Tag Archives: Cambria

As the kids say, “I just can’t….”

25 Wednesday Jan 2017

Posted by in Cambria CCSD, Community Involvement, Local politics, Searching for Cambria's Reality, Uncategorized, Words matter

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Where do I begin…

I’ve taken a little more time than usual to capture my thoughts from the January CCSD meeting. I was so – I don’t know – confused, disheartened, bemused, all of the above when I left that I really had a hard time sorting through it all. It was such a strange and unsettling meeting that I actually went to the video tape and watched the whole thing again, wanting to be sure my initial reaction wasn’t due to the weather. It wasn’t; this meeting was a mess.  A quick look at the agenda didn’t reveal anything controversial, and my sense was that it should be a pretty crisp meeting. Boy, was I wrong.

It doesn’t matter how fair and balanced I try to be with this one. I’m bummed that our most critical local government function went all Humpty Dumpty.

If you could see her through my eyes…” Cabaret

Let’s go to the video tape…

It might be a good idea for every Director, Staff  member and public speaker to watch the entire 4 hours and thirty-nine minutes of this session so they can see what we the people see from the audience.  It could  offer some insights as to where behavioral changes might result in a better, more productive and positive collaborative enterprise.

HERE’S A LINK TO THE REPLAY

So why the long face?

After thinking about it for a few days I’ve come to the belief that the behaviors exhibited in the meetings are more the result of issues that take place outside the Vet’s Hall, and build to a point that explode during a public meeting.  Let’s start with Public Comment. It seems like it has become a game of dueling speakers. One gets up to speak negatively about the Board, the staff, and actions taken or not taken. The next speaker gets up to defend the board, the staff and actions taken or not taken. It’s like a slow game of tennis, but you get to sit down after each stroke.

It took me a while to figure out what one speaker was talking about. Survey equipment or surveillance equipment?  A man with a dog? Two men in hazmat vests? Routine surveillance? What is this, an episode of the X Files? Photographic evidence showed surveyor’s levels, but no surveillance equipment. Or hazmat vests. Or a pickup truck. Or the man on the grassy knoll. Weird, but definitely the CSD’s fault. I’m still not sure what that was all about, or why it was an issue for the Board.

The interaction between the General Manager and Citizen Dickason was embarrassing. It went from Jerry Gruber to Jerry Springer, with both sides hitting  the “I DON’T TRUST YOU!!!!!  WELL I DON”T TRUST YOU EITHER!!!!! duet like veteran community theater actors.

New Direction?

With the elevation of Director Rice, I expected that there would be some differences in how the meetings would be run.  Community members have expressed unhappiness over the length of the meetings. President Rice on several occasions stated that she would like to see them take less time. In her first full meeting with the gavel, she brought this baby in at a crisp four hours and thirty-nine minutes plus a few seconds. There was much shifting from side to side in the folding chairs. A good chunk of time was spent on President Rice going through her proposed goals and objectives for the coming year. Perhaps a review of the meeting recording could help her identify where clear thought and word economy might move things forward at a more reasonable pace.

There seemed to be a marked change on how dialog around public comment would be handled. The combination of Brown Act requirements and CCSD Bylaws set a general framework for allowable interaction. Directors have the option of giving short responses to speaker questions, and to ask short questions of the speaker for clarity or amplification. In past meetings these exchanges were few, and generally brief. In this session, debates seemed to break out all over the place, and, in several instances, Directors had terse exchanges with speakers, the audience and each other.

New President

On multiple occasions the President made what I consider to be inappropriate or poorly thought out comments to the General Manager. Putting aside the battle between GM Gruber and Citizen Dickason, I was stunned by the way President Rice handled two issues.

I am of the mind that an employee, no matter how high they are in the organization, should not be dressed down, have their competence questioned or otherwise undermined in a public meeting by a Board Director or Officer.

The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, But in ourselves, that we are underlings.”    From The Tragedy of Julius Caesar by William Shakespeare

Additionally, it is, in my view, inappropriate for a Director, let alone the Board President, to publicly accuse or imply that a business or organization doing work with the CCSD is behaving unethically.  The comments by President Rice and Director Farmer in relation to the CDM Smith task orders were painful to hear, and based on my experience, reflected a real lack of understanding of how projects like the Sustainable Water Facility are managed.  Consulting firms do not exist to do favors – heck, they would go out of business pretty quickly if they gave away their services.  These services have real value, and require real work by real people with deep expertise to achieve complex objectives.  The whole process of designing and executing a complex technical project demands clear requirements and deliverables; it also requires a robust change -management methodology, which covers expanded requirements, changes to project scope, additional services required (time, materials, expertise, support…).  The methodology usually outlines what steps are to be taken to define the  scope of any change, why the change is needed, who is responsible for the change, and what costs, if any, are projected to be required for the change.  To have public officials imply that the consulting firm is acting in bad faith – “they know we have this money…” is not cool.  Telling the General Manager that you think he did a poor job in negotiating the changes is at a minimum in poor taste and shows a real lack of leadership.  Comparing the execution of the complex project to building a house, and telling the consultant tough – the rest of the work will be on their dime – may seem like a popular posture but is actually pretty ignorant.

What good is sitting alone in your room… Cabaret

Some suggestions

General Manager Gruber expressed the desire to file requests for information from all of the agencies he believes are being hectored by members of the community.  He has stated a belief that the impact to the staffs of these agencies, including the CSD, is significant in cost and operational effectiveness.  He also stated that these constant filings (and other contacts) are seriously undermining the reputation and credibility of the District.  He also believes some of these efforts are deliberate tactics by some groups to cause the SWF project to fail.

OK, if these assertions are true, I would support an effort to prove them.  File the requests, collect the data, put together a process to translate these situations into real costs – with some reasonable calculations that would give the Board and the community a fair sense of the size and impact of these issues.  If it turns out that they do, in fact, have a measurable impact on the District, it should be reported on, just like a failed piece of equipment, an infrastructure emergency, a vehicle replacement or any other expense or activity that impacts the District’s ability to do business.

