RANCHO MURIETA, CA (MPG) - Several questions about how the Rancho Murieta Community Services District conducts its business – from who controls meeting agendas to whether the district should sponsor a candidates’ forum – surfaced during the Board of Directors’ Aug. 26 meeting.

The board also heard residents question how the district is preparing for costly litigation, how much it is spending on legal matters and whether comments by Board President John Merchant on water policy could affect public confidence in board deliberations.

See separate stories on the board’s 3-2 decision to dissolvethe Water Vision Working Group, several looming district projects led by the Pera Drive sinkhole, and the completion of the district’s overdue 2022-23 and2023-24 audits.

Agenda

One of the sharpest exchanges involved procedures for putting items on meeting agendas.

Director Tim Maybee said he was confused about whether one member of a committee could prevent an item from being placed on an agenda.

“I was not aware that a sole person on a committee could stop agendized items and/or approve it,” Maybee said, asking district counsel Patrick Enright for clarification.

Enright said he would review district policy. Merchant acknowledged the process needed clarification, saying there probably was no official designation spelling out how committee agendas were created.

“If we need to write something down and clear that up … please, let’s do it,” Merchant said.

Developer Bob Kyle then pointed out that the board packet already contained a letter from his attorney David Cameron addressing agenda procedures.

“We actually paid our attorney to research the process for putting things on the agenda,” Kyle said. “The question has been answered. I would hope you would refer to that and not have to pay your attorney to redo it.”

Enright said he had the letter and was preparing a response.

Cameron’s Aug. 12 letter said the district code gives the general manager, in consultation with the board president, responsibility for setting the board agenda. But it also cited provisions allowing an individual director or committee member to request that an item be placed on a board agenda.

Cameron wrote that when those procedures are followed, district policy says the general manager “shall place” the matter on the agenda for the next reasonably available board meeting. He disputed the idea that separate authorization from the board president was required.

The controversy grew out of the Aug. 4 Improvements Committee meeting and a request by Director Randy Jenco concerning an emergency water tank, which Director Bill Gere confirmed he’d left off the agenda.

However, district guidelines distinguish between adding an item to a committee agenda and asking that an item be placed on a subsequent board agenda. The five-business-day provisions cited by Cameron concern board agendas. Committee agendas have separate procedures, including requirements for adding an item after an agenda has been published.

That distinction became important when Catherine Silvera, a retired Sacramento County Counsel attorney, addressed the board. She is also a candidate for the CSD Board.

Silvera said Cameron’s letter raised “important issues about the rights and responsibilities of elected directors” and said an independently elected director should be able to bring an issue forward under district policy.

“This community deserves assurances that proper procedure for setting agendas will be followed in the future, especially concerning important water issues,” she said.

Gere disputed her interpretation. He maintained that the general manager and board president set the agenda. The two also disagreed about when Jenco submitted his request.

The board did not resolve the competing interpretations. Enright agreed to review the matter and provide written clarification.

District Backs Away from Candidates’ Night

Governance questions returned when Interim General Manager Amelia Wilder asked whether the district should organize a candidates’ night for the November CSD election.

The field of 10 candidates contributed to concerns about space, staff time and cost.

Merchant recalled a previous gathering where people were turned away after the boardroom reached its 69-person fire-code limit. Maybee said managing a forum with 10 candidates would be a “monumental task.”

Enright said the district was not required to sponsor a forum and such events sometimes are organized by nonprofits or other groups. Jenco, however, said bringing all of the candidates together to answer the same questions would be more useful than separate events.

With Gere recusing himself because he is a candidate, the board reached consensus that the district would not organize the event. Jenco favored district sponsorship; Butler, Maybee and Merchant did not.

The board left open the possibility of assisting an outside organization if one proposed a forum.

Rancho Murieta developer Carol Anderson Ward said she wanted a forum including all candidates. She objected to the prospect of Save Our Lakes & Open Spaces (SOLOS) organizing an event for candidates it supported and said it appeared that the gathering would be held on open-space property belonging to her development.

“I think to make this fair, we should have all the candidates together,” Ward said.

SOLOS moved its event to Stonehouse Park following Ward’s comment at the meeting.

Enright cautioned that because the event involved an election, the district could not “be playing favorites” in deciding which organization to assist. Maybee mentioned the League of Women Voters as an example of a nonpartisan organization that could conduct a forum.

Residents Question Litigation Costs, Board Process

Governance concerns also surfaced during public comment.

Roger Formanek, who described himself as a retired state attorney who had handled major contract litigation and arbitration, urged the district to investigate whether the California Attorney General’s Office could provide assistance with litigation facing the district.

Formanek warned that complex litigation could become extremely expensive and said the district should ensure it had appropriate legal representation. He acknowledged he did not know whether the district qualified for representation by the Attorney General’s Office.

Mike Martel followed by asking how much the district had spent on litigation during the year. Finance Director Cecilia Min said the information was contained in district financial records and offered to provide Martel with a breakdown.

Jeff Pearson of Rancho Murieta Properties raised a different concern involving an Aug. 23 social-media post by Merchant titled “The High Stakes of a Community Water Plan.”

Pearson acknowledged Merchant’s right to express his views as a private citizen but said the post advocated positions related to water issues before the board and matters involved in pending litigation. He questioned whether the comments could affect “public confidence in the CSD’s handling of the matter” and raise questions about “the impartiality of board deliberations.”

Pearson distributed copies and asked that the material become part of the public record. Merchant, who is also vice president for SOLOS, did not respond to Pearson’s comments during the meeting.

One final process complaint came from resident Jim Farrell during discussion of a $21,168 annual cybersecurity expenditure.

The discussion expanded into roughly 25 minutes about unbudgeted expenditures and how the district should handle them. Farrell said that was the kind of discussion that should have occurred first at the Finance Committee.

“Don’t be holding your finance committee meetings here,” Farrell told the board. “The public has told you your meetings drag on too long. Personally, I'm really interested in your business; I find this conversation boring.”

Merchant responded that the board had just agreed to send the broader budget issue there, and the board proceeded to approve the cybersecurity expenditure.