The governor signed a bill that will impose a list of reforms relating to open government and responsible spending at the Santa Clara Valley Water District.
Assembly bill 466 was introduced to the California assembly in April by Assemblymember Joe Coto (D, San Jose) in response to growing complaints of waste and unfair hiring practices among the public.
The bill was signed Sunday by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
"I'm very pleased the governor saw the importance of this legislation, given the serious issues around water that we're facing, and I'm hoping this bill will increase the involvement of citizens in the water district. It will provide the necessary oversight in areas of the district's operations," Coto said. "These are solid reforms, and I think it will go a long way to improve the integrity of the board."
The main thrust of AB466 is to provide for all seven board seats to be filled by the voters, undoing a provision scheduled to take effect at the end of this year that would reduce the board to five members representing districts that are congruent to those of the Santa Clara County board of supervisors. Currently, the board consists of five elected members and two members appointed by the supervisors.
"Originally, my position was that five board members could do the job as well as seven," said water district board of directors Chairman Sig Sanchez. "Later on, I went with seven because it would mean smaller districts, which would give better representation to South County."
He explained that the South County district is currently the largest geographical electoral region on the board. The terms of elections for all seven members would likely split up that district into two South County regions. The districts will be redrawn in time for elections for four seats in November 2010.
The water district's board of directors did not immediately welcome the idea of including the reform provisions, which require more transparency in district finances, openness in staff communications to the board, disclosure of relationships between board members and lobbyists, and other new rules.
However, the majority of directors wanted the board to retain its seven seats, as it was scheduled to sunset to five seats in accordance with legislation that AB466 now cancels out. They agreed to ask Coto to submit the bill as a tradeoff for keeping a seven-member board.
Sanchez, an appointed director who plans to retire in January, added that he did not feel the list of reforms now codified into state law and scheduled to take effect in 2010 was necessary, as the district already follows the rules listed in the legislation.
The water district has been plagued with controversy and complaints in recent years. A Santa Clara County Superior Court judge ruled in April that the district has violated Proposition 218 of the California Constitution and the District Act, a state law, in its annual setting of groundwater charges. A grand jury report in April sharply criticized the district for years of wasteful spending and the district's failure to improve its habits since a previous grand jury investigation in 2006.
One of the new rules states that board members must wait at least one year after they leave the board to seek employment in the district. In 2007, the district was criticized when its former CEO Stan Williams hired then-board member Greg Zlotnick to a newly created full-time job.
The SCVWD serves about 1.8 million with water supply and flood control services in Santa Clara County. It has an annual budget of $305 million and employs about 750 people.
Water directors decide against raise
Directors of the Santa Clara Valley Water District unanimously decided not to give themselves a pay raise for next year.
Six of the seven directors' per diem compensation for 2010 will remain at the current rate of $260.03 per meeting, for up to 10 meetings each month. Sig Sanchez, a Gilroy resident and chairman of the board of directors, elected to keep his pay at the per diem received by board members in 2006, or $225.13 per meeting. Prior to Tuesday's meeting, when the directors considered a five percent raise, Sanchez said the pay they have received since 2006 has been "adequate."
Nevertheless, most years in the recent past the directors have voted to give themselves a pay raise. An exception was in 2007, when they decided to keep their compensation at 2006 levels. However, last year they voted to give themselves a 10 percent raise to make up for the previous year's lack of a raise.
State law allows the directors to receive a five percent per diem raise per year to adjust for increasing costs of living.
Director Rosemary Kamei, who represents the board's electoral district that includes Morgan Hill, has voted against pay raises in previous years, but accepted pay hikes when voted in by the majority. She said prior to Tuesday's meeting that she doesn't serve as a water district director for the pay, and that she is "committed to the work of the district."
Michael Moore Michael Moore covers county and law enforcement issues for the Morgan Hill Times. Reach him at (408) 779-4106, ext. 202, or mmoore@morganhilltimes.com.
POST A COMMENT
If you are under 13 years of age you may read this message board, but you may not participate.
Here are the full legal terms you agree to by using this comment form.
Hope flies again