And, if this all proves out, what action could or should be taken to address the specific identified problems?  Will the individuals or groups found to drive these problems change their views and alter their behaviors?  Based on initial reactions over the last few months that these charges have been surfacing, I doubt it.  Will the information galvanize the community to apply their voices in an effort to persuade?  Maybe, but to what effect?  Will the Board find a way to better dialog and support their responsibilities, or will they as individuals continue to root with their core constituents?    Based on this last meeting I have my doubts…

Come into the light

It is one thing for members of the community to make accusations of corruption, malfeasance, collusion, secret meetings and other nefarious goings on by Board members.  It is quite another to hear sitting Board members make similar veiled accusations against their colleagues, the firms that the CSD does business with, and other businesses and concerns in town.

If someone has an accusation to make – make it.  Publicly.  With facts.  Data.  Names. Specific actions or events.  Stop with the passive-aggressive, air-quote “many people are saying” type of nonsense.  Put it out there and be ready to prove it.  Save the suspicions, conspiracy theories and “alternative facts” for a different forum.  Decide if you want to be a grown up who takes the facts as they come or a partisan who takes the facts that they favor.

Make the meeting rules clear and stick to them.

Demand respectful behavior from everyone.

Correct errors and misinformation in a crisp, factual way.  When a speaker repeats false information – like how many hours CSD employees work – provide the data that clearly ends the debate.

Figure out a way to get the tough conversations done before or after a public meeting. Solve the conflicts before they hit the meeting floor.

It’s like raaa-aiiiiin on your meeting day…”

badly heard Alanis Morrisette lyric

Have a meter

One of the interesting things about attending the meeting twice was the opportunity to see it from different perspectives.  I generally sit in the last row so I can see, hear and observe the whole room.  Watching the replay gave me different views of the proceedings, and offered a few chuckles.

Watching the speakers queue up for their shot at the podium reminded me of shoppers looking for the fastest line at Costco.

Listening to a citizen address the Board and mention how a Director spent some time looking at his phone at the last meeting.  Watching the same citizen sitting in the audience reading the newspaper as other matters were discussed.

Having a citizen proclaim that the General Manager should be fired for his exchange with a speaker, and then stating that his assertions of harrassment were based on hearsay.  The citizen then continued with ” I heard it wasn’t even her… I heard it was someone else.”  uh, using hearsay to attack hearsay?  Have a meter!

hearsay – noun
  1. information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor.
    irony

We The People

18 Sunday Dec 2016

Posted by in Cambria CCSD, Community Involvement, Local politics, Searching for Cambria's Reality, Words matter

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Community

The period between Thanksgiving and New Year is one of increasing activity for everyone. In Cambria, that includes such traditional events as Hospitality Night, Friends of The Fiscalini Ranch “Songs For The Season” Fundraiser, the opening of the Cambria Christmas Market (which I believe can be seen from space) and Cambria Center For The Arts Theater’s delightful production of “It’s A Wonderful Life”, which is open to all free of charge. The weather is cooling, the shops are looking festive and the line at the Post Office has begun to double back on itself as holiday greetings arrive and depart and packages are lugged in and hauled out. The rotating faces of the homeless stationed outside remind me that we still have a way to go to make the season a little brighter for everyone.

Cambrians are many things, but at the top of that list sit the twin sisters of Kindness and Generosity. We may grumble a bit as we dig a little deeper to pay our water bill, but that grumbling doesn’t even think about making an appearance when we reach again for that ten or twenty dollars to hand to the volunteers lining the driveway circling the Vet’s Hall every time a community member is faced with a difficult and often tragic situation. The sudden unexpected loss of a beloved community member draws a congregation to mourn together, remember together and celebrate a life well lived, together. People truly care about each other around here; as good as it is, it ain’t the spaghetti that draws a crowd.

The community demonstrates caring in other ways, most visibly in the political process. There are thousands of people in the community, and a really impressive number participated in the recent election, with a registered voter participation rate in the neighborhood of 87%. The run-up to election day was crowded with candidate forums, small gatherings at citizen’s homes, discussions at the Farmer’s Market and everywhere people would meet. Everyone had an opinion, a favored candidate, and carried a burning platform. Lines were drawn, sides taken, divisions hardened. But really, how deep did the divide go? My guess is that there are a handful of diehards on every side, a larger number adjacent, and an even larger number right in the neutral zone; not uncaring, not uninvolved, not ambivalent. Just people who kept their humanity standing in front of their partisanship. It was pretty noisy, and kind of ugly at times, but we all had our chance to speak with our votes.

No Electoral College Needed

With the election behind us, I looked ahead to the December Board meeting, where the newly elected and re-elected Directors would take their seats at the podium.

One major item needed to be addressed at the top of the session – electing the President and Vice President who would lead the Board in the upcoming year. This was an event eagerly anticipated by much of the community, and there was a lot of energy around the topic in the weeks between the election and the session. As with many things, there was a lack of clarity as to how the process actually works. Many believed that there was a rotational policy, where the officers would rotate through their terms. A subset of this belief was that the sitting VP (assuming re-election or in this case, continuation of his elected term) would become president, and a new Vice President was to be elected. Others believed that everybody got a turn with the gavel. Many felt that it was only fair that a sitting Director who had served a full term, but who had not been given a turn in either position was “due”. This viewpoint had some additional merit since this Director was the top vote-getter in this election, as well as in her previous run.

Where’s the Rulebook?

I remembered a bit of a conversation I had with one of the Directors earlier in the year, and I believed I had a good understanding of the “rules” surrounding this process. I wanted to be sure I had it right, so I sent an email to the Directors and asked for clarification of the rules, and for any “color” they might want to add.

