El Dorado County Grand Jury
• 2001-2002
Special Districts Committee Golden West Community Services District Citizen Complaints #01/02-c-020 and #01/02-c-024
⚠️ 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 28 findings
F1
The GWCSD was established November 3, 1983 for the following purpose: “Opening, widening, extending, straightening, and surfacing, in whole or part, of any street in such district as authorized in subdivision (j) of section 61600 of Government Code and the construction and improvement of bridges, culverts, curbs, gutters, drains and works incidental to the purposes set forth in subdivision (j) as authorized in subdivision (k) of 61600 of the Government Code.”
No recommendations for this finding
F2
According to LAFCO records, GWCSD bylaws were adopted in 1992. The GWCSD Board President was unable to locate or produce a copy of any bylaws for a long time.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9
The GWCSD Board of Directors should adopt and/or revise a set of District bylaws and should make them available to residents of the District.
F3
Finally, the President of GWCSD supplied two different versions of “Rules and Procedures” with three different times and locations of regular designated meetings. Both of those documents were not consistent with a verbally noticed time and location announced at a January 12, 2002 general community meeting.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5
The GWCSD Board of Directors should take necessary steps to become more accomplished in the procedures for conducting meetings.
F4
Neither version of the “Rules and Procedures” shows an adoption date and have no distinction of which has precedence.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5
The GWCSD Board of Directors should take necessary steps to become more accomplished in the procedures for conducting meetings.
F5
A five-member Board of Directors elected by the residents of the District for four- year periods govern the GWCSD. The terms of office are staggered every two years to provide continuity of the Board. The last contested District election with names on the ballot was held November 1993.
No recommendations for this finding
F6
When District positions are scheduled for election, the Elections Department sends a notice to the District, at its current address, and to the local newspaper for publication of the positions which are scheduled for election. It is the District’s responsibility to post notice of the positions to be filled in a public, regularly known, location within the District.
No recommendations for this finding
F7
In the November 2001 election, the two members who remained on the board prior to the District’s loss of a quorum ran for four-year terms. The other members, who had been most recently appointed, ran for two-year terms. Because no sixth person ran, no names were listed on the ballot.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7
The GWCSD Board of Directors and residents should contact the El Dorado County Elections Department to initiate a ballot by mail. The cost of this process is considerably less than a general ballot election.
F8
Annual District assessments are $120.00 per developed or undeveloped parcel. This amount has not been increased since the District was formed.
No recommendations for this finding
F9
The District is under-funded. This lack of funds results in an inability to maintain the roads. That inability creates dissension among Board members and District residents.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1
The GWCSD residents should file a request with the El Dorado County Elections Office for an election of a new Board of Directors.
R6
The GWCSD Board of Directors and residents should consider increasing District assessments to meet increasing costs.
F10
For the last two or three years, GWCSD Board members apparently did not have or reference copies of the Brown Act. They demonstrated little apparent knowledge of its scope, content or application.
Related Recommendations (2)
R4
The GWCSD Board of Directors should become educated on all provisions of the Brown Act and should comply with them.
R12
The GWCSD should join the California Special Districts Association and avail itself of the education provided by that organization about how to legally and effectively administer the business of the District. The cost of membership should be considered a necessary administrative expense. The web address is www.csda.net.
F11
The California Special Districts Associations, a statewide organization, offers continuing education to all members of special districts boards.
No recommendations for this finding
F12
In May 2001, three members of the GWCSD Board resigned, leaving the Board without a quorum. A majority of the authorized number of directors is required for a quorum. The Board must have a quorum to conduct the business of the District.
No recommendations for this finding
F13
At an informational community-wide meeting on June 9, 2001, the President of the Board of Directors (the only Board member present) announced the existence of a Road Advisory Committee consisting of four members. At least two of those members were not told of, and were unaware of, their membership on this Committee.
No recommendations for this finding
F14
By July 26, 2001, composition of the GWCSD Board of Directors was returned to five members. To provide a quorum, one member was appointed by the Board of Supervisors. Subsequently, the GWCSD Board of Directors appointed two additional members.
