http://www.sccsuperiorcourt.org/jury/GJ/html
SANTA CLARA WATER DISTRICT AWASH IN CASH AS COUNTY AND CITIES DROWN IN RED INK
PART 1 OF 4 REPORTS
(PDF,22 PAGES)
Summary: Addresses multiple areas of concern such as, oversight, accountability, Board of Director term limits,
improved financial reporting, policies for accumulated reserves, and specific policies for anticipated
expenditures, reserves, and rates.
NEW WATER QUALITY LABORATORY BUILDING
OVERBUILT AND UNDERUSED?
PART 2 OF 4 REPORTS
(PDF, 14 PAGES)
Summary: The final cost of the new drinking water quality lab ran $13 million over the original $8.1 budgeted
for the project. Only 18 employees occupy the 18,400 sq. ft. building.
ALVISO SLOUGH RESTORATION PROJECT
$22M RESTORES BOATING BUT THREATENS THE
ENVIRONMENT
PART 3 OF 4 REPORTS
(PDF, 22 PAGES)
Summary: This project is an inappropriate use of District Funds.
GOLD STREET EDUCATION CENTER
$1.38M FOR WHAT?
PART 4 OF 4 REPORTS
(PDF, 8 PAGES)
Summary: Funding of this $1.38 million gazebo should
be terminated due to higher priority projects more appropriate
to
the purpose of the District, and far superior pre-existing established facilities within less than 3600 ft.
Santa Clara Valley Water District
2008-2009 Santa Clara County
Civil Grand Jury Report
Part 1 of 4 Reports
Part
One of FOUR? How could any decent public District cause the creation of
this many reports? Why has the SCVWD had
four Civil Grand Jury Reports published since 1988? Could it simply be that the District is not paying attention? Ineffective?
Incompetent? Lazy? Too comfortable with “business as
usual”? Lost sight of their purpose? Read on – you decide.
Part One (22 pages) is actually composed of numerous issues brought to light.
In Summary:
* The district has been questioned for many years on their free spending while ignoring any budgetary issues, and
has made minimal progress to improve their spendthrift ways.
* The special parcel tax added $32M to the District coffers in FY 2008/09. (A 50% increase, excluding benefit
assessments and bond measures). Due to expire in 2016, and is likely to be renewed, unless
VOTERS PAY ATTENTION. Is
this tax actually necessary?
* Significant anomalies related to the 2009 general election Measure ‘B’, Clean, Safe Creeks and Flood Protection
*
The public was misled on the true purpose of the special parcel tax.
* Significant legal issues surrounding District campaign contribution activities to ensure passage of Measure B,
which resulted in fines levied against two District employees (Susan A. Pino, and Rick L. Callendar) by
the Fair Political Practices
Committee for not disclosing $190,000.00
in contributions,as well as several
other violations. (Incidentally, the District’s independent auditor of many years, Malcolm Pirnie, Inc.
* Significant campaign contribution information from several large interested parties was found to be illegally
withheld from the public until after the election, which may have otherwise altered the outcome.
Assemblyman Joe Coto (23rd District, D - San Jose) sponsored AB466, which addressed numerous concerns with regard
to the present District BOD operations,
including:
* Cash reserve policies
* Public notice of board actions
* Policy towards lobbyists
* Board interference with procurement
procedures, staff reports, and board travel
* Improper hiring of a sitting board member
by then CEO, Stan Williams
* Increasing the departing CEO’s severance
package after forcing his
resignation
* Hiring a previously retired District employee as interim CEO, thereby enabling her to be paid both retirement
benefits and CEO salary concurrently!
Policies Proposed by Assemblyman
Coto (AB466)
2. Staff memos are to be made available to the public for a minimum of 10 days prior to being heard by the Board
of
Directors.
3. The District shall annually provide a public hearing on its reserves, which details the rationale for its reserves
and
provides an overview of it reserve management policy.
4. A
written summary of closed session disclosures shall be made available when the minutes from the
corresponding
session are approved.
5. Lobbyists shall be required to register with the District and the California Secretary of State and to report on
their
activities and communications.
6.
Directors shall be required to disclose all contacts with lobbyists
prior to voting.
7. Directors shall refrain from any involvement or interference with the bidding or RFP(Request For Proposals)
process.
8.
Directors shall not revise draft staff reports without full disclosure.
9. All
travel by individual directors shall be approved by the entire board of
directors in an open
session.
10. The renegotiation of an employment contract of any board appointed executive or officer will be ineligible
for consideration
after a voluntary separation has been requested or announced.
11. In the case of voluntary separation of employment by any Board appointed executive or officer of the district,
the
executive or officer will be ineligible to receive a severance package.
Not surprisingly, each and every one of the points within AB466 is listed for one single reason:
The Board has breached them all!