My Email: “I’m doing a bit of research for my next piece and was hoping you all could give me your quick view on the nomination and election of Board execs – President and Vice President.  There seems to be some confusion in the community about how that process works.  My understanding from what I’ve read and heard is that there is no official rule/policy/bylaw that mandates a change in officers.  There is a section on the CSD Website that says officers are chosen every year, but nothing that says “new” officers must be chosen. I’m trying to clearly separate the issues -what is “REQUIRED” versus what is “Past Practice” versus what is “Fair.”  There is a perception in some parts of the community that everybody should get a turn with the gavel; some believe that it is a requirement, others believe that is a customary practice, others believe it is a position that is earned.  So my simple (!) question – what is the current governing rule/regulation/bylaw that determines how these positions are filled? If you care to add any “color” to the response that would be helpful.”

 Within two days I received independent responses from Directors Sanders, Thompson and Rice. They agreed on the facts, and also gave some interesting background. They all agreed I could share their feedback.

 Greg Sanders: “Michael – the CCSD Board of Directors By-Laws, duly adopted by the Board, are very clear on the subject.  Section 1.4 of the By-Laws states as follows:

“The President and Vice President of the Board shall be elected annually at the first regular meeting in December and the term of office shall commence immediately upon election and continue until replaced.” 

That is the only provision of the By-Laws pertaining to the election of the President and Vice-President of the Board.  There is nothing in the By-Laws regarding rotation, etc. The Board is free to use any criteria it chooses to select a Board President and Vice-President.  The Board could, for example, decide immediately following an election that a candidate receiving the most votes should be selected as the President.  Or, the Board could choose to ignore the election and select a President and Vice-President on the basis of some other criteria, or no criteria at all.

He also added some historical perspective: In my service on the Board… there has been no particular pattern followed.  I served back-to-back terms as President of the Board in 2009 and 2010.  The Board wanted continuity at a time when some very significant issues were under consideration.  When I served from 2002-2010, Don Villeneuve, a fellow Board member, did not serve at any time as President.  As I recall, he did not serve as Vice President, either.  He resigned in 2008 (or thereabouts).

In my experience, selection of a Board President and Vice-President has been based on exigencies.  Ilan Funke-Bilu served as either Board President or Vice –President when the District was involved in litigation with Chevron Corp. over MTBE contamination of the Santa Rosa Creek aquifer.  He conducted most of the negotiations with Chevron.  Having a leadership position enhanced his position vis-à-vis Chevron.”

Mike Thompson: “Good afternoon Michael—-To avoid any possible Brown Act violation, I won’t cc any of the other individuals you queried. You are correct in assuming that there is no official rule/policy/bylaw regarding Board elections. The only requirement is the ability to count to three…in other words, it takes two members besides yourself to gain election. Last year Gail indicated a desire to continue in the chair to see through the process of applying for the permanent permit for the SWF. I and two others felt that was in the best interest of the District. In the recent past, Greg Sanders was President for two consecutive terms, so there is precedence.”

Amanda Rice: “The way boards choose their officers has always struck me as kind of an awkward situation, primarily due to Brown act restrictions about talking to other directors about certain business items. I can’t, for instance, talk to directors to try and find out if there’s a consensus about who should be president or vice president. There is no rule or law that requires the officers to ever change; as long as somebody is in office they can serve as president or vice president.

Besides there being nothing specific about “how” officers are rotated, there is nothing that bestows any additional powers or authorities to any individual board member, whether they are president, vice president or non-officer directors. The bylaws give the president the job of chairing… the meetings and to the vp in the president’s absence.

Amanda then added some interesting color: “Last year the bylaws were amended to give the president some additional authority:

  1. Designates or acts as a spokesperson for the board and a point person for gov’t relations.
  2. Makes appointments to all committees subject to board approval.
  3. May add an item to the agenda without the same required board majority of other directors. Can also approve the request of another director to add an item to the agenda, even without board majority.

The bylaws were also changed so that the general manager developed the agenda in cooperation with the president and vice president. Previously, the bylaws stated that the executive committee worked with the general manager to put together the agenda.

The bottom line is this – with the approval of the majority of the board, our bylaws give the president additional control of the direction of the board and therefore, of the district. I disagreed with the changes then. I disagree with them now. But they are the bylaws that I abide by as a director.”

So, one official bylaw.  No official “Rule.”  All for an office that has “no special power” except when it does.  Got it?  Good!

It was a blustery day in the hundred acre wood.
Fortunately, Pooh's thoughtful spot was in a sheltered 
place. Now he sat down and tried hard to think of 
something.
Winnie the Pooh: Think... think... think...
Gopher: Say, what's wrong, sonny? Got yourself a 
headache?
Winnie the Pooh: No, I was just thinking.
Gopher: That so? What about?
Winnie the Pooh: I... Oh, bother! You made me forget.

The Big Moment 

I was a few minutes late due to the big ass rainstorm that picked the right day to show up. Despite the weather, the Vet’s Hall was packed with people eager to have their voices heard. There was a lot of great energy in the joint – not all positive of course; I got the sense that many of the attendees were staunch supporters of Amanda Rice, and they were not convinced the Board would honor their wish and select her as the new president. And so we begin.

Vice President Thompson did an “LBJ’, indicating he would not accept if nominated and would not serve if elected. Newly elected Director Harry Farmer, in his best “slow-jamming the news” voice, nominated Amanda Rice to fill the office of President. Wild applause from the audience! Discussion followed. Director Jim Bahringer spoke. He said that the politically easy thing for him to do would be to support Amanda, but in his view Director Greg Sanders would be a better choice to lead the Board, given the circumstances and work to be done over the next year. He felt Amanda should be Vice President this year, and President in 2018. This did not go over very well with the attendees. Public comment was fiery, with pointed and passionate comments along with a reading of the will – of the people who signed a petition calling for Amanda’s ascension, complete with the petitioner’s written comments. The nomination was defeated 3-2. Director Bahringer then nominated Greg Sanders and Amanda Rice for President and Vice President. More discussion, with Director Rice giving her reasoning as to why she would be the right choice for President. More cries from the people, lots of angry faces, fully expecting their hopes for change to be crushed.

