L Connelly Superior Court of California Supervisor, First District County of Butte 5280 Lower Wyandotte Road •*

cases of West Nile Virus in the OMAD. The respondent neither agrees nor disagrees with these findings. The findings are directed at the Oroville Mosquito Abatement District, which is not under my control. The service provided by OMAD, a smaller district, is more personal to the residents of

the district, and is cost effective. The respondent neither agrees nor disagrees with these findings. The findings are directed at the Oroville Mosquito Abatement District, which is not under my control. Appointments to the OMAD Board by the Butte County Board of Supervisors and the

Oroville City Council have not been timely or in accordance with California law. The respondent partially agrees with the finding. I understand that requests from OMAD to its board for appointments have not been done timely, therefore appointments have not been done timely. However, appointments have been done in accordance to California law. As a result of lengthy vacancies, the OMAD Board has often not had a quorum and has

been unable to conduct business. From October 2007 through March 2010, there has only been a full five-member OMAD Board for seven months. The respondent neither agrees nor disagrees with these findings. Since I am not involved in the day-to-day operations of OMAD, I am not aware of the reasons why the OMAD board has been unable to conduct business. A qualified person who had demonstrated interest and commitment to the OMAD Board

by attending numerous meetings and who was recommended as an appointee by the OMAD Board was not even considered for that appointment by the District One Supervisor. The respondent disagrees with the finding. I did consider the individual for appointment, but chose not to bring the name to the Board of Supervisors, as the candidate did not meet my criteria of a qualified candidate. The District One Supervisor's failure to fulfill his obligation to oversee appointments to

the OMAD Board appears to be due to making his personal interests more important than his regard for California law which states: The trustees shall represent the interests of the public as a whole and not solely the interests of the board of supervisors or the city council that appointed them. This has often left the OMAD Board unable to function properly, due to long, unfilled vacancies. The respondent emphatically disagrees with the finding. The law cited in the finding refers specifically to the duties of district trustees, not the members of the Board of Supervisors. Also, the obligation of overseeing appointments belongs to OMAD, not the Board of Supervisors. Since I am not involved in the daily workings of the OMAD Board, I cannot comment on the reasons they have been unable to properly function, or how their lack of appointment oversight has contributed to it. I take the appointment process seriously, and do not recommend appointments simply because a name was provided. When an individual is presented to me for an appointment, I need to be sure that the individual is the best candidate to serve the community in that capacity. Appointments to the OMAD Board by the Board of Supervisors, as recommended by the

District One Supervisor, have included at least one person who was unqualified due to their residency being outside the District. The respondent agrees with the finding. At the October 13, 2009 Board of Supervisors meeting, I recommended an appointment to a listed vacancy on the OMAD. It was determined after the appointment was approved that the individual did not meet the residency requirements. The appointee, having been made aware of the requirement, subsequently resigned from the OMAD. The appointment letters to new OMAD Board appointees by the Board of Supervisors do

not include the relevant information regarding the OMAD Board responsibilities, meeting time, and place. The respondent neither agrees nor disagrees with these findings. The findings are directed at the Board of Supervisors, and although I am a member of the Board, I cannot speak for the Board. However, the responsibility to provide OMAD Board members relevant information about their responsibilities, meeting time, and place belongs to the OMAD Board. The OMAD Board and the appointee were not notified by mail of an October 2009

appointment recommended by the District One Supervisor and approved by the Board of Supervisors. The respondent neither agrees nor disagrees with these findings. The findings are directed at the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. The Locals Appointments List, as related to the OMAD, and over a period of time that we

reviewed has not been accurately maintained as required by California law by both the County of Butte and the City of Oroville. The respondent neither agrees nor disagrees with these findings. The findings are directed at the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and the City of Oroville. The OMAD Board has not been monitoring Board Members' term expiration dates. As a

result, they have not been notifying the proper appointing authorities in a timely manner or current or anticipated vacancies or their interest of being reappointed. The respondent is unable to agree or disagree with the finding. The findings are directed to OMAD. At times, for security reasons, the doors to the OMAD Board meeting room in the

Oroville City Hall have been locked and access for citizens may have been hindered. The respondent is unable to agree or disagree with the finding. The findings are directed to OMAD and the City of Oroville, and does not know the reasons for locking the doors. Grand Jury Recommendations OMAD should continue to function as an independent mosquito abatement district and