We went to every festival and Farmer's Market asking folks to tell us, "What's important to me in District 3?" Here we are in Twain Harte on a hot day in July, 2006.

Four years ago when I was running for Supervisor, I visited each community to learn what is important to you. I went to farmers markets and festivals with flip chart, colored pens, and a question: “What’s important to you in District 3?”

Since I am not running for another term as Supervisor, many of you have asked me who I am endorsing – what’s important to me? I hadn’t planned to endorse, but enough of you have asked now that I will consider doing so this week.

I apologize in advance to the candidates for the fast turnaround time. Flexibility and quick responses are great character traits for this job.

I’ve watched all three candidates carefully over the last few months to determine who might best serve you, advance projects I’m working on, and champion issues you told me are important. I like all three of of the candidates as individuals, but this potential endorsement isn’t about personality or about finding a clone.

For those of you who don’t care what I think, let me acknowledge that an endorsement from me and two bits might be worth a cup of coffee in Twain Harte or Tuolumne. An endorsement is simply my opinion that you can take or leave.

So Mr. Fulcher, Mr. Bonnot, and Mr. Royce, here’s the deal. If you would like my endorsement (and you may not), please respond via email in writing to this Supervisor at info and answer the questions below by 8 pm Tuesday, June 1st. If you are unable to respond within that time or would prefer not to be considered, I’ll understand.

I’ll evaluate your responses and announce a decision (endorsement or no recommendation) on Weds. the 2^nd. Please understand I may post portions, all, or none of your responses for public review and dialogue, however, I’m not making the decision by committee. My endorsement, if I make one, comes from me alone.

District 3 Candidate’s Endorsement Questions

Please answer the following questions. Please don’t write a novel – brief, concise answers best fit this accelerated time frame.

1. How will you communicate with District residents (blog, newsletters, office hours, etc.)?
2.  Give an example of your listening and conflict resolution ability.
3. How could the Board increase public accountability and transparency?
4. How do you feel about increasing fees and taxes in good times and under the current poor economic conditions?
5. In reducing the county budget, which services would you vote to protect, which are not as important and why?
6. What is your understanding of coordination? Do you support or oppose the Board’s involvement in federal and state agency decision-making processes?
7. Do you support the hiring of a natural resources analyst to review environmental documents and agency plans? Why or why not?
8. Give your perspective on multiple uses and special land designations in the National Forest. Are there some that you feel should not be permitted and why?
9. Have you read the proposed Land Use Plan? Please comment on the reason to have or not have such a Plan.
10. Do you plan to be actively engaged in public lands issues?
11. What is your philosophy on land use planning and private property rights?
12. What are your top three priorities as Supervisor?
13. What else should I know and consider about your potential to serve as District 3 Supervisor?

Sonora, Calif., (May 26, 2010)…The Forest Service today announced that 28 Stanislaus National Forest campgrounds and picnic areas will be open to accommodate visitors and campers for this Memorial Day weekend. Due to the heavy snow pack at higher elevations this year, a number of campgrounds will open later as the snow melts. All of the Forest’s 52 developed campgrounds, offering 1,391 campsites, are scheduled to be open and available by mid-summer this year.

For more info, visit the USFS website.

25^th District State Assembly Republican candidate Teri Murrison is crying foul over a Tuesday decision by Sacramento Superior Court Judge Lloyd G. Connelly that will allow the state to take $2.05 billion from local redevelopment agencies.

According to the Sacramento Bee the funding will be transferred to local education obligations through 2011. The transfer of $1.7 billion of the total amount is scheduled for next week.  

Stated Murrison, ““There’s a saying among county supervisors that whatever isn’t tied down belongs to the state and whatever the state can pry up isn’t tied down. The court just handed the state a major plank of local services on a silver platter. They’ll be back.”

“Redevelopment dollars build houses, public works infrastructure, and give new life to blighted communities. The judge’s ruling is a worrisome development. It means that the already cocky state government is allowed to come in and take local money once again.”

“The ruling affirms the Governor’s action to take local redevelopment dollars and give them to schools because Sacramento can’t pay its own bills,” Murrison said. “No one begrudges schools the money, but the state’s lack of self-control is appalling. Where are the grownups?”