A vote was called on the Sanders/Rice ticket. Monique straightened her Christmas sweater and called the roll:

Director Bahringer – NO.

Director Sanders – NO.

Vice President Thompson – NO.

Director Rice – NO.

Director Farmer – NOOOOO.

What? WOW!!!!! He voted against his own nomination!?!? This was really fascinating – a ripped-from-the-pages of a political thriller screenplay. I scanned the room for Aaron Sorkin. He wasn’t there, so I scanned the room for Aaron Wharton, who also wasn’t there. No matter – the drama continued.

Director Bahringer then immediately nominated Director Rice for President. Monique, now at the edge of her seat, again called the roll. The vote – 5-0. Amanda was President. She immediately nominated Greg Sanders for Vice President. Again Monique cheerfully called the roll – again 5-0. The CCSD Board of Directors was ready to go.

Fast Forward

I know Kathe Tanner will report on the important discussions that followed, but I want to comment on the last Agenda item. A compensation increase for selected members of the CSD staff was put before the Board for a vote. The increase would be given in two steps in 2017. A 5.5% increase in January, a second 5.5% in June. At first blush an 11% increase is attention-grabbing and cause for serious discussion. The General Manager went through the reasoning behind the proposal, with one of the key points being very compelling to me. Over the last several years staffing levels have been reduced, with several positions eliminated and the attendant duties added to the responsibilities of the employees under discussion. So these positions carry more responsibility, and in my mind additional compensation should be given.

I understand arguing against the increases on financial grounds. I was distressed to hear that some members of the board and the public had views that were less than sensitive, culminating in a public comment that the employees “should be grateful they have a job.”

I continue to be confounded by the people who, in earlier public comment railed against the staff for not delivering information they have demanded (demands that add additional workload and are a time drain on an already overburdened team) are the same people who, in the same meeting, cried out loudly for “fairness” and  “doing the right thing” in the election of the Board President would speak so forcefully against showing “fairness” and “doing the right thing” for the employees who give more than what is reasonable in service to the community.

The board did the right thing and approved the compensation.

Happy Holidays.

 

 

Voices, Votes and Values

18 Friday Nov 2016

Posted by in Cambria CCSD, Community Involvement, Local politics, Searching for Cambria's Reality, Words matter

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

Random thought of the day

I don’t know about you guys, but I can’t think of anything more exciting than magnificent pictures of water treatment infrastructure – especially motors and pumps. Can I get an AMEN!!!???  It’s clear the General Manager embraces the old adage “a picture is worth a thousand words” but I’m not sure we need the pictures and the thousand words! No wonder the meetings run so long!

Signs

Many words have passed among the community during the run-up to the November 8th election. In addition to the fate of the free world being decided, there was also a Presidential selection that needed to be made. Our fine candidates for the CCSD Board did their best to get their messages out to the voters, making themselves available for discussion. The Farmer’s market was a popular spot to get face time with all of them. It was kind of interesting to see them standing a few feet away from each other – close enough to ask each other a question or have a quick discussion as a group, with constituents right there to participate in an informal, open air way. That could have been an opportunity to build a dialog that would continue beyond Election Day, regardless of the outcome. Sigh; a boy can dream…

I did a quick spin through the market looking for the purveyor of the magic beans that yielded the millions of colorful campaign signs that sprang up everywhere around the town. That must have been some feat of seed engineering to have them all grow with different colors and names.

October Scarcecrows

Speaking of hybrids, the October CCSD Board meeting was held at 4:00 pm. Not the traditional 12:30 pm nor the requested 6:00 pm, but a compromise time that seemed to make neither a major or minor difference in attendance. By my count, there were 16 attendees, excluding board, staff and speakers. Of the 16, 4 were non-incumbent candidates. One of those guys was there to speak on a different subject. So 25% of the audience had to be there. We were missing some of the regulars, but were joined for a while by an interesting fellow who shared some of his thoughts during public comment. Although his political views and personal belief systems were certainly different, he was given a free and equal opportunity to speak. He may have been humming “Don’t Stand So Close To Me” because he was met by 3 members of the police.

The meeting was fairly low-key, with a very good presentation on the new town park that is being designed and implemented in what seems to be sensible and well thought out phases. Good job!

The Town Engineer then shared some very interesting information on an issue that had risen (floated?) to the top. Sharp-eyed and focused community members had noticed significant differences in the amount of water pumped versus the amount of water that was accounted for – either through meter counts, known allotments for special contracts, and/or testing. The initial numbers that raised the alarm were significant, and demanded investigation and explanation. The Engineer came prepared with updated data and explanations for the numbers. Coincidentally, he was in the process of going through training on the required methods of auditing and reporting on water usage. He was freshly armed with tools and processes that would help get a handle on the issue. His initial findings told us that the numbers used in the preliminary report were unaudited and inaccurate. After putting things in the right framework, the data revealed a much more manageable loss. It is not where it needs to be, but the corrected numbers and better processes will be used to set a strategy of continuous improvement. My takeaway is that it will be several months until the process is refined to a point where everyone can at least agree on the data and the technical teams can implement plans to attack water loss on multiple fronts.

By the end of the meeting we were down to 2 attendees – me and Dewayne Lee. It took a few minutes to get the circulation back into our legs, but dammit, we survived!

Election day, and the winners are…

Voter turnout was beyond impressive with over 79.5% of registered voters casting ballots. That, my friends is an engaged electorate, and underscores the level of passion in our community.

