This document was originally posted to the web on March 28, 2001. A link to this document was included in email sent to the Rio Linda Elverta Mailing list on that date. The email was published in the Rio Linda Elverta News on March 29, 2001 as a letter to the News. A copy of that email is at the bottom of this web page. This note and the email copy were added on May 26, 2001 by Jay O'Brien.

From: Jay O'Brien
To: My constituents
Subject: My vote on March 26th

PREFACE

On monday night, March 26, 2001, I cast a dissenting vote on the rate increase motion. This was the most difficult vote I have cast in the two plus years I have been on the Rio Linda/Elverta Community Water District Board of Directors. As it was a vote for "only" an interim increase, it should have been an easy vote to cast. It was not, and I will explain why.

This is not a "press release" from the District. I am not the Board President this year, so this cannot be construed to be anything other than my expression of my opinions and position on this matter. I am writing for only myself.

BROWN ACT CONSIDERATIONS

This statement is not intended to be an expression of a direction for any future action by the Board or any members of the Board. To avoid any appearance of non-compliance with the Brown Act, I ask that other Board members not respond directly to this statement. Other Board members may wish to express their positions on these issues to our constituents (and not to other Board members), as I am doing with this statement, and that is certainly their privilege. For purposes of my compliance with the Brown Act, the reader should understand that this statement is intended for anyone interested, EXCEPT other Board members.

BOARD MEMBERS ARE YOUR REPRESENTATIVES

You have elected Directors to represent you in caring for your water district, and you have through your votes for us directed us to keep the water flowing and the your district in good financial shape. You are the owners, and we are only the caretakers of your water district.

Unfortunately our predecessors, in hindsight, didn't do a very good job, buying in on the pipeline as they did and placing that debt on the shoulders of the ratepayers. And they even tied our hands, agreeing to debt that can't be retired early without penalty.

Given that legacy, we on the present Board have done our best to identify the exact status of the district and chart a course for the future.

TWO YEAR PROCESS

When I came on the Board in December 1998, it was apparent to the Board that a rate increase was inevitable. We didn't know how much and we didn't have a Master Plan or a Financial Plan to guide us. We instructed Mike Phelan, our General Manager, to proceed as fast as possible to advise us, keeping in mind the legal requirements we had to follow.

It took nearly two years to complete the Master Plan and Financial plan, now finally culminating with public hearings and Board action. I was President of the Board during the first two years of this process, and I was frustrated by the amount of time that it took to meet all of the legal requirements necessary before we could take action.

DECISION AUGUST 21, 2000

Based on the newly completed Master Plan and Financial Plan, on August 21, 2000, the Board, with no disagreement, gave General Manager Mike Phelan instructions to proceed with the necessary steps to notice a 100% rate increase, coincident with the return to monthly billing. I was convinced that going to a 100% increase coincident with the return to monthly billing was the prudent direction to take, rather than the 145% proposed by our financial consultant. I felt that we could take the 100% step, and then wait to see if we prevailed in court with our pending legal action, perhaps then avoiding the other 45% increase.

As Board President, it was my intention to see that the "whole story" be properly disseminated to our ratepayers. It was my belief that we could, through a proper public relations and education process, gain the support of our ratepayers. We were convinced, by the plans, that we actually needed a 165% increase to prudently operate the District, providing for the future. We intended to commission a study team early in 2001 to fine-tune the rates, taking conservation efforts into consideration. It was my intent that our ratepayers would know what was going on and why, so the notice of rate increase would not catch them off guard. I supported the Board's direction at that time and MY position has not changed. I still feel that the 100% increase is the most prudent action to take at this time.

FIRST PRESS RELEASE

I was adamant that we should completely inform the public at that time of our actions, and I was convinced that if we did the right kind of job of sharing our knowledge that the public would support us. It was important to me that everyone be informed BEFORE the official notice of the rate increase proposal was received in the mail. As Board President, I pressed our General Manager to prepare a press release which was published in the August 24th edition of the Rio Linda News. It was also published on our Rio Linda Elverta email mailing list. A constituent responded to that email, and I placed my response to him on the mailing list. I felt this was a great start to our effort to inform the public.

This press release also mentioned the Board's desire to create a citizen's review committee.

ELECTION: PUBLIC OUTREACH STIFLED

Unfortunately, the public relations efforts were cut off as soon as Mike made the first press release.  Three Board members called a special meeting of the Board and clearly instructed both Mike and me that our efforts were to stop. One Board member stated that our actions were "sabotage" to his re-election efforts. I understood from the Board that in their opinion, as I was Board President, my response on the mailing list was also considered a "press release" by them, and as such must stop. Thus, sadly, all public outreach stopped until after the election. Most recipients of the official notice of the rate increase were surprised by the mailed notice received with their Christmas mail, and the storm began.

