Oceano CSD emergency meeting for Sunday

April 3, 2011

Jim Hill

UPDATE: Amid concerns that appointing two board members would result in a quorum not elected by the people, the Oceano Community Service District board voted 3-0 to appoint two directors by June 2.

The vote came after the public voiced concerns over the cost of a special election and questions about district staff being unprepared for the special meeting.

District legal counsel Molly Thurmond said the district could hold a special election, appoint directors or hold an advisory election where they could hear the voices of the people without the cost of a special election. Thurmond then noted she knew very little about advisory elections.

During public comment, Julie Tacker chastised staff for calling a meeting on a Sunday without being prepared.

“If you are going to discuss an advisory vote you should know something about it,” Tacker said. “To make informed decisions on a Sunday night you should have the information in front of you.”

ORIGINAL: In response to the resignation of two Oceano Community Service District board directors, district officials have scheduled an emergency meeting for Sunday, April 3, at 6:30 p.m.

On March 29, former directors Jim Hill and Carole Henson tendered their resignations, citing disagreements with district manager Raffaele Montemurro over his accounting practices and failure to follow the board’s direction.

During the emergency meeting, the three remaining directors will determine who will cover committee assignments, most of which were covered by board president Hill and director Henson, and how their empty seats will be filled.

At a March 23 board meeting, district legal counsel Molly Thurmond nixed an agenda item set to evaluate Montemurro because she believed performance evaluations are to be held in closed session even though Montemurro said he desired an open session evaluation.

However, the Brown Act allows performance evaluations to be heard in closed session, “unless the employee requests a public session.”

The three remaining board members, Lori Angello, Matthew Guerrero, and Mary Lucey, have 60 days to appoint two new board members or hold a special election.

“I would prefer to have the public elect a new board member,” said Guerrero noting that if the board appoints to new members that would leave only two elected directors on the five member board.

At this time Lori Angelo and Mary Lucey are the only elected director on the board. Guerrero was appointed after former director Vern Dahl resigned.

In February 2010, after Barbara Mann resigned from the board, Lori Angello was appointed by a vote of 2-1 with one director abstaining.

Shortly afterwards, director Pamela Dean said the board violated its own rules of order by appointing Angello with only two votes. In addition the vote violated Government Code Section 61045, which says, “a majority of the total membership of the board of directors shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business.”

After Angello refused to step down, Dean filed a civil lawsuit against the Oceano Community Service District and Angello for the illegal appointment.

On March 17, San Luis Obispo County Superior Court Judge Charles Crandall ruled that Angello’s appointment was not legal, but by that time the issue was moot, Angello, who ran unopposed, won a seat in the November election.

Even so, Crandall said Dean has the right to go after the district and Angello for legal fees.

Meanwhile, the district is slated to discuss Montemurro’s performance during an April 13 board meeting.


Loading...
25 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Perhaps Hill is becoming uncomfortable with the liability he may incur from the actions of other members of boards he sits on?


After the (alleged) outrageous crimes committed by Robert Rizzo, city administor for Bell, and his assistant administrator, there are now inquiries in other California cities and small local government areas.


The SSLOCSD seems over-ripe for a real investigation, from an outside entity, Hill might be concerned that continuing to sit on the SSLOCSD board is enough of a risk, without adding the risk of being a member of the OCSD Board with its many-year history of financial problems and unaccountability?


Since Henson hasn’t been on the OCSD Board very long, this may not be an issue for her. Someone said she may have not realized how much work is involved in the OCSD Board position, which is another logical possibility.


The more I ponder the logic behind the resignations, the less respect I have for Hill & Henson. What did they expect to accomplish with regard to the OCSD? Did they simply gather up their marbles and leave when things weren’t going their way? Or did they think Montemurro would be at a disadvantage if they left? No doubt he welcomed the exit of at least one of them. Wouldn’t it have been better to replace the GM? Shouldn’t they have remained and fought for the residents of Oceano? Did they really think it would be easy to serve….both knew the make-up of the board and, by now, the m.o. of the GM. “When the going gets tough, the tough get going.” So, what’s the benefit of resigning? Any answers?


My take: How many meetings have to been to? Doesn’t matter who you are, there is a group that hates you and constantly attacks. After several years on the board and getting only $200 a month for all the grief, how much of your life would you continue to owe and donate to a community that almost never turns up at meetings to be involved?


I haven’t talked to either, but that’s my guess about Hill. I think that Henson just didn’t realize how much work she was getting into. I think that when she heard about Hill she just decided to ‘pile on’.


In other words, I’m not sure they were trying to accomplish anything by resigning. Just tired of trying to contribute and constantly getting attacked for doing so.


So, my question to all, are there two people willing to take on the job? Or, does everyone just want to reserve the right to keep attacking yet do nothing themselves?


I assume that anyone who takes a position on the OCSD is an informed and willing participant. I wouldn’t personally want to be connected to the rude behavior of some and the frustration of dealing with the GM. Since all voted for this GM, I’m also assuming they researched his performance on past jobs and liked what they saw. I’ve read enough online about Wisc. to see red flags. But, IF I made the committment to represent the community, I’d feel I owed it to that community to fulfill my obligation, painful as it might be.


Good points. It’s easy to stay out of the game so you never have to claim any responsibility and can just throw rocks at the “enemy” of the day. Putting your reputation on the line and getting involved is much more respectable. Now is the perfect time to step up or shut up.


Like you and Typo, I don’t live in the OCSD, so no chance for me to step up, other than keep a watchful eye and encourage others who can take a stand. Just because it may not affect my pocketbook, just the same, I feel it’s important to pay attention and care about what happens to my fellow citizens. So, this is my outlet and one of the few ways I can participate in the “game.”