With such a large turnout in Cambria as well as the rest of San Luis Obispo County, ballot counting has taken longer than anyone expected. As of today two of the incumbents – Amanda Rice and Greg Sanders – have comfortable margins and, barring a major change, should be returned to the board. The third seat is unsettled, with incumbent Board President Gail Robinette enjoying a slender 14 vote lead over surprise challenger Harry Farmer. That order quickly changed as the next round of ballot counting put Harry in the lead. As of last count his lead stands at 23 votes. With around 386 ballots left to be counted, this one might be finalized by the weekend. I can’t imagine how stressful this is for the candidates and their supporters. Regardless of who wins the final seat, I hope all the passionate supporters maintain their sense of propriety. I don’t want to see any rowdy protests in the West Village; no angry chants of “Not My Board President.”

November already

The business of governance continued with the November CCSD Board meeting. This session was held at the traditional time of 12:30 pm, and citizen attendance was really light. I guess everyone was spent from all that voting. If I didn’t include myself, I could count the attendees on one hand. Literally. The room was crowded with members of the Water and Wastewater teams, who were recognized for their contributions to the community. It was nice to put faces to names, and to see them receive recognition from the community. (They all wore blue shirts – but nobody told them they had to leave!)

There was another speaker (also wearing a blue shirt) who gave an update on upcoming events that support the SLO County homeless population. The General Manager’s report (including pumps and motors pix) was followed by an interesting discussion around a request to extend a Franchise Agreement with Mission Country Disposal for Solid Waste Disposal Management. The request was for an extension of 20 years (and possibly more) and is linked to the build and management of a state of the art plant that would process materials not suitable for landfills. I will leave the real explanation to the experts – including our local reporter Kathe Tanner, who pays way more attention to the details than I do.

Finally, a discussion around a compensation increase for the Finance Manager sparked good discussion among the board. They are challenged with balancing the realities of hiring and retaining qualified employees with sensible financial oversight. After a healthy discussion, the motion to approve the compensation was passed by a 4-1 vote, with Director Rice the dissenting vote. Her objection was based on fiscal concerns; she was very clear about her appreciation for the employee and his value to the community.

During the public comment periods, a returning regular exercised her right to freely complain about actions and inactions taken and not taken by the board, and treated each member with equal disrespect, eschewing the more respectful title of Director, or even Mr. or Ms. And used their first names as she went over her allotted time. I guess when you’re a real activist the rules of time don’t apply, and the simple courtesies are only to be expected from the board members who are attacked. I am a pretty mellow guy, and I can’t remember the last time I came close to losing my temper in public. I came really close today, but decided that I would let magnanimity carry the day.

Serenity now!!!

The Final Frontier

01 Tuesday Nov 2016

Posted by in Cambria CCSD, Community Involvement, Local politics, Searching for Cambria's Reality, Uncategorized, Words matter

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , ,

Finally!

After many weeks of missed opportunities I was finally able to coordinate schedules with incumbent Board President Gail Robinette. We had previously agreed to meet but due mostly to my lack of follow-up that meeting never got scheduled. We picked a date and time, and agreed to meet at the Coffee Den on Main Street. Realizing that our appointment was late in the morning, I went ahead and made my own whole wheat toast.

When Gail arrived, we ordered coffee and then discussed where we would have our conversation. It was at this moment I became aware of “THE VAN”. I’d heard talk of this vehicle, often in whispered tones, voices unsure what was behind the sliding door. Walls lined with maps, charts and satellite recon pictures of the greater Cambria area? Multiple screens linked to cameras secreted in scarecrows around town? Rows of textbooks, notebooks and coloring books? Amway? I was all atwitter, nearly spilling my small regular coffee on my blue shirt.

Space…

Gail swung the Starship Robinette into a corner space, opened the door and invited me in. My mouth was dry. My legs a bit weak, Voice a mere rasp. Yes, my cold still lingered. I wasn’t going to give up, though. I had carried on through post-meeting high noon encounters and Farmer’s Market debates, all the while trying to stay upright. Now, with the secrets of “The Van” about to be revealed, I reached down for that last reserve of Robitussin and stepped in. And it was…

Very nice! Thoughtfully equipped, sensibly laid out, comfortably appointed. Practical, low-key and designed to maximize the space. Detail was everywhere, but not in a flashy or attention-seeking way. The van was neither Scooby nor A-Team. And it made perfect sense. Very much like Gail Robinette.

The Back Story

Our conversation was very different from the ones I had with the other candidates. Gail spent a fair amount of time sharing her journey, speaking lovingly (yet reservedly) about her memories of people who made profound impacts on her life. A second grade teacher who recognized something in this young girl, and offered the interest, encouragement and mentorship that ignited a love of learning that guided Gail’s life. It carried her through her pursuit of education and through her long career as an educator, administrator, writer and consultant. This conversation wasn’t about her public service, but about why she feels public service matters. It certainly wasn’t all about her – she asked me about my background and experiences. We shared our journeys that led us to Beautiful Cambria. Rather than a deep political discussion between candidate and writer, we got to know each other as individuals. And then two hours had gone by. Gail had to attend a long list of meetings, and I was overdue for a long slug of cough syrup. We agreed there was more to discuss, specifically around the upcoming election.

  The Sequel

We were able to reconnect the following week, again using The Starship as our conference room. The doors and window were opened – true transparency – and we dug in to the issues.

The discussion was, once again, more of an education. Gail has a long record of public service, so there isn’t much unknown about her positions and actions on key issues, nor any doubt about her support for the Sustainable Water Facility. What was helpful to me was hearing the history of how we got to the current situation.

Gail went deep, sharing examples of meetings, workshops, reviews, and conferences that included citizens, environmentalists, urban planners, disaster management professionals and government agencies – a laundry list of participants you would want involved when you are seeking the best possible solutions. Gail noted each participating agency and when they engaged – making me question much of what I hear from those who claim that the CSD has ignored or avoided those same agencies. She hit all the decision points while highlighting the methods used to keep the public informed and involved.