Update: The BOD formally adopted the 11 policy measures recommendations (listed above)of AB466 into the Board's Governance Policies at the 03/24/2009 BOD meeting.
A disappointing state of affairs when laws must be enacted to correct blatant
abuses of the public trust. Have
they no shame? Where are their ethics? Where do their loyalties lie? The degree of arrogance is astounding.
After a brief discussion of the purpose and
methodology of this investigation, the first issue examined is:
Board Tenure:
Unfortunately, BOD Term Limits were not included in Assemblyman Coto’s AB466. Although arguments can be made against term limits in general, no significant or relevant arguments have been made by the BOD (other than a comment by a current Director who states, “..experience is important for this job...”) which has not appeared to have made much (if any) difference over the past 20 years…
Too many “yes” people within an unsupervised
exclusive club wielding their well worn rubber stamps.
Meanwhile, taxpayers pay 'the dues.'
NOTE:
All issues noted in the four part Civil Grand Jury Report
all occurred during the tenure of the current directors:
1st
Year Years No. Times Term
Director District as Dir. on BOD BOD CHAIR Expires
1. Sig Sanchez First
At Large/ Chair 1980 29 5 2010
2. Rosemary Kamei 1 1993 16 3 2011
3. Joe Judge 2 1986 23 - 2013
4. Richard P. Santos 3 2000 9 - 2013
5. Larry Wilson 4 1995 14 2 2011
6. Patrick Kwok 5 2007 2 - 2013
7. Tony Estremera Second At-large 1996 13 2 2010
Total Years: 106*
* 106 Total Years / 7 Directors = 15 years average tenure per director in 80 years,
since the SCVWD was established in 1929.
Although legislation passed in 2006 is scheduled to reduce the number of BOD from seven to five in 2010, recent legislation by
Assemblyman Coto (AB466) will return the number of directors to seven elected members.
On October 28, 2008, the directors1 voted 4 to 3 in favor of giving themselves a 10% pay raise to the current $260.03 “stipend” per
attended meeting (up to a maximum of ten meetings per
month). Most directors attend at least
ten meetings per month:
$260.03 x 10 meetings/month =
$2,600.30 x 12 months/yr = $31,203.60 per year per
director.
Total annual amount for all seven? 7 directors x $31,203.6 each = $218,425.20
Final FY2008 damage after all fees and expenses was $238,837.96.
Was the excess $20,412.76 budgeted? Is there a cap? Where does it stop?
A tidy sum to say the least.
Note that a board director is not a full time position, yet they and their dependents received $66,620.00 in medical, dental, vision, life insurance, and retirement benefits in FY2008. Not bad for part time work when you can get it…
The Water District Gravy Train must be stopped, overhauled, placed back on track, and replenished with a fresh crew which will take the time and make the effort to analyze, study, comprehend, make effective use of valuable resources, and regain the public trust.
A ‘rubber stamp' runaway is
unacceptable.
1 In all fairness, it is important to note that
Directors, Sanchez, Kamei, and Wilson, voted against the increase. Director Sanchez
admirably requested to hold his compensation
at the 2006 rate of $225.13 which he has been doing for the previous three years.
Sanchez has consistently voted against the annual raise, commenting, ”I’m not of the opinion that we are underpaid.”
ADDENDUM: Read the initial District Response to the Grand Jury Report (Click on the link, then click on the
"Supporting Documents" link
in the top right panel, then on the .PDF link in the bottom right
panel directly below.)
(Parts 2 & 3 are underway...)
Something Stinks in Alviso
Gold Street Education Center (GSEC)
(Part 4 of 4) of the SCVWD 2009 Grand Jury Report
The mission of the Santa Clara Valley water district is a healthy, safe,
and enhanced quality of living in Santa Clara County through watershed
stewardship and comprehensive management of water resources in a
practical, cost-effective and environmentally sensitive manner.
- Santa Clara Valley Water district Mission Statement
found at the bottom of their letterhead stationery.
* Has anyone at the District ever actually read the District Act?
The introductory paragraph of the original District Act legislation reads:
"An act to create a flood control district to be called Santa Clara County Flood Control and Water District; to provide for the control and conservation of flood and storm waters and the protection of watercourses, watersheds, public highways, life and property from damage or destruction from such waters; to provide for the acquisition, retention, and reclaiming of drainage, storm, flood, and other waters and to save, conserve, and distribute such waters for beneficial use in said district; to authorize the incurring of indebtedness, the issuance and sale of bonds, and the levying and collection of taxes and assessments on property within said district and in the respective zones thereof; to define the powers of said district; to provide for the government, management, and operation of said district and for the acquisition and construction of property and works to carry out the purposes of the district, declaring the urgency thereof, to take effect immediately. The name of the Santa Clara County Flood Control and Water District Act was changed to the Santa Clara Valley Water District. "
Somehow, the Water District BOD interprets the above to mean that they were to build a $1.4 million “Education Center” on Gold Street in Alviso. A brief review of The District Act, Section 4:
§ 4. Purposes and intent
Sec. 4. (a) The purposes of this act are to authorize the district to provide comprehensive water management for all beneficial uses and protection from flooding within Santa Clara County.