###

Being Chair does come with challenges though, chief among them: managing distinct and opposing interests like district residents, out of district residents, fellow Board members, staff, and the County itself. As you can imagine, it got tricky at times. It was not unlike keeping breakable plates spinning simultaneously.

There were and still exist institutional obstacles in County government to greater efficiency, transparency, and accountability that must be reformed for the Board to lead most effectively. Conditions are, however, light years ahead of where they were when I first ran for office in 2006 and they continued to improve in 2009.

But not all areas improved. Not yet. I’ve learned to raise an issue at least three times so folks can see the forest for the trees. Reforms accomplished this year along with reforms that were rebuffed contributed to a greater level of awareness among Board and staff. Overall that’s a good thing.

Worst of years

I can’t name all the things that qualified 2009 to be the worst of years, but the state budget and its impacts on the County budget are at the top of the list. The state worked hard to divert local tax revenues for its own use, but ultimately was only partially successful. As the economy worsened, the public and staff began to experience stress. Multiple iterations of the County budget were prepared and discarded as revenue forecasts continued to decline. Subsequently, County services and staffing cuts increased stress levels. Early on, we had to do more with less. By year’s end we were reduced to doing less with less.

The Board considered several controversial land use projects in 2009 including the Law and Justice Center property purchase and consideration of an appeal of a grading permit for a controversial antiquated subdivision in Twain Harte. I am particularly proud that the public and staff were heard and treated with respect and dignity on these issues regardless of the outcomes. And for the most part, the Board seems to have mastered disagreement amongst ourselves without holding grudges.

Best of years

There were a number of factors that qualify 2009 as the best of years. Staff and elected officials voluntarily reduced benefits and went on furlough to save County services and jobs. Further, despite the critical need to reduce County expenditures to match revenues, the Board affirmed the public’s priorities of maintaining funding for Roads, Sheriff, and Fire services, while it minimized service cuts to the public and layoffs of employees.

In fact, after an accounting error was discovered in the draft budget in August, three previously unfilled Sheriff’s deputy positions were added, critical recreation services were retained (pools!), and library branches weren’t impacted quite as heavily as they would otherwise have been. These were all bright spots in light of the privatization of some services and in light of the cuts we had to make.

In a well-timed effort to improve the local economy, the Tuolumne County Economic Development Authority (TCEDA) got off to an aggressive start in recruiting new and expanding existing businesses here. And while the County lost a number of businesses due to the economy, TCEDA expects to make several major announcements in 2010 that should help the local economy considerably.

The Board authorized Waste Management to implement a two cart recycling program in the areas they serve beginning next year. Although I was not in favor of extending the contract until 2022 without going out to bid, I am very much in favor of reducing, reusing, and recycling. We hired an illegal dumping enforcement officer this year, as well. His efforts should begin to be evident as folks learn that Tuolumne County has an active enforcement program.

Over the years, County residents and communities have experienced negative economic and quality of life outcomes as state and federal government agencies have not given serious consideration or even evaluated in much depth local concerns, needs and interests. This year a majority of the Board stepped up to voice concern relative to several state and federal resource decisions that will impact the local economy.

Given the loss of the SPI mill and other businesses in recent years, the fact that Tuolumne County contains 76% public lands, strong historic, traditional, and cultural ties to the land, and the fact that state and federal statutes give counties the ability to be involved in their decision-making processes early on, it is critical that this happen. In addition, the Board signified its intent to establish and maintain productive and beneficial relationships with other levels of government.

One vehicle to encourage that to happen – federal and state agency coordination – was controversial, but the Board did not reverse an action in 2007 to initiate coordination with federal and state agencies. The Board’s dialog led to a Sonora Area Foundation grant to Tuolumne County Alliance for Resources and the Environment (TuCARE) to work with community and economic stakeholders on a draft land use plan to establish local policy for planning and management of federal and state lands and resources.

The plan doesn’t establish environmental policy (numerous advocates, federal, state, and local statutes, and policies already exist for the protection and enhancement of the natural environment). Rather, the plan deals with the human environment (which is interrelated with the natural environment). It’s important to note that the land use plan does not revise or impact existing state, federal, or local laws, nor does it allow the public to make federal and state agency decisions. It will primarily apprise agencies of local policies and values that must be better factored into decision-making and management actions in Tuolumne County.