Warp Speed

With time again growing tight, we moved a bit more quickly through a few topics that I saw as important. First, I asked her the same thing I asked all the incumbents – her perception of how the Board operates as a team. She was very thoughtful, and honest. She believes that overall they work fairly well together, though there are issues and events that can and do cause some stress. She sees beyond the conflict and looks for ways to navigate through the tough and sometimes contentious discussions to get to reasonable solutions. She is a firm believer that her role as President is to help find those solutions. She also stresses that every Director’s vote carries equal weight. Her approach to reasoned and inclusive problem solving is a reflection of her life philosophy; stay calm, stay positive and stay focused.

I asked her about the water wait list.  Specifically the oft-stated opinion that it is loaded with people looking to make windfalls from selling when water connections are made, her own lot that sits in the queue, and the idea that she should recuse herself from any decisions that might result in personal benefit. Her response is clear – if people bought lots with the sole goal of making a big return, well perhaps they weren’t very good investors; she points to the long years of paying and waiting with no clear end in sight. As to her own position, Gail simply states that she has spent a good amount of her own money to look into the issue, and feels confident that her actions are legal, ethical and in no way affect how she acts and votes on water issues.

On public trust, transparency and communication Gail acknowledges the balancing act she and her fellow Directors face as they do their jobs. Gail believes (as do each of the candidates I’ve spoken with) that there is a need for continued dialog and information exchanges between the CCSD and the community. She supports more positive community involvement, including an appropriate use of standing committees as a method of collaboration and governance.

When it comes to individual dialog, Gail was pretty frank. She frequently meets with members of the community, and welcomes any opportunity to listen to input and feedback. She takes it a step farther then anyone else has so far. She is not interested in meeting with someone who has the intent of harassing or causing deliberate disruption or intimidation. She respects the community, but her experience has shown her that there are sometimes those who approach with less than good intent. It was a bit sobering to hear that, and to read between the lines – a read that leaves me with the impression that she has experienced things in her public service that give her reason to be vigilant. Food for thought.

Epilogue

Another two hours had flown by, and we wrapped up and said our goodbyes. Gail energized the transporter and beamed me back to Main Street. Thinking back on our time together, I don’t know that I learned anything policy-wise that I didn’t already know about Gail Robinette, CCSD Board President and Candidate for Re-Election. I did learn a whole lot about Gail Robinette, teacher, leader and peaceful warrior for the community she loves and serves.

A pretty good episode!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well that was quick!

25 Saturday Jun 2016

Posted by in Cambria CCSD, Community Involvement, Local politics

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

Summertime, and the meeting was easy…

The June 23rd meeting of the CCSD Board was a fairly quick-moving, less hostile and positive session.  With two of the five Directors away on vacation, the discussions and reviews at the Big Kid’s table went 40% quicker.  In the audience, attendance was lighter than normal, and those who spoke during public comment kept (mostly) to the three-minute limit.

That’s not to say it was all hugs and kisses, but it did start out that way.  After a year of transition the Cambria Fire Department officially swore in a new Fire Chief.  William Hollingsworth, a long-serving member of the Department was joined by his family and representatives from other Fire Services.  He received a warm, heartfelt ovation from all of us in attendance – a nice moment where the community rose together to congratulate a fellow citizen and wish him well.  As the baton was passed, Cal Fire Battalion Chief Eric Shalhoub shared his thoughts on his time as interim leader of the Cambria Fire Department.  He spoke with great admiration for the members of the Fire Department, and noted how every member of the service is devoted to the protecting community. He also noted how supportive and involved the CSD Board and Staff had been during the transition period.  Chief Shalhoub took time away from his duties fighting the Sherpa fire to be at this meeting.  Leadership.

Calling all cars…

The monthly report from the Sheriff’s department was a combination of shifts and giggles, as the Commander offered some color commentary on several criminal activities that occurred in and around Cambria.  It felt at times like a conversation around the table at Creekside (where great pancakes are born) rather than an official report – and that isn’t a criticism.  The Commander gave an update on what the Sheriff’s office was doing to address the recent increase of crimes in the area; he provided specifics on additional budgeted staffing,  alternate policing methods including bike patrols through town, and an increased ability to reduce response times in the overnight hours.  Overall a good, solid complete update, except for one small detail – nobody checked to see if one particular gadfly was in the room during the report.  So of course said gadfly rose during public comment demanding answers about what was being done to address the increase in crime.  A perfectly timed pause, looks of disbelief shared among some attendees, and then in a nice display of civility the Board President invited the Commander back to the podium to give his presentation again.  You know, so nobody would feel like they were not informed.

Less is more… (aggravating)

The meeting continued on, and a representative from Balance Communications (a consultancy engaged to help the Board and Staff navigate the political landscape of Sacramento) provided an update on activities and progress since the last meeting.  The contract with the consultancy is not viewed positively by a part of the community, and these updates are often met with negative comments from the public. One of the main criticisms has been the lack of detailed results in place of general bullet points.  In the case of this particular presentation I would have to agree – not a lot there and the presenter did not seem well-versed in the detail.

It’s complicated…

For those not familiar with Cambria’s complex and often confusing issues around water, property ownership, and growth – well I’m probably not the best guy to explain it.

If I could simply describe the situation it would be:

  • Water – always a precious resource, made more so by the brutal multi-year drought that is changing the landscape of California.  Unless you don’t believe that – then it’s just a puzzle piece being used by big developers to gain control of the area.  (Based on the recent events in the larger county there may be some bits of truth in that viewpoint.)
  • Growth – maintaining Cambria as it is versus managed, limited growth versus not so managed and not so limited growth versus Cambria as Carmel South.  This issue contains several subcategories including environmental, cultural, economic and isolationist positions.  It’s here where you get to really see the rich diversity in this small community.
  • Trust – it seems that nobody trusts anyone outside their defined “group”, and nobody trusts the CCSD!

