| Jo Ann Henrie Foreman |
 COUNTY OF MENDOCINO Grand Jury |
Telephone: (707) 463-4320 |
GRAND JURY |
Hopland Public Utilities District The 1997-98 Grand Jury reopened the complaint against the Hopland Public Utilities District (HPUD) Board of Directors (Board) alleging Brown Act violation on December 10. 1996Findings and recommendations retlect that the HPUD Board violated the Brown Act in their agendizing of Resolution 92-6 and subsequent action upon Resolution 92-6(A). REASON FOR INVESTIGATION The investigation was reopened following responses to the 1996-97 Grand Jury Final Report because it was learned that not all HPUD Board members had been interviewed and County Counsel had provided an opinion of the applicability of the Brown Act in regard to personnel matters. PROCEDURES Interviews were held with all HPUD Board members serving in December 1996. former employees and volunteers, and the district's legal counsel. The following documents were reviewed: minutes, agendas. Standard Operating Procedures, the Joint Powers Agreements with the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors, resolutions, applicable Government and Labor Codes, and correspondence from former board members and interested parties. FINDINGS 1. HPUD "Resolution 92-6/Appointing a Volunteer Fire Chief' states that the fire chief is to serve as volunteer fire chief "at the will and sufferance of the Directors, for such term as they may decide by further resolution." 2. At the HPUD December 10. 1996, regular meeting, the a~endized item under new business was consideration of "Resolution 92-6/Tenure of the Fire Chief" (Originally titled ("Appointing a Volunteer Fire Chief'). 3. The document that was introduced and acted upon at the December 10, 1996, meeting was "Resolution 92-6(A) Terminating the Fire Chiefs Service." calling for the termination of the volunteer Fire Chief 4. All five members of that HPUD Board were interviewed separately and all stated that they had no knowledge of Resolution 92-6(A) prior to the meeting. The testimony did not retlect the policy of HPUD's legal counsel to prepare resolutions only at the direction of the board as a whole, the board chairman, or the district manager (position vacant at that time). The acting district manager had no knowledge of the resolution before the meeting. 5. The HPUD legal counsel admitted that he stretched the limits Brown Act in use of the word "tenure" in the noticing concerning Resolution 92-6 and the Board subsequently acting upon "terminating" in Resolution 92-6(A). 6. The HPUD Board violated the Brown Act in not including Resolution 9~ 6(A) "Terminating the Fire Chiefs Service" on the agenda posted 72 hours before the December 10. 1996, meeting. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. The HPUD Board should notice their meetings and agendas according to the Brown Act (See Findings 1 -5.) 2. The HPUD Board should avail themselves of readily available Brown Act seminars. (See Finding 5.) COMMENT The citizens of Hopland would be better served if animosities and personal agendas were set aside in the interest of good governance. RESPONSE REQUIRED Hopland Public Utilities District Board of Directors (Recommendations 1, 2)
|