The draft land use plan will be reviewed by the Board of Supervisors’ Planning Committee on Thurs., Jan. 7^th at 1:30 pm in the Board Chambers. Consideration of approval by the Board will follow later in the month or in February.

General Activities in 2010 (in addition to weekly Board meetings, review of agenda materials, and committee assignments.)

• The County completed and dedicated the Hope House, a transitional housing program for kids aging out of the foster care system;
• Along with key community and agency leaders, formed the Safety Net Agencies  Planning Group to help bridge agency shortfalls and service gaps in light of the state’s budgetary problems which inspired a Sonora Area Foundation campaign that raised over $500k to expand efforts to meet the most basic needs of our struggling neighbors;
• Worked with leaders of ATCAA’s food bank, University Cooperative Extension, Ag Advisor’s office, Master Gardeners, and others to plan and seek funding for community gardens to provide extra food for the food bank, local wholesale market, and individuals;
• At Supervisor John Gray’s request, initiated new supervisor orientation meetings with all department heads;
• Worked to improve County/federal agency communication and problem solving;
• Participated in an advisory committee for the Tuolumne County Courts to plan and implement a community mediation program to reduce the number of court cases;
• Participated in ATCAA/Central Sierra Connect’s efforts to determine local need for Broadband and expand its adoption;
• Supported a successful effort for Habitat for Humanity to obtain funding to purchase property in Jamestown for a multiple unit housing project;
• Involved in local foster children placement issues, participated in foster parent networking group, and County’s Peer Quality Review process;
• Served on the Sonora Regional Medical Center’s Civic Advisory Board and Dawn’s Light Grief Counseling advisory board;
• Participated in Cities, Counties, Schools Partnership Summit on Governance examining potential reform measures in light of state budget and governance problems;
• Worked with the Tuolumne County Resource Conservation District, The Stewardship Council, and other agencies to ensure Kennedy Meadows is locally owned and managed;
• Convened first joint board meeting with Tuolumne Utilities District on water issues, attended City and County of San Francisco Tuolumne River stakeholders meetings;
• Monitored State Delta Water Bills and related water issues and legislation, worked with Senator Cogdill’s staff and TUD to analyze and educate County staff and Board members;
• Participated in planning and the Department of Water Resources’ Integrated Regional Water Management Program (IRWMP) interview that resulted in local IRWMP’s designation for funding of future watershed projects;
• Reviewed and commented on United States Forest Service (USFS) Travel Management Rule Plan EIR, California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) fish stocking EIR/EIS, and USFS planned removal of Relief Cabin by PG&E;
• Requested California Legislature and Congress to increase efforts to support and fund fuels management; and
• Commented on proposed new electricity transmission line to New Melones by Transmission Agency of Northern CA (TANC).

Chair District 3-related Activities

• Held monthly district office hours in Tuolumne, Twain Harte, and Mi-Wuk Village, town hall meetings, and published over 75 blog posts on County, District 3, and state issues;
• Worked with community members to convert Mi-Wuk Village library branch into the volunteer-staffed Mi-Wuk Village Little Library in the Woods Community Center with T1 Internet service;
• Sought funding for Tuolumne parking & alleyway studies, partnered with Tuolumne community members o hold various public and town hall meetings to discuss the Tuolumne Community Plan, parking and alleyway studies, Memorial Hall use, and law enforcement  issues;
• Facilitated donation of Lyon’s Reservoir Trail parking area in Twain Harte to honor Supervisor Jim Peterson, sought and obtained additional implementation funding for Twain Harte trail, attended Sheriff’s Town Hall meeting;
• Participated in Pinecrest Circulation Study Stakeholder Group, supported Dodge Ridge Transit Bus;
• Attended meetings with Strawberry Property Owners Association, Cold Springs Property Owners Association, Tuolumne Township and The Women’s Improvement Society of Tuolumne,  Mi-Wuk Homeowners Association, Twain Harte Homeowners Association, and Pinecrest Permittees; and
• Established Snowplowing Advisory Committee.

Looking ahead in 2010

There remains much to be done in 2010. Several 2009 Board goals were not accomplished this year due to the extraordinary amount of staff time expended on budget revisions. One of our first actions on January 5^th will be to revisit those goals.

To give our kids a future and a hope and to ensure economic prosperity and quality of life, the Board must establish a youth advisory board to better understand what our kids would like Tuolumne County to look like in the future. It should also prioritize funding for a Resources Analyst to better stay on top of important decisions being made by other agencies, and fund the Board-approved but unfilled grant writer position.