(b) It is the intent of the Legislature that the district work collaboratively with other appropriate entities in Santa Clara County in carrying out the purposes of this act.
(c) The district may take action to do all of the following:
(1) Protect Santa Clara County from floodwater and storm water of the district, including tidal floodwater and the floodwater and storm water of streams that have their sources outside the district, but flow into the district.
(2) Protect from that floodwater or stormwater the public highways, life and property in the district, and the watercourses and watersheds of streams flowing within the district.
(3) Provide for the conservation and management of floodwater, stormwater, or recycled water, or other water from any sources within or outside the watershed in which the district is located for beneficial and useful purposes, including spreading, storing, retaining, and causing the waters to percolate into the soil within the district.
(4) Protect, save, store, recycle, distribute, transfer, exchange, manage, and conserve in any manner any of the waters.
(5) Increase and prevent the waste or diminution of the water supply in the district.
(6) Obtain, retain, protect, and recycle drainage, stormwater, floodwater, or treated waste water, or other water from any sources, within or outside the watershed in which the district is located for any beneficial uses within the district.
(7) Enhance, protect, and restore streams, riparian corridors, and natural resources in connection with carrying out the purposes set forth in this section.
(8) Preserve open space in Santa Clara County and support the county park system in a manner that is consistent with carrying out the powers granted by this section.
Board Policy E-3.2 is very specific concerning ‘Environmental Enhancements’:
Environmental enhancements are implemented to improve watersheds, streams, and the natural resources therin.
Before continuing any further, consider the following:
There is not even a remote
reference to constructing educational centers, outdoor classrooms,or
any land development for such purposes anywhere in the District Policy or
the District Act. This project should never have been given a moment's consideration, much less brought to any vote.
The District undoubtedly stepped far beyond their legally prescribed scope of purpose when they began entertaining plans for this project.
Incidentally,
this project happens to be located on a minuscule ½ acre of undeveloped
barren land owned by the State (primarily because it is a SuperFund hazmat dump site, see, Santos Dump) adjacent to a mobile home park (Summerset Mobile Estates) owned
for many years by the family of Board Member and Director, Richard P. Santos, representing – you guessed it – District 3 which includes Alviso. Santos
'failed' to recuse himself from initially voting in favor of the Gold Street Educational
Center (GSEC) until advised by legal counsel to do so prior to the June
6, 2006 BOD meeting. Subsequently, $1,400,000.00 plus an annual $30,000.00 for maintenance expenses was approved by the Board. As of August 2009, half ($700,000) of the total approved budget amount has been spent with nothing to show, other than a 'mitigated' Environmental Impact Report. Not even a lease agreement for the land itself!
An obvious conflict of interest should never need to be pointed out by legal counsel.
Furthermore, this odd-shaped undeveloped ½ acre parcel located across Gold Street from the nearest salt pond is a mere 3/4 mile (3600 ft)from the long ago completed 29 acre Alviso Marina County Park with paved parking, restrooms, picnic tables, boardwalks and trails.
Only two miles away is the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay Wildlife Refuge, complete with two indoor classrooms, an auditorium, restrooms, enclosed observation tower, open pavilion, trails, a boardwalk through the seasonal wetland habitat, surrounded by uplands, marshes, freshwater tidal slough, and salt ponds.
Why would any reasonable person consider spending $1.4 million plus ongoing expenses for such a project, when infinitely better alternatives are readily available?
Incidentally, both the
Department of Parks and Recreation and the City of San Jose declined
offering any funding or support for construction or maintenance. Also, note that the existing outdoor classrooms ( Coyote Creek and Morley Park) are underutilized at approximately only five to six school presentations per year.
A few "points to ponder" from the 2009 Civil Grand Jury Report:
The "Investigation Purpose and Methodology" section of the report states that interviews were conducted
with several members of the BOD:
Directors Kamei, Wilson, and Kwok on
February 11, 2009, and
Directors Estremera and Santos on February27, 2009
.
1. Not a single member of the BOD had any knowledge of the effectiveness or usage of the Coyote Creek Outdoor Classroom
2. The majority of the interviewed Directors were not sure whether the Gold Street Education Center had been approved.
3. None of the directors knew the source of funding for the project.
Who is running this “Dog & Pony Show”?