Just wanted to point out that the logic of an opinion has zero to do with whether the person offering the opinion is willing to do anything beyond offering an opinion.


Could you not offer an opinion about the December 2010 3-million-gallon sewage spill into the ocean just because you are not willing or able to get a job at SSLOCSD? or swim in the dumped sewaged? or whatever other false requirement a person demanded of you before, they believe, you had the right to offer an opinion?


Just trying to ensure that the chill of a false requirement for an opinion to be rightfully heard settles on message board discussions about these very important local issues.


Agreed. However, you misinterpret. I’m not disputing whether opinions should be heard. There is, of course, no such requirement. However, continuous vituperative and caustic criticisms eventually are tuned out if that is all that is ever offered. I am suggesting that those who seem to have the time to appear at every meeting with so many criticisms should try to get on the board. I applaud those who actually do volunteer their time and have to endure constant criticism in return.


The OCSD meetings isn’t the only place Hill is out numbered and one of the other agencies who’s board he sits on is also under investigation by at least two other organizations we’ll say. Hill has spoken out and been shot down time after time by the Crony majority. When your reputation and name is in jeopardy sometimes you have to protect yourself and stepping out may have been the only solution for both of them. Hill is no fool,the ship is sinking and he just paddled away in his life boat to save his behind.


So weird!! Hill does not jump ship. Takes 3 votes to fire the GM? Couldn’t wait till next meeting? He gave up? No, would not happen, just weird!


I don’t know how long Mr. Hill has been on the OCSD Board, but if it is more than 6 months, considering the caustic environment of the meetings, I’d say he gave it the good college try.


According to him, he (and other members) have tried to hold the OCSD GM accountable, but this has been unable to be unaccomplished.


Considering Hill is also on the oversight board for the SSLOCSD, and quite frequently is the one attempting to persuade the other two members to deal with the many problems and conflicts of interest with that facility, I would say he has, pretty much, a big job already.


It is very frustrating to sit in the SSLOCSD meetings and see the other two board members protect John Wallace, with only Hill standing up for the public interest.


I can’t imagine how frustrating it must be for Hill to be the third member standing up for the public interest, against the two other board members and John Wallace.


I agree with the previous posters, what the h@ll is Tacker doing there? I have seen her boyfriend at some of the meetings advocating developement in Oceano. This is just so rich. Where else could Tacker and Edwards fit in but Oceano,,,no where else. They are the perfect fit to the dysfunction of Oceano. I guess they’ve done their damage in LO so now it’s time for them to move on & spread their evil ways (JK).

To Tacker and Edwards,,,stay home, go back to LO. Oceano has enough problems they certainly don’t need you…OMG what if Edwards runs for a seat!


You just can’t make this stuff up. Last night a friend of mine (who posts in this forum) were talking on the phone trying to figure out what the OCSD board would do. They are so unpredictable, just when I think that they can’t do anything more ridiculous they come up with something new to prove me wrong.


This will be very interesting. Grab your popcorn and soda and get ready for another season of the best comedy series on TV.


To the residents of Oceano, I’m sorry, I don’t mean to make light of your dilemma. I truly feel bad for you. I’m sure that the board, GM and most of the regulars at the meetings aren’t a reflection of everyone in Oceano


Julie Tacker? What’s she doing down there?


Julie Tacker happens to be Jeff Edward’s significant other. Mr. Edwards as you may recall came up with a proposal to redevelop the Oceano airport. That is my guess why Ms. Tacker showed up to an Oceano CSD meeting.


To the people of Oceano, beware… “something wicked this way comes”


Something wicked has been there for years if not decades,and its time for an exorcism.


Jeff Edwards has been to every meeting in Oceano the last few months. Now Julie Tacker. I remember a while back when he was holding those meetings about redevelopment at the airport there were a lot of people from Los Osos posting beware of Edwards information. Can someone refresh everyone’s memory about this guy and what he did in Los Osos???


He wanted to remove 395 trees at Montana de Oro so he could have solar panels on a house he was building. The 80 trees he had a permit for he already chopped out of the park but apparently that wasn’t enough. The Supes stopped him.


Then there was the famous “chipping gate” incident which also involved Julie. They used their neighbors names as people wanting to use the free CSD chipping service so they could chip far beyond the amount allowed for free. The neighbors did not know their names were being used.


Then the duo attempted to block the selling of property that was going to the Sweet Springs Nature Preserve. Prior to that they tried to block the state Coastal Conservancy money that was going to go to the park. The park is run by the Audubon Society who Edwards and Tacker don’t like.


Part of the mitigations to allow Edwards to build a shopping center in Los Osos was to maintain the road median in front of the development. He kept the median nice for a while then turned off the water and let all the plants die.


There is more but I’m out of time.


Okay, I’m waiting on the edge of my seat,,,what happened!?


Is the meeting over yet? Any news?


Good Golly Miss Molly–What is it??


REQUIRED NOTICES AND AGENDAS


REGULAR MEETINGS: Agenda containing brief general description (approximately twenty words in length) of each matter to be considered or discussed must be posted at least 72 hours prior to meeting.

SPECIAL MEETINGS: Twenty-four hour notice must be provided to members of legislative body and media outlets including brief general description of matters to be considered or discussed.

EMERGENCY MEETINGS: One hour notice in case of work stoppage or crippling activity, except in the case of a dire emergency.


I wonder if it will be televised.


Emergency meeting??? or Special meeting???


Special meeting. Read the agenda posted on the CSD web site for further details. Various appointment/election options are presented.