Broadband should also continue to be an emphasis, especially in the Hwy 108 Corridor so we can nurture existing and a new generation of entrepreneurs and diversify the economy. We will also continue working with community fire districts and the City of Sonora to maximize fire protection Countywide.

Efficiency, transparency, and the accountability of County government must continue to increase next year. I am hopeful that it will be the year – my fourth year of advocating for it – that we implement online Board agenda management and video streaming to increase access to our meetings and citizen participation. Finally, the Board must continue to cultivate strong relationships with other government agencies: local, state, and federal. Our future depends on it.

So thanks to my colleagues for electing me Board Chair in 2009. I enjoyed it and learned a lot. Thanks also to staff, our videographer, Kathleen Conneau, audio streaming technician, Jim Garaventa, members of The Tuesday Club (regular spectators), and the public for the respect and honor given to this supervisor and the office of Board Chair.

Next year will have a new Chair (likely current Vice Chair Liz Bass) and new challenges, budgetary and otherwise. Counties, Tuolumne included, will be required to cut services further to continue to live within our means. There will be new crises with which to deal.

You can anticipate more of the worst, more of the best, and more uncertainty. But come what may, I promise you one thing for sure. Next year will go by just as quickly as did 2009. Maybe quicker.

County Supervisors frustrated, angry

Deputy County Counsel Carlyn Drivdahl will read her memo (below) in the Public Comment portion of the BOS meeting this morning at 9:00 am. You can listen at: http://www.mymotherlode.com/multimedia/audio/. We are very appreciative of County Counsel Gregory Oliver and Carlyn Drivdahl’s advice of a year ago.  And even more so, of their prompt action to set the record straight.

We believe that the investigation was likely motivated by the actions of a small group that has opposed Tuolumne County’s taking advantage of its legal right to be an active participant in federal and state agency decision-making processes – coordination. If it was indeed the result of a complaint meant to discourage, it didn’t have the desired effect. We’re not backing away from a legal process that is about the only hope this County has of representing itself to other levels of government when it matters – before their decision is already made. 

The Board can’t stop the state or federal government from taking more of your property taxes. Neither can the Board stop agencies from taking actions required by federal and state laws – environmental or otherwise. But, unlike tax grabs, the Board can be at the table and advocate for local economic interests.

The process is legal and after all this furor has died down, coordination will be proved to be a helpful tool for consensus and for the good of all Tuolumne County residents.  Teri looks forward to working with those who are now opposed, but who may eventually see benefit in coordination. Finally, we encourage folks to be respectful in their expression of support or lack thereof for coordination. We all need to refrain from adding fuel to the fire. Hang in there!

M E M O R A N D U M

TO: Supervisor Murrison
FROM: Gregory J. Oliver, County Counsel
Carlyn M. Drivdahl, Deputy County Counsel
SUBJECT: Out-of-State Travel and the Political Reform Act

In light of the recent article in the Union Democrat (“Murrison’s travel plan examined,” October 28, 2009), our office has prepared this memorandum to detail the legal advice we provided you and the steps taken in researching the Political Reform Act (“PRA”) statutes and Fair Political Practices Commission regulations regarding compensation for out-of-state travel expenses for County Supervisors. For purposes of this memorandum, it is assumed that the out-of-state travel is to speak at a conference hosted by a 501(c)(3) nonprofit.

PRA Reporting Requirements and Limits Relating to Out-of-State Travel

When the County pays for a Supervisor’s transportation and necessary lodging and subsistence, it is not considered a gift or honorarium. (Gov. Code § 89506(d)(2); 2 CCR 18950.1(d).) These payments by the County are neither subject to PRA’s gift limits nor reportable on the Supervisor’s Form 700 Statement of Economic Interests. Whether or not the County is later reimbursed by the nonprofit for the travel payments is a separate issue that should not affect the reporting requirements of the individual Supervisor.

Payments, advances or reimbursements for travel, including actual transportation and related lodging and subsistence, are not prohibited or limited by the PRA if:

• The travel is reasonably related to a legislative or governmental purpose, or to an issue of state, national or international public policy; and
• The travel is provided by a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization.
(Gov. Code § 89506(a)(2); 2 CCR 18950.1(b).)

