Ledger Dispatch
February 5, 2010
A local citizens group is asking the Amador Water Agency to seek legal counsel and investigate whether some directors violated provisions of the Brown Act by holding private discussions on board elections.
A Jan. 13 letter signed by Vince DeStigter, president of the Amador Citizens for Responsible Government, was sent to AWA Board President Bill Condrashoff asking that “AWA legal counsel investigate whether some agency directors violated the Brown Act when they were reported to have held private discussions and made commitments about who would become the next president and vice president of the board of directors.”
In his letter, DeStigter said the Brown Act requires local agencies to post an agenda concerning any matter to be discussed and that all discussions and votes take place at a public meeting. He added that “this appears not to have happened based upon a recent Amador Ledger Dispatch story …that included quotes from directors Condrashoff and Dunn stating that private discussions and deals had been made a year ago to determine the agency’s new president and vice president this year.”
The story referred to by DeStigter was published in the Dec. 18 Ledger Dispatch.
DeStigter said, “If this story is correct, the public was denied its right to view deliberations that led to the decision to make directors Condrashoff and Dunn the president and vice president of the board.”
DeStigter concluded his letter, “If the law has been violated, then the action of the board may be voided and offending board members may have committed a misdemeanor.”
A cornerstone statement in California’s open meeting law, commonly known as the Brown Act, reads in part, “… public commissions, boards and councils … exist to aid in the conduct of the people’s business. It is the intent of the law that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly.”
Any communications between board members outside of a public meeting discussing AWA business has the potential to be construed as a Brown Act violation.
All public meetings of the AWA are electronically recorded.
During a telephone interview Feb. 2, DeStigter said he has not received any response to his letter from the AWA. “What I did during the last meeting,” he said, “Was I went to the public session and asked and they said they’re working on a response and I would get it. The biggest problem I have is when people make statements like they did … it becomes obvious that they did talk about it outside of a meeting.”
“I’ve worked with Debbie on the Airport Advisory Board before,” DeStigter continued. “She has a tendency to overstep a lot of her authority and push her own criteria. She has her own agenda, there’s no doubt about it.”
AWA legal counsel Stephen Kronick said he is looking into the allegations contained in DeStigter’s letter. “I asked the board clerk for the tape of the January board meeting so I could listen to what was said,” he explained. “I probably will be discussing that with the board during the Feb. 11 board meeting.” Kronick added that his discussion with the board could take place during a closed session due to the potential for litigation. He also explained that there is a specific provision in the Brown Act that discusses electronic communications and said if three or more directors had shared AWA business information electronically, it would be a violation of the Brown Act.
Copyright 2010 Ledger Dispatch