In my opinion, the only "sabotage" was that done to the effort to let the ratepayers know what was going on and why.

I recognize that there is significant opposition to the 100% increase, but I have to wonder if that opposition would be present today had we gone ahead with the public outreach effort that the Board stopped until last year's election was over. I feel that we would have had the support of the ratepayers rather than the animosity, personal attacks and frayed tempers we are experiencing.

A previous Board caused this problem with a bad business decision based on faulty advice. We made it worse by deciding to not inform the public once we identified a course of action. We now have to deal with the bad decision of this Board.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

Based on the planned public outreach, I anticipated that informed ratepayers would attend our meetings, or at least express interest; it would have been possible to form committees including those interested. But few came, as the public information had been shut off. That is, until the notices were received in the mail; then the storm hit and the protest campaign began.

PROTEST EFFORT: PERSONALIZATION

Until I was stopped by a protest gatherer at the Post Office in January, I was encouraged by what appeared to be a focus on the issues without personalization. What happened then was a real eye-opener. The well-meaning person was apparently briefed with biased information, and he was willing to place the blame on the present Board of Directors.

GETTING RICH

The petition gatherer alleged that we as Board members were getting rich off of the Water District. He said that Board members spend 8 hours/day at the district office and get paid for it. I identified myself to him and informed him that Board members get paid $75 for each meeting we attend as a Board Member, either at Board meetings or representing the District. We are limited to pay for no more than one meeting a day and no more than six meetings per month. He listened politely, but my message did not seem to register with him.

If there's anyone "getting rich" from being a Board member, it is me. Let me explain. In January 2001 I was scheduled to attend 14 meetings, either in Rio Linda as a Board member or representing this District. Two meetings were canceled, so I ONLY attended 12 meetings. Several were 4 hours long and one was from 8:30 AM until 6 PM. Most other Board members aren't available for these meetings, and I have attended them because this District must be represented in organizations of other water agencies in the Sacramento area. February was 15 meetings scheduled, one canceled; March is 11 meetings scheduled and 2 canceled. Getting rich? If money was the only motivation I would much rather have my time back.

The protest gatherer at the Post Office asked me why I would serve on the Board if it wasn't for the money? I told him that I was trying to pay back the community that supported me for so many years. That seemed to fall on deaf ears and he went back into what appeared to be a canned spiel about how corrupt we Board members were. He threatened me, that if we passed the proposed rate increase that we would be recalled.

LACK OF ALTERNATIVES

I pressed him many times for his alternatives; he offered none and could only say that "no one would let us go without water, someone would take over, like the County or the City". When I asked him to run for a Director seat on the Board, he was too busy.

PROTEST MISREPRESENTATION

I learned that a neighbor, like me on a private well, was asked to sign a protest (invalid as not a ratepayer). I learned that people who signed protests were encouraged to have their spouse also sign (violating the one protest from a service address rule). I learned that protest gatherers were continuing the false story about Board members' personal profits. I heard from my neighbors that they supported the Board's action by NOT signing a protest, and they wanted to be sure that their voices were also heard. Based on this input from neighbors, I was concerned that the protests be accurately validated and counted.

PROTEST COUNTING COMMITTEE

At the special Board meeting held February 5th, I was appointed to chair an ad hoc committee to validate and count the protests. I failed in that task, and I offer my apology for the unfinished business of the ad hoc committee. Perhaps I'll add that story at another time. Suffice it to say that the committee met many times and ultimately presented it's report to the Board. The Board agreed to not proceed with the proposed 100% increase, even though there were not a majority of protests validated. There were enough questionable protests that would take a lot of staff time to research; the Board accepted the protests as if enough had been validated.

During this process, based on a statement by an ad hoc committee member, I was accused of "violating the public trust" and of lying about the presence of a committee member. I was accused of changing the count of protests and it was alleged that the count would have changed even more had I not been "caught red handed". I was accused of violating the Brown Act. All of these allegations are false and can be proven to be false.

STOP THE BLEEDING

At the February 26, 2001 Board meeting, reconvened on March 5, 2001, I moved an "across the board" rate increase to "stop the bleeding" of the District.

My understanding when I made the motion was that it was for a 50% "across the board" increase, meaning, to me, that ALL rates would be increased 50%. In retrospect, I should have made the motion to increase base rates 50% and to raise incremental rates 50%. However, Director Jerry Wickham understood "across the board" to also mean "across the board" of the incremental rates as depicted by what became "alternative 2" in the published notice. Both alternatives raised the rates enough to result in a 50% increase in revenue collected. Most of the discussion of what became alternative 2 took place before Jerry asked me to revise my motion from the 65% I first proposed to the 50% that was adopted. The point could be made that all previous discussion was wiped away when I restated my motion, but clearly all Jerry asked me to do was reduce the 65% figure to 50%.