Although not subject to any limitation, since the travel is out-of-state, a direct payment by a nonprofit to the Supervisor who is traveling would need to be reported on the Supervisor’s Form 700 Statement of Economic Interests.

Transparency in Government Actions

This issue first arose in October of 2008 in connection with Supervisor Murrison’s participation at the Stewards of the Range A 501(c)(3) nonprofit – now American Stewards of Liberty. conference on intergovernmental coordination in Texas. In researching the PRA requirements with regards to this trip, Deputy County Counsel Carlyn Drivdahl contacted the FPPC’s Technical Assistance Hotline on several occasions for advice on how Supervisor Murrison should handle these travel expenses. Although the FPPC does not guarantee the advice provided through the Hotline, our office was pointed to the regulations cited above, confirming our earlier research. This is the advice that was provided by our office to Supervisor Murrison and she acted in accordance with that advice. The County paid for the travel expenses of Supervisor Murrison. Later, the Stewards of the Range reimbursed the County for Supervisor Murrison’s travel expenses.

Further, the County has a requirement that the Board of Supervisors approve any out-of-state travel for individual Supervisors. (Tuolumne County Ordinance Code § 2.12.060(E).) The Board of Supervisors considered and approved Supervisor Murrison’s travel at its regular meeting on November 4, 2008.

Moving Forward

At this time, there is no indication from the FPPC that there were any missteps with regard to the advice our office provided Supervisor Murrison. It remains this office’s opinion that since the County paid for the out-of-state travel expenses for Supervisor Murrison, there was no need for Supervisor Murrison to include the payments on her Form 700 Statement of Economic Interests.

It is our office’s intent to request a written opinion from the FPPC with regard to out-of-state travel.

Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact our office.

Cc: Board of Supervisors
Chris Bateman, Union Democrat
Walt Cook, Union Democrat
Roman Porter, FPPC Executive Director

Carlyn M. Drivdahl
Deputy County Counsel
Tuolumne County
(209) 533-5517

This is the last (promise!) in a series of postings on the five Delta-related water bills now under consideration in Sacramento. Mr. Green has a different and valid opinion that hasn’t been heard in this series - thus we’re posting rather than publish it as a comment.

First, a clarification. The meeting will not be a public hearing, but a joint study session with TUD to be conducted today at 1:30 in the Board Chambers. It has been noticed per the requirements of the Brown Act, the local radio station has been running spots, the paper generally publishes information about upcoming Board meetings, and finally, over 700 Facebook friends and over 200 blog subscribers have heard now nine different perspectives, been exposed to a wide but not necessarily exhaustive range of opinions, and been told about the meeting more than once.

Here is Mr. Allen Green’s opinion.

Re: Imperfect & Lousy Solutions: what’s a county of origin to do?

Teri Murrison:

Teri, It would be nice to have had more time to announce the TCBS / TUD hearings that are on for tomorrow. As a summertime user of Pinecrest Lake, I have been following the water rights fights pretty closely. Let me know when Toulumne County wants to give up all of the money that comes in from tourism – isn’t that one of the major, if not the major, income source of the County? Nobody wants the residents to go without water, however the regulation of the lake should be a joint agreement based upon comsumptive needs and recreational needs. When PG&E has Pinecrest Lake up too high in the early summer months (late May / early June) there is no, or very little beach available. Also in the late summer (late August / September / early October) if they let the late out too far the mud pits and rocks show up also limiting pleasurable use of the lake.

With TUD experiencing major water losses in their distribution system and pushing for more and more development, wouldn’t you think that they also have some responsibility for water conservation? Where is it?

The National Forest Homeowners Association, in a nationwide survey, has come up with a figure of $7,500 per year per cabin spent within a 50 mile radius. For Pinecrest this would be an even greater amount because of the metropolitan aspect of the region. The Forest Service has about 700 permits in the Pinecrest Recreational Basin — this computes to over $5.25 million coming into Tuolumne County. Surely this is of value and should be considered. If you ask the voting residents of the County to diminish the financial value of the Pinecrest Recreational Basin and therefore raise their taxes, I think you know what they’ll say — let’s start conserving our precious water and come to some reasonable agreement over it’s shared use.

I, personally, don’t think that you can point at the State Water Resources Board and label them as a villian. Take a close look at TUD, who have no defensible water rights, and see what they have / have not done.

