment of $30,921.66 in legal bills for February and March, and the receipt of $21,739.75 in new legal bills to be paid to three law firms. Legal bills have been a controversial item on agendas this spring as the district’s legal bills for the Terry Vierra conflict-oif-interest case exceeded $100,000.
The February-March bills included $19,631.08 in new bills for the unsuccessful attempt to seek a new trial of the Vierra case.
The bill list presented May 25 also included $8,525 in fees for the district’s public relations firm, Miller Maxfield, for March, and the receipt of a new $11,506.25 “public outreach consulting” bill from the firm.
Since its Jan. 24 special meeting, the water district board also has stripped information from the minutes that had been included in prior years. The minutes are posted on the district’s web site, usually as part of the paperwork for the next regular meeting.
The water district board minutes no longer report which director makes a board motion. The minutes report only final board votes, but other than that give no information about any comments made by directors for or against any item.
The minutes list the names of individuals who speak to the board, but often include no information about the topic addressed, or whether the speakers were for or against any issue or item, or if they requested any action by the board.
The water district pays Community Television of Santa Cruz County to videotape its regular board sessions. The only way to find out which directors made motions, or to find out their opinions or gauge public sentiment is to watch the videos. Links to these have been posted 30 to 60 days after being taped at a meeting. The independent non-proit maintains the video archive.
However, most meetings of the board in 2017 have not been videotaped. That is because there are no videos of special board meetings (April 20 was an exception). The water district board has held 14 special meetings of the full board in 2017, and only three regular meetings. The district’s web site, www.slvwd.com has links to the three videos, plus a video of one special meeting in April.
In June 2016, the district received the District Transparency Certificate of Excellence by the Special District Leadership Foundation (SDLF) of California “in recognition of its outstanding efforts to promote transparency and good governance.”
Step-by-step, the SLV Water District has grown increasingly defensive and less transparent.
Since January, it has:
Ignored media requests for interviews, or for reports of board actions, referring all media inquiries to its public relations agency
Released public statements without attribution
Expressed anger at leaks of conversations and public documents
Claimed that scientists with different opinions are not scientists
Interrupted, insulted, and slandered constituents who speak in public meetings
Distributed incomplete and inaccurate information about board actions
Used social media to “speak directly” to the public, claiming bias by traditional media
Changed its approach to board minutes to eliminate any written record of directors’ comments or dissenting points of view from the public
Blocked or postponed public comments at board meetings, in apparent violation of the Brown Act