No recommendations for this finding
F15
On September 14, 2001, a District resident submitted a letter to the Board, pursuant to California Government Code §54960.1(b), demanding that the Board cure or correct various actions which the Board had committed in violation of the Brown Act.
No recommendations for this finding
F16
Pursuant to California Government Code §54960.1(c)(2), the letter also demanded (i) that the cure or correction be accomplished within 30 days, (ii) that the Board inform the demanding party in writing of its corrective action or of its decision not to cure or correct the challenged actions, and (iii) to be informed as to what actions would be taken by the Board to assure that it would comply with the Brown Act in the future. The Board did not respond to the demanding party.
No recommendations for this finding
F17
On December 5, 2001, the same District resident made a second letter of demand requesting certain GWCSD documents. A number of requested documents were never received by the demanding party. This constituted a violation of the California Public Records Act.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8
The GWCSD Board of Directors should promptly respond to requests made by residents for information.
F18
On December 10, 2001, another district resident made a demand, for the fourth time, for GWCSD documents that were not previously provided. This constituted a violation of the California Public Records Act.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8
The GWCSD Board of Directors should promptly respond to requests made by residents for information.
F19
Two Grand Jury members attended a GWCSD Board meeting on March 14, 2002. The meeting was generally conducted in accordance with the Brown Act. Agenda item 6C was presented by the Road Manager for general public discussion, but it was neither acted upon nor continued. Also, a motion to officially close the meeting was never made.
No recommendations for this finding
F20
A second incident of resignation occurred in March 2002. Three members of the Board of Directors resigned, leaving the GWCSD Board bereft of a quorum for the second time within a year. As of the end of April 2002 there were still only two Board members. The remaining Board members were informed by the Department of Elections that any business conducted by the remaining Directors will be a violation of the Brown Act.
Related Recommendations (1)
R13
In light of the continuing activities by the two remaining GWCSD Board of Directors, the Grand Jury strongly recommends that the El Dorado County District Attorney investigate and consider prosecution of violations of the law by the GWCSD Board of Directors. Responses Required for Findings
F21
The GWCSD Board of Directors has had a Phase 1 road maintenance plan under consideration for over a year. Lack of understanding, poor communication and personal bad feelings have resulted in lack of action on a road bid package during the term of the current Board President.
No recommendations for this finding
F22
Confusion and unrest regarding a schedule for road maintenance has existed within the GWCSD Board of Directors for two years. As a result, little roadwork has been done. This is attributed primarily to the unyielding and contentious attitude of the current Board President.
No recommendations for this finding
F23
The current President of the GWCSD has violated many provisions of the Brown Act, subjecting the District to possible legal consequences.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
The GWCSD Board of Directors should become educated on all provisions of the Brown Act and should comply with them.
F24
Special GWCSD Board meetings have been held at various Board members’ homes rather than in public places, with little prior notice and during normal business hours. This practice has made it difficult and uncomfortable for District residents to attend, and has effectively circumvented the intent of the Brown Act.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10
The GWCSD Board of Directors should conduct all meetings, properly noticed, at a public meeting place.
F25
The GWCSD does not publish a directory for residents of the District.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
The GWCSD Board of Directors should provide an annual District directory to all GWCSD residents.
F26
The GWCSD does not publish a District newsletter of any kind.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
In order to improve District relations and communications, the GWCSD Board of Directors should publish a newsletter on a regular schedule.
F27
In violation of California Government Code §61240, the GWCSD has neither a General Manager nor a Secretary who are not members of the Board.
Related Recommendations (1)
R11
To comply with California Government Code §61240, the GWCSD Board of Directors should take action to incorporate the positions of General Manager and Secretary into their operating structure.
F28
Unless and until a quorum is established, any business conducted by the District would be in violation of the Brown Act. Not withstanding that fact, however, the two remaining board members are continuing to do business and act upon road repair issues without a quorum.
Related Recommendations (1)
R13
In light of the continuing activities by the two remaining GWCSD Board of Directors, the Grand Jury strongly recommends that the El Dorado County District Attorney investigate and consider prosecution of violations of the law by the GWCSD Board of Directors. Responses Required for Findings
No Responses Found 1
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
El Dorado County District Attorney
Elected County Office