Nothing is simple or straightforward.  Every  issue or challenge has to be viewed in a larger context. Everyone weighs in, from the alphabet of committees, governing authorities, permitting agencies, policies, commissions, ad hoc committees, judicial reviews, citizen’s advocacy groups, local and regional media outlets, environmentalists, scientists, engineers, politicians, developers,  – sorry, my keyboard just overheated.  Let’s just say it is a complicated stew topped with a healthy dose of passion sauce. This is the landscape the CCSD Board and Staff has to navigate.  Partially lush and lovely, partially barren and forbidding, pockets of unstable ground surrounded by hostiles waiting for an opportunity to pounce. Lots of toxicity waiting to be unleashed.  Everyone is an expert or an idiot.  An enemy or an ally.  On one side of the fence or the other – and by the way that fence better have a valid permit, mister!

OK, we got this...

To manage these intertwined issues the Board has to tread carefully and make decisions that are in the best interests of the community.  In the case of allowing new water and sewer hookups it gets more tricky.  There are policies in place that under “normal” conditions would allow a number of new connections per year.  Under current drought conditions – and a declared Stage 3 Emergency, the rules become much more restrictive.  Add to that the governance around the use of the recently built, newly-rebranded “Sustainable Water Facility” which was originally presented as an Emergency Water Supply and is still going through the lengthy and very necessary Environmental Impact Review, replete with legal challenges and conflict over who the governing authority is in the process and decision-making becomes an exercise in going down The Rabbit Hole (which must remain undisturbed and preserved for generations of Board Members to fall down in the future.)  Now, refer to the issues above, sprinkle in advocates for each, and try to solve the puzzle.  Yelling “Off with their heads” is optional.  Not very productive, perhaps but kind of fun.

One Two Three kick…

An agenda item that would highlight the complexity of this situation was wisely deferred until the August meeting, when there might be more clarity around the status of the Declared Stage 3 Drought Emergency, which would then inform the discussion around new hookups.  In public comment there was some grumbling about the decision, which to my thinking provides an opportunity for the Directors to get ahead of the game and put together a simple 1 or 2 page document that would outline the issue, the potential resolutions, the impacts of those resolutions, and the factors to be used to make a determination.  This could go a long way towards building a better dialog.

  • The community would have the same set of facts that the Board is using to deliberate and decide.
  • People will be able to do their own research based on the same set of facts the Board is using.
  • People will be able to provide input based on a common understanding of the facts.
  • Misinformation can be identified and rectified.
  • The community will be better informed and can provide input prior to the meeting.
  • The Board will have a better sense of how members of the community view the issue.

I think this would fall under the definition of transparency.

Finally…

After much spirited community discussion a revised Employment Agreement for the General Manager was presented for review and action.  The contract was stripped of many of the original items, reducing it to a simple agreement that provided the General Manager with a 6% increase.  The revision addressed the major points that had caused such agita for some in the community.  Along with that it also stripped out a lot of the mutual benefits the original proposal contained, but none the less the contract was agreed to by the Board and the GM.

Public comment on this issue was interesting.  Three citizens rose and spoke in support of the GM, citing their experiences working with him across a range of issues and highlighting the progress that has been made under his administration.  The three spoke in rational, measured and respectful tones.  Opponents of the General Manager approached it differently, with comments referencing a mess of an article from an online source to excerpts from emails obtained through Freedom of Information requests that according to the speaker proved that the current GM was unfit to serve.  Well, ok then…

When we walked out of the Vet’s Hall after the meeting the sun was still shining, birds were still chirping, traffic was still humming up and down Main Street, and we all had the opportunity to go on with our lives, free and safe for another two months.  As they say on the television – “until next time!”

 

 

 

Something in action…

29 Friday Apr 2016

Posted by in Cambria CCSD, Community Involvement

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , ,

THOUGHTS FROM THE BACK OF THE ROOM

I try to attend Cambria Community Services District (CCSD) meetings whenever I can, either in person or through the live webcast provided through SLO-SPAN.org or through replays of previous meetings which are archived and available for viewing when time permits.

I’ve formed some impressions over the last few years – impressions of the Board, impressions of the issues, impressions of the CSD staff, and impressions of the community members who attend and participate on a regular basis, and members of the community who attend and participate when issues or events important to them are teed up for discussion.

The meeting that was held today, April 28th, had all the makings of a classic. A portion of the community, fueled by a series of communications that included official CCSD agenda packages, news reports from various sources, and most interestingly and impactful – Social Media. An amalgam of information – some accurate, some speculative, some clearly packaged to incite fervor, some innocently containing errors, and a whole lot of opinions, quickly formed and made larger through the immediacy of response that social media provides. There was some thoughtful discussion, serious probing questions and answers, and a huge amount of what I see as childish, mean-spirited and increasingly ugly personal attacks that turned an individual into the devil on earth. The game was 21st century telephone, where the story morphed slightly with every comment, where every number became a “fact”, where every theory became the gods-honest-truth, where every random statistic, report, website, and snippet of a news story was concatenated into a narrative that might make a great daytime TV show. A different viewpoint became a reason to throw down personal challenges. Opposite positions turned into “agendas.”

The meeting time drew close. The crowds gathered, folks engaging in serious-looking discussions. Handouts, binders, tablets and notepads flashed and bounced as last minute changes, questions, and speaking points were finalized. 30 minutes before the start of the meeting the library across the street was busy with folks researching, copying and preparing for their turn at the podium. I know because I was sitting there trying to get some work done!

The local television station’s logo appeared on a small SUV. Exciting! A general assignment reporter set up her gear, snagging interviews outside the Vet’s hall. Then, inside for more interviews, including a short session with two Board Members. Local print media was, as always front and center, ready to document the meeting. In addition to the beat reporter, the paper’s editor was also in attendance. I don’t know if there were other media representatives in the house, but I’m pretty sure there were a few of us “citizen journalists” in the audience.

