Don't overreact. That was the sentiment shared by some of the Shasta County LAFCO board members in response to a recent grand jury report at Thursday's regular meeting.
The Shasta County grand jury report, titled "No Laughing Matter," paints the Local Agency Formation Commission as slow to act in completing municipal reviews and recommends a number of changes to its operations.
At the meeting at Anderson Council Chambers, commissioner Steve Morgan called the report repugnant and said the board could draft a response to how these reports are titled.
Dick Fyten, who sits on the LAFCO financial committee, drafted his own findings to the grand jury report and emailed them to the board.
Les Baugh, county board member, said he shouldn't have done that, because it's a violation of the Brown Act. All actions carried out by the board have to be carried out in an open forum.
Brenda Haynes, special district manager, said she appreciated the efforts Fyten took to address the report from a financial point of view.
"I have no criticism of what was said, because I didn't read it," said Baugh, who advised the rest of the board to delete any emails sent to the entire agency.
David Kehoe, county member, said the commission should not take a personal tone and "resist becoming defensive" as it drafts its response to the report.
Kehoe, also a county supervisor, handed out a recent response to a grand jury report from the Shasta County Board of Supervisors.
Kehoe added the county's response is not a template for LAFCO to follow, but could give an idea on how to react. The board could even refuse some of the recommendations laid out in the report.
Along with the need to update long term policies, the report also recommended LAFCO begin charging districts for updates along with its other services.
LAFCO receives a budget of $186,000 to conduct its reviews and spheres of influences. That funding comes from the county, three cities and special districts within the county.
Irwin Fust, alternate commissioner, said it would not make sense to charge more money from the districts that already pay the agency.
Meanwhile, the need to formalize a response that morning was emphasized by a few board members.
Fyten argued the agency has already updated a number of its schedules to address reviews for the next several years. He wanted to vote on a response immediately.
Whatever the commissioners decide LAFCO attorney Jim Underwood directed the agency's response to be direct and straightforward. Any issues, mistakes or comments on the report could be included in a formal response.
LAFCO board members agreed to draft a response and will revisit the item at their next meeting in August. The agency has 90 days to respond to the report, which was released May 17.
June 2, 2015
Redding Record Searchlight
By Nathan Solis
No comments:
Post a Comment