While it may be politically correct to take a stand against those in power, however I would like politicians to have a balanced view on issues before they start taking sides. Feel free to share this with others at the hearing tomorrow, due to the last minute notice (maybe it was published somewhere and I missed it) I have other plans and will not be able to attend.

*****

Thanks, Mr. Green. You make a valid point about the regulation of the lake needing to be a joint agreement based upon consumptive and recreational needs. There was such an agreement reached within the last few years that everyone from TUD to the USFS, PG&E, environmentalists, recreation interests, and others hammered out in years of meetings during the FERC relicensing process. The State Water Resource Control Board  (SWRCB) staff, not their governing Board, chose to ignore that consensus-based agreement to prohibit further draw down of Pinecrest for consumptive use (that’s residential, commercial, agricultural, and industrial) when the water falls to a certain level. SWRCB staff has been instructed to take a new look at the way they got to that decision and for that we are very grateful.

We find it alarming that in all the discussion of potential solutions and interests, we hear no legislators, agencies, or environmentalist voices mentioning that there are needs other than in the Delta, San Joaquin Valley, the Bay Area, and Southern California. There was no voice on the panels in the Joint Committee hearing (at least on the 18th) for local governments and the communities they represent in the Delta or elsewhere, despite the significant impacts with which they will have to deal.

The needs and conditions of counties of origin must be factored into the solution and not ignored or sacrificed because they can be. Water rights or no, there are living, breathing communities and habitat that depends on the waters that now flow through TUD to much of the county – even when Pinecrest’s level drops.

All that said, we appreciate Mr. Green taking the time to write and share his opinion, as did others. We will make sure his opinion is distributed to the Board members today along with the others. Balance, as he says, is very important. Additional conservation in Tuolumne County will be a component of the Delta solution. The Delta is in trouble and that has implications for all of us.

King Solomon, where are you?

Here’s what I sent to the paper tonight, asking them to print a correction in tomorrow’s paper:

“I appreciate the concessions made by the executive/confidential bargaining unit, but voted against approving the contract. We don’t yet know how much and where the state will cut or how negatively the county’s budget will be impacted.

The direction we gave on the 09/10 budget was grim and we have heard we may have an additional $3 million in cuts from the state. I fear the compensation package approved Tuesday will cause us to regret having acted in advance of better information.

As generous as the employees have been, we are heading into even more desperate economic times. We need to be very, very lean to provide the highest service levels possible to the residents of Tuolumne County. I argued negotiating more concessions from the executive/confidential staff in closed session on Tuesday, but as evidenced by the 4/1 outcome, did not convince my colleagues.”

That’s what you get when you wake up at 3 am to post! Hopefully the 42 of you that received the earlier version will find this helpful. « Early bird sets goal for Feb. 1st

If you plan to do either but haven’t yet, I still need help reaching the goal by Feb. 1st (see previous posting). So far, endorsements are up to 77 and contributions are lagging behind.

Board Rules. Next Tuesday is a big day. I have proposed new rules and procedures to govern Board meetings and agenda preparation and we’ll be discussing them then (below is the text of the Memo for the Board’s consideration). It would be great to get consensus to adopt them, but I anticipate some resistance to a few of the critical revisions.

Tuolumne County is somewhat unusual in my experience in that the Board Chair hasn’t had the ability or authority granted by the Board to take part in the agenda formulation process. In fact, what’s on the agenda tends to be revealed to the Chair and the Board at the same time the final agenda is made public under the Brown Act. Of course, a Board member who seeks that information gets it, but at the very least, the Chair should be an integral part of agenda formulation and approval. 

Perhaps because some past Boards have not worked as a team,  there has been a practice of limiting the Chair so a “bad” Chair can’t unduly influence things. That can be a good thing, but it also can make it difficult for a Board that wants to set its own course and work together toward common interests.

Our current County Administrative Officer has done a great job in elevating the Board’s role in driving policy and focusing staff on Board goals. I believe the proposed changes will augment his efforts and make us more effective.

It’s a fairly typical process for the Board to revise its rules and procedures. Some of the proposed changes to the system are of concern to staff, but will provide greater clarity and more timely delivery of information to the Board and public. If you would like to review them, please click above on “Proposed BOS Rules.”