I use that term semi-seriously as I don’t have an editor looking over my work and applying the scrutiny and standards of fairness and accuracy traditional media sources are supposed to follow. I say supposed, because just about every media report I’ve seen has contained either factual errors, blatant “spin”, or heavily unbalanced reporting that did not fairly represent the “whole story.” Even the TV reporter got a major fact wrong in her report on the 6 pm news. This whole paragraph represents this new blend of journalism – a mix of fact, opinion and spin that makes this my citizen journalist story, and not a professional journalist story. But still…

DEMOCRACY AT WORK.

Showtime!

The meeting was late getting started, as the Board President delayed the gavel in order to allow latecomers to arrive and settle in. Everyone expected the session to be contentious. After all, the reason for much of the passion revolved around something that gets the blood to boiling. Money, or more accurately compensation. A proposed employment contract for the General Manager was on the agenda and it had folks seeing red. Both literally and figuratively. Red ink dripping onto a community that has been under the pressure of increased rates for water and associated services. Red ink from significant investments in technology designed to alleviate the uncertainty of an unreliable water supply. Red – blooded rage over a proposal that would reward the General Manager with a healthy compensation package that would extend out several years. Red rage that anyone had the nerve to negotiate and accept a compensation package that reflected what he and his employers determined was competitive and fair. Red-hot emotions being stoked by other red hot emotions. That’s a lot of red!

Now, this pressure cooker might have popped but for one simple action. The Agenda item that was stoking all the passions was removed prior to the official meeting. I can speculate as to why, by I’ll just say that I believe it was pulled in response to all the red rage that was building up on social media, and probably being expressed directly or indirectly to the Board members. I personally sent the Board an email expressing my support for the General Manager and outlining why I thought the compensation package was fair. I’m sure I am not the only person on either side of the issue who wrote an email or made a phone call.

The public did get to comment, though at a much smaller level and without the full force of engagement that may have led to some closure for some parties. Maybe not – and maybe that opportunity will present itself in a future meeting.

WHY?

There are a few ways to view the Board’s decision to pull the item and kick it down the road. Perhaps, seeing and feeling the passionate response from a portion of the community, they decided that they needed to revisit the contract. Perhaps they wanted to get more input from the larger community so they could feel comfortable that they were acting based on balanced feedback. Perhaps they feared the issue would further divide and damage the community already raw from past divisions. Perhaps they just lost their courage and decided that avoidance was an easier path. I find it pretty much unbelievable that every member of the board was not fully aware of the contract, it’s conditions and impacts and the potential negative reaction from part of the community. I suppose it is possible that they all didn’t have one or more discussions of the pact as it was being negotiated, finalized and presented to the GM for agreement. I personally don’t believe that for a second, but it’s possible! I think they felt the heat, and decided to retreat. Kind of a crappy thing to do for a couple of reasons.

First, it displayed a real weakness. If the board went through the process of bringing this agreement to this stage, they should have the courage to present it, discuss it with the community, take the heat, and cast their vote publicly, as is their responsibility.

Second, it deprived the community of the opportunity to have their say. There was a lot of work put in by a lot of people who were ready, willing and able to speak plainly and publicly. This action allowed people to “declare victory” – “look at us, we made the board cave! We defeated the evil greedy so-and-so who was ripping us off and colluding with secret cabals of developer overlords…” It gave some the “evidence” they need to convict everyone of every possible crime and misdemeanor, (voiced or inferred) imaginable.

Third – it pretty much threw the General Manager under the bus. Rather than defend their decision and make their case of why they felt he deserved the proposed compensation, it left him even more vulnerable to the ugly smears and insults he has been subjected to over this issue. Hey, if the Board won’t stand behind him, he must really be awful!

Fourth, it further diminished the legitimacy and authority of the Board, and to me portrayed them as round-heeled. Push them and they fall over backward. This perception grew into a certainty as the meeting progressed, and more and more people became increasingly more disrespectful to the rules of the meeting. Audience members talking out of turn, arguing with the Board President, interrupting other speakers, and generally acting like defiant children.

I support community involvement. I applaud political and civic activism. I admire people who take a step forward and lead in times that are difficult. It takes courage to engage in public, and courage to engage out of the limelight. Truth to power and all that. I lose interest and respect for all that when it crosses the line of reasonable engagement and becomes more about the person, or the opinion. It turns from an effort to drive change and fairness to an effort to win points. Sadly, that played out during the course of this meeting, and at the end it was just about a free-for-all.

Sad.

I’ll wrap with my impressions of the Board, which came into a sharpness of focus today that I wasn’t really expecting. I think all the board members are good and decent people, and they each bring a real passion and commitment to public service. I don’t know why they do it – it is the ultimate example of a thankless job. So of course I’ll pile on with my own criticisms!

President Robinette is clearly driven by a sense of fairness, decency and order. It seems she is often treated with some degree of disrespect both by the community and her fellow Board members.

Director Bahringer seems to always be on the verge of breaking out into a swearing jag! He also tends to be a bit of a bulldog, which at times leads less than respectful behavior. He is a guy who likes to be in charge.

Director Sanders seems to be both incredibly well informed and incredibly thin-skinned. He often comes across as condescending and dismissive, which probably incites some unintended passion in community members.

Vice President Thompson – quiet. Can be overlooked, but when he does engage he seems to have his ducks aligned.

Director Rice – I used to think she was heart-on -her sleeve, deeply involved and committed to the community with a pragmatic yet hopeful outlook. After today my view has expanded to include a sense that she is more shrewd and calculated than I thought, and she is becoming more expert in managing and using the prevailing emotion on an issue.

The meeting has ended, but it is not even close to being over.

Yay democracy!