Later, when I was asked about the publication of Alternative 2, Director Wickham's plan, I was surprised and related that fact. I then reviewed the video tape and determined that Jerry did introduce Alternative 2, and I believe he thought I understood he had done so. I confirmed that fact to my satisfaction. Jerry was right, I was wrong. Both alternatives were to be placed in the notice.

MARCH 26, 2001 ISSUES:

In asking my nominee to serve on the rate committee, I had explained what I thought the committee's charge would be. I explained that the 50% "across the board" increase would be imposed on an interim basis until the committee's recommendation(s) could be heard by the Board. I explained the logic in imposing the 50% increase to both the minimum service charge and to the usage charges would "hurt everyone" and, in my opinion, did not favor any class of customers. My understanding of the interim rate structure was later published as "alternative 1" in the rate hearing notice. To my nominee to the rate committee, I explained my understanding that the committee, working together as a committee, would have a free hand to examine everything that goes into the rate process and to make recommendations unfettered by preconceived conditions.  It was this commitment that I made to a committee member, and thus to the community, that ultimately determined for me how to cast my vote on this issue. But, my support vacillated during the deliberations at the meeting.

Again at the Board meeting on March 26th, I was discouraged to learn that the Committee hadn't even had its first meeting. The Committee Chair stated that he hadn't received the mission statement he was promised, and he explained that he was busy with other things; he didn't explain why he didn't delegate the necessary organizational tasks to another committee member. The Committee chair then stated that he and another committee member had already put a proposed rate structure together, between them, for the rest of the committee to work on. It concerned me that substantive issue discussion was taking place between a minority of committee members, bound by the Brown Act, even before the committee structure was in place and before the first meeting of the committee.

It was my understanding that the committee would get right to work; I hoped for an output in three months. Now, it appeared to me that the committee was not functioning and my support for the committee wavered. As the committee hadn't started, and as rate negotiations with the proposed power plant would be necessary soon, I was persuaded by Director Wickham's presentation to vote for alternative two, as it would put RLECWD in a better position to negotiate with FPL. Alternative two, structured to be a "conservation rate", was closer to what I envision the rate committee will ultimately find appropriate, and it is generally commensurate with my present view of how our rates should be structured in the future. However, I look forward to recommendations from the committee to help me reach a decision.

When it came time to cast my vote, I found that I had to decide between what I felt would be a better financial position for the District (Alternative 2) and my personal commitment to the rate committee members (Alternative 1). As all of the rate committee members had not participated in the pre-committee rate structure discussions, I could not hold all committee members culpable for the apparently substantive negotiations outside of formal committee meetings. To me, this was a bad-faith effort to circumvent or pre direct the committee as-a-whole, violating, in my mind, the intent of the Brown Act. I was confident, however, that my rate committee nominee was operating under the criteria I offered to obtain her participation as a committee member, and that she had not participated in discussions with other committee members outside of committee meetings. My decision was to honor my word to her and to the Committee.  I voted against alternative 2, even though I agree it would be better for the District should no further rate changes take place.

CONCLUSION

The bottom line is that I voted against Alternative 2, as I felt Alternative 1 was in keeping with the commitment the Board made to the rate committee. I agree that Alternative 2 is a better alternative for the District, if no further increases are imposed. However, I don't support changing our commitments to our citizen's committee. I have to honor my word.

Jay O'Brien
Director, RLECWD
 


This message to the Rio Linda Mailing List was published in the Rio Linda Elverta News on March 29, 2001.

Subject: [RL] RLECWD Board: Water Rate increase vote
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 15:25:18 -0800
From: Jay O'Brien <jayobrien@att.net>
To: Rio Linda Elverta Mailing List <riolinda@vrx.net>

To: Constituents and ratepayers

On Monday night, March 26, 2001, I cast one of the two dissenting votes on the water rate increase motion. This was the most difficult vote I have cast in the two plus years I have been on the Rio Linda/Elverta Community Water District Board of Directors. As it was a vote for "only" an interim increase, it should have been an easy vote to cast. It was not.

I've prepared a statement which covers this issue in some detail. It is a bit wordy, but I feel it needs to be said. I've posted it on the web for your review. The url is below.

When it came time to cast my vote, I found that I had to decide between what I felt would be a better financial position for the District (Alternative 2) and my personal commitment to my nominee to the rate committee, Judee English, and to the rate committee members (Alternative 1).  I voted against alternative 2, even though I agree it would be better for the District should no further rate changes take place. My decision was to honor my word to Judee, to the Committee, and to the Community.

Jay O'Brien
Director, RLECWD

My full statement is posted here:
http://jay.mbz.org/rl/March26.html

>From the Rio Linda mailing list
>Subscribe/Unsubscribe? mailto:owner-riolinda@vrx.net