RANCHO MURIETA, CA (MPG) - Conflict of interest complaints against public officials became a topic in more ways than one at the Rancho Murieta Community Services District Board meeting on Oct. 15.

When the agenda item “Conflicts and Biases” came up, District Counsel Patrick Enright gave a PowerPoint presentation explaining how the California Fair Political Practices Commission evaluates complaints alleging conflicts of interest by public officials.

During the discussion, it was revealed that former Director Steve Booth had filed an FPPC complaint against Director Randy Jenco. A second complaint, filed against Board President John Merchant and Director Linda Butler, was confirmed after the meeting by developer Bob Keil.

Both complaints contend that the three directors should recuse themselves from board discussions about a possible moratorium on future development.

Sept. 17 Meeting

A potential conflict involving Jenco was first raised publicly at the Sept. 17 board meeting, when audience member Richard Gehrs addressed the board before discussion of the moratorium agenda item. Gehrs said there was a perception in the community that Jenco had a financial conflict because he had recently purchased the Granlees property, which could be subdivided and developed in the future.

Enright said no action would be taken on a proposed moratorium at the meeting.

“We have been reviewing the issue, and we are going to address it by next month’s meeting,” he said.

Later in the meeting, Booth questioned whether Jenco should participate in any discussion about a moratorium or even the Integrated Water Master Plan, given that he could subdivide the 11-acre property “which I think, by definition, makes him a potential developer.”

Jenco rejected the suggestion, noting that Enright had already reviewed a possible conflict in a different context involving a drainage easement on his property. He said he had no conflict of interest despite what he described as “wild speculation on social media.”

Oct. 15 Meeting

When Enright made his ethics presentation at the Oct. 15 board meeting, he did not say whether a determination had been made regarding Jenco’s potential conflict. Instead, he outlined the factors considered when assessing a financial conflict of interest under the state’s Political Reform Act, enacted by California voters in 1974.

At the conclusion of Enright’s presentation, Booth stepped to the podium and said he had filed the FPPC complaint against Jenco the previous month, in connection with board discussions about a possible moratorium on water hookups.

Booth gave a detailed explanation of his concerns, noting that Jenco could seek provision of potable water that would substantially increase the value of his property if it were subdivided. He said the FPPC had notified him that it would take longer than the usual 14 days to decide whether to open a formal investigation.

Referring to Enright’s comment that an FPPC decision could take up to two years, Booth said his concern was with what might happen in the meantime “about how much damage could have been done to the community’s interest in the future.”

Booth said the situation created both “an appearance of impropriety and an appearance of conflict,” adding, “I think the board should take that very carefully into consideration before it allows Mr. Jenco to participate in decisions about water.”

Enright told Booth that it would be up to the individual board member – not the board as a whole – to determine whether he had a conflict of interest. He also noted that Jenco’s property already has a water account with the district.

Jenco defended himself, saying he understood the importance of avoiding even the perception of bias.

“It’s important that there is no perception of interest on the board, to make sure the community feels the board is doing the right thing,” he said.

He described Booth’s complaint as “very theoretical,” adding, “I’ve been volunteering in this community for 40 years, and this is the first time anyone has ever accused me of not doing the right thing for the community.”

Jenco also questioned why another board member, John Merchant, had been listed as a witness in Booth’s complaint. Merchant told Jenco that it was “absolutely not true” that he had volunteered to be a witness. Booth confirmed that was accurate, explaining that he had named individuals who might have relevant information without consulting them first.

Jenco apologized to Merchant, who accepted the apology.

Second FPCC Complaint

Merchant said he and Butler were also named in a second FPPC complaint alleging they should not participate in discussions about a development moratorium because of their involvement in circulating a petition urging the board to impose one.

“At least in my complaint, they were careful enough to say I was actively involved in it before I got on the board,” Merchant said.

Audience member Roger Formanek told the board he had prior experience with an FPPC complaint when he served as general counsel for an 11-member state commission. He said the FPPC issued an opinion within two weeks in that case, likely because the commission was handling a project worth tens of millions of dollars.

As for the two complaints against district directors, Formanek said he was speaking as a community member, adding, “No one is comfortable seeing this adjudicated in a public forum.” He said the appropriate way to resolve the issue is to obtain an opinion from the FPPC.

Contacted after the meeting, developer Keil confirmed he had filed the second FPPC complaint against Merchant and Butler.

“They shouldn’t be allowed to vote on the moratorium because they have a bias that can’t be overcome,” he said.

During his presentation, Enright had explained that conflicts of interest under the Political Reform Act must be financial in nature.

“They’re not concerned about biases and other types of issues that may be raised,” he said.

Enright also clarified, “Campaign statements do not disqualify a council member from voting.”