If you’d like to attend and comment publically for or against them, email me and I’ll give you an approximate time the item will be in front of us. As always, you can listen to our regular Board meetings on Tuesdays live online at http://www.mymotherlode.com/Community/streams.html. You just won’t get to talk back!

MEMO

TO:                              Tuolumne County Board of Supervisors

FROM:                       Teri Murrison, Board Chair

DATE:                        Jan. 23, 2009

ITEM TITLE:       Review and direction to Chair on revisions to proposed Board Rules for 2009.

Attached is a copy of proposed revisions to our existing Board of Supervisors Rules and Regulations (Board Rules). The proposed revision differs significantly in format and content. This memo serves to clarify proposed revisions, as well to explain the necessity for them. I look forward to our meeting when we will deliberate and consider these revisions. I have also attached a copy of the existing Board Rules Resolution No. 11-06 and a summary guide to Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised for your information.

This Board of Supervisors is responsible for governing the county and we are held accountable by our constituents and the general public for doing so. Consequently, we must exercise our statutory prerogative to make sure that the vision advanced and the decisions made emanate from the Board and that the public has access to processes and information. As you know, governing in a manner that instills and reinforces public confidence is of paramount importance, especially in these trying times. Over the last few years we have made great strides with the assistance of our CAO and department staff, but there is still much more to be done. The public looks to this Board for vision, leadership, information, and transparency.

The changes proposed allow the Board to be proactive and strategically establish the tone and agenda not only for our meetings, but for decisions that will impact the future of county residents. They are not meant to enable the Board or its Chair to micro-manage or make staff’s work more difficult (although some of the proposed changes revise existing procedures). The revisions are meant to bring about a correction in the existing system where the Board typically responds to staff-initiated policy and priorities and to involve the Board in a significant and meaningful way beyond mere decision-making. They bring the Board into the process before the final decision. 

When studying the existing Board Rules, I found the document’s organization confusing. As incoming Chair, the proposed revisions were initiated to make the Rules’ organization/format more intuitive and to help me understand how our Board has traditionally operated. I reviewed Board Rules from ten or more California counties to learn how other Boards function and consulted Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, as well. I learned that while Board Rules vary to some extent, their adoption is up to the discretion of the individual Board adopting them and are updated relatively frequently. There is great latitude in establishing governance procedures as long as the basic statutes such as the Brown Act and other similar statutes are honored.

So, the bottom line is that this Board is free to adopt any rules and regulations with regard to governing itself as long as they don’t conflict with existing statutes established by state and federal government. Where existing county policies conflict with these rules, the Board may simply revise the ordinance that conflicts to bring it into compliance with these rules. Further, while I have the desire to be proactive in inserting the Board back into the process, future Boards (even this same Board under a different Chair) may wish to revert to the existing policy and/or adopt new Rules. In fact, it might be advisable to review the Rules annually anyway.

The Rules as proposed allow for Board control of the Chair should he or she arbitrarily begin to advance a personal agenda versus operating to advance the Board’s collaborative agenda. Any of the Board Rules can be overturned by a majority vote of members present at a special, emergency, or regular meeting. Staff has expressed a concern that a Chair with authority to approve an agenda could act to obstruct items from being included. A possible way to guard against that would be to resubmit the item with another Board member as sponsor, in which case the item’s inclusion would be guaranteed.

Board Rules exist to serve the Board and establish overarching parameters for how we get the public’s business done. Good rules result in greater transparency, an institutionalization of best management practices, and reflect the will of the entire Board. Of course, it is extremely important that the Board has the confidence that the Chair will not abuse the process. I assure you that my intent is not to take advantage, but to facilitate Board input and public access to the process. Safeguards exist or can be attached to these rules to avoid that.

Our existing Board Rules contain many good and useful procedures, but also contain some that limit the public’s access, our efficacy, and that of our staff, as well. I have attempted to note all of the changes so as to make your review less arduous, but it is possible that I missed something. Consequently, please read carefully. The attached proposed new Rules identify most, if not all of the major changes.

I’d like your input on eliminating SECTION 10 entirely since meeting procedure is covered within Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised. I believe that Section was included in our Rules to educate the Board, vs. establish policy distinct from Robert’s Rules…

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Provide direction to Chair on revisions to proposed new Board Rules for 2009 and direct them to be brought back to the Board for approval.