Sonoma County Grand Jury
• 2001-2002
Airport Land Use Commission - Board of Supervisors Conduct
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 11 findings
F1
The Chairman of the Board of Supervisors ordered the posting of the notice on his sole initiative, without polling the other supervisors, based on the fact that the respective terms of the two incumbents had expired.
No recommendations for this finding
F2
There was no public announcement or notification of the vacancies other than the posting on the Administration Building bulletin board.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
The Board of Supervisors should review its policies and procedures for the appointment and replacement of members of commissions as follows: · Announce all vacancies in Board public sessions and routinely publish vacancies in county newspapers in a timely manner · Require, without exception, that applicants for appointment to commissions complete the Board’s existing “Commission Application” form · Require all commission members to apply for reappointment at the end of their designated terms and adopt resolutions for reappointments in public sessions in the same manner as new appointments.
F3
The replacement of the two appointees by the Board was legally permissible under the provisions of the California Public Utility Code. The Board’s appointment resolution was used as the action to remove the incumbents.
No recommendations for this finding
F4
County Counsel did not maintain a wall of separation between his own duty to represent the Board of Supervisors, on the one hand, and the Deputy County Counsel assigned to represent the Commission, resulting in a conflict of interests.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
County Counsel should review and reinforce its internal policies for separating representation of the Board and county departments, on the one hand, and commissions and other entities for which it has representation responsibilities. Required Responses to Findings None Required Responses to Recommendations Board of Supervisors: R1, R2 County Counsel: R3 6
F5
Following the declaration of a conflict of interests by the Office of County Counsel, the Board of Supervisors took no action to provide the Commission with alternative legal representation.
No recommendations for this finding
F6
The litigation settlement agreement, modifying the Plan to eliminate the restrictions affecting the Windsor development project, contained nothing related to the original demand for an EIR.
No recommendations for this finding
F7
According to sworn testimony, the allegation of a Brown Act violation was designed to force the Commission to negotiate modifications to the Plan. 4
No recommendations for this finding
F8
Sonoma County has more than 60 commissions (or boards) to which the Supervisors appoint some or all of the members. The Board does not have a policy, nor is there a county ordinance, providing for legal defense or indemnification of commission members for personal liability arising out of acts or omissions within the scope of their designated responsibilities.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
The Board of Supervisors should establish a written policy for the legal defense and indemnification of members of commissions when acting within the scope of their authority, to the same extent as the government code provides for employees.
F9
The California Public Utility Code includes explicit provisions for a public agency, such as a city, to override airport plan restrictions that are inconsistent with its general development plan.
No recommendations for this finding
F10
Following the settlement of the litigation, eliminating the relevant Plan restrictions, the Windsor City Council approved the Airport Business Center project by a majority vote greater than two-thirds.
No recommendations for this finding
F11
The Grand Jury does not make any findings with respect to (a) the merits of the original Plan restrictions, (b) their removal in the revised Plan, or (c) whether an EIR or a Negative Declaration was the appropriate course of action for the Commission in developing the Plan. Conclusions The posting of the notice of vacancy by the Board Chairman without consultation among Supervisors defies credibility. So does the stated rationale for removal of the two incumbents at that particular time because their terms had expired. One term expired five years earlier and the other two years earlier. The Grand Jury concludes that no public announcement of the vacancies was made because the Board wished to avoid media publicity that could have generated additional applications for the positions. This facilitated appointment of replacements more sympathetic to developers who are major political contributors to several Supervisors. The Board’s conduct in selecting the replacements, while legal, was not a model for either transparent governance or high ethical standards. Once the Board rejected the Commission’s request for EIR funding, County Counsel’s declared conflict of interests deprived the Commission of legal representation. When the Board of Supervisors failed to provide alternative counsel, the Commission members were forced to seek representation at their own expense. The Grand Jury concludes that the Board’s lack of support was unconscionable. The Grand Jury believes the lawsuit, and especially the alleged Brown Act violation, was borderline abuse of the legal system. Although special interest groups use the CEQA and litigation demanding EIRs to accomplish other objectives, in this instance it does not reflect a high standard of legal ethics or morality. The withdrawal of the lawsuit, without further consideration of an EIR once the specific restrictions in the Plan were removed, demonstrates a lack of good faith. More reprehensible was the allegation of a Brown Act violation, without merit on its face, intended to intimidate Commission members.
No recommendations for this finding
Conclusions 1
-
CL1 Page 5The posting of the notice of vacancy by the Board Chairman without consultation among Supervisors defies credibility. So does the stated rationale for removal of the two incumbents at that particular time because their terms had expired. One term expired five years earlier and the other two years earlier. The Grand Jury concludes that no public announcement of the vacancies was made because the Board wished to avoid media publicity that could have generated additional applications for the positions. This facilitated appointment of replacements more sympathetic to developers who are major political contributors to several Supervisors. The Board’s conduct in selecting the replacements, while legal, was not a model for either transparent governance or high ethical standards. Once the Board rejected the Commission’s request for EIR funding, County Counsel’s declared conflict of interests deprived the Commission of legal representation. When the Board of Supervisors failed to provide alternative counsel, the Commission members were forced to seek representation at their own expense. The Grand Jury concludes that the Board’s lack of support was unconscionable. The Grand Jury believes the lawsuit, and especially the alleged Brown Act violation, was borderline abuse of the legal system. Although special interest groups use the CEQA and litigation demanding EIRs to accomplish other objectives, in this instance it does not reflect a high standard of legal ethics or morality. The withdrawal of the lawsuit, without further consideration of an EIR once the specific restrictions in the Plan were removed, demonstrates a lack of good faith. More reprehensible was the allegation of a Brown Act violation, without merit on its face, intended to intimidate Commission members.
No Responses Found 2
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
Sonoma County
County
Sonoma County Board of Supervisors
Elected County Office