Trouble in Templeton's Community Service District*

Conclusions 1

• CL1
  Californians insist on fair access to decisions made by Community Service Districts and to their decision makers. California statutes that regulate procedures include the Brown Act (local officials' meetings must be open and public), the Public Records Act (insuring access to government documents), the Political Reform Act (requiring disclosure of economic interests), and a myriad of statutory requirements for public notice, public hearings, protests and elections. It appears that the number of regularly scheduled meetings cancelled and rescheduled as "special" meetings follows the letter of the law, however, they may not fulfill the intent of the Brown Act. Oftentimes notice is brief, and persons who plan on attending regular meetings are not able to reschedule appearances on short notice. Residents of the TCSD should be the first priority of the Board. It seems that the Board does not provide adequate time for citizens to have input on agenda items, nor do they provide ample time or the opportunity to speak to items on the "closed session" agenda. In fairness, some of the members of the newly elected Board recognize this problem and they may better address the needs of the citizens in the future. It also appears to members of the Grand Jury that one Board member has contributed to the general unrest within the TCSD. There was ample testimony that the Board member in question has been rude to the public, has verbally attacked the staff, including the GM, and has alienated other Board members. The Grand Jury did not find these actions to be illegal; however, this behavior did little to enhance relationships among the current members of the Board. An additional problem that came to light was the implementation of new policies and procedures in the District for employees, and the difficulty that some employees had with the changes made by the GM. It was obvious to the Grand Jury that some longtime employees were having trouble with the changes, and that the GM was making no effort to allow employees time to adjust to the new procedures. Based on interviews it appears to the Grand Jury that the refuse collection contract is not an issue in the community. Additionally, the TCSD seems to have a good handle on the General Plan for sewer and water changes that will be forthcoming. The November 2012 election of a new majority of members to the TCSD presented the Board with an opportunity to look carefully at why voters chose to make a major change in leadership. It also offered an opportunity for the Board to address the allegations made by the press, local residents, and past and present employees of the District.

Comments 5

• CO1
  The GM should follow through with the development of a comprehensive set of personnel rules and regulations for all employees.
• CO2
  The GM should be held accountable to ensure that all employees receive a formal evaluation at least once a year.
• CO3
  The Board should conduct a formal evaluation of the GM at least once a year especially in regard to personnel management. The Board should ensure that minutes of all Board meetings are placed on the website in
• CO4
  a timely manner. Additionally, updated information regarding the budget should be readily available on the website for residents and not just an annual budget document appearing at the beginning of the year.
• CO5
  The Board should develop a General Master Plan for the TCSD as required by state law.

No Responses Found 1

Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.