Blog note: this article references a June 2018 grand jury report.
A heated hearing on Monday ended with a deadlock vote on charges of misconduct against El Dorado Irrigation District board member Greg Prada.
At issue was whether or not to send a letter to the California Fair Political Practices Commission, El Dorado County Grand Jury, El Dorado County District Attorney and the Placerville Police Department to undertake an investigation of Prada.
The source of the misconduct charge dates back to Prada’s refusal to turn over emails and other communications having to do with EID business per a recent court decision regarding public records requests.
The documents were requested by attorney Tom Cumpston who was EID’s general counsel before retiring.
When Prada refused to do so, Cumpston asked the El Dorado County Grand Jury to investigate.
The Grand Jury’s report, issued June 8, directed Prada to comply with the court ruling.
Following issuance of the grand jury report, on June 19 Prada contacted EID’s General Counsel Brian Poulsen by phone saying he wanted an outside attorney to advise him on what he considered to be Cumpston’s “overbroad and unconstitutional requests” for copies of the emails.
According to Poulsen’s account of the conversation, Prada asked him to advocate with the board to provide him with outside legal counsel as he thought Poulsen couldn’t because of his supposed allegiance to Cumpston. He also said that unless Poulsen helped him, he would file a complaint with the California Bar Association alleging Poulsen had violated the rules of professional conduct by not recusing himself.
Poulsen responded by telling Prada he considered that threat to be an attempt to blackmail him. After the call he sent a complaint against Prada to EID General Manager Jim Abercrombie, members of the board and to EID’s human resource manager, discussing what had transpired.
In response to the complaint, Prada said he did not ask Poulsen to advocate for him or plead his case to the board for outside counsel. Instead Prada claimed Poulsen misrepresented what he said during their phone conversation and later asked that the item requesting funding outside legal help be withdrawn from the board agenda.
At the board meeting, the agenda item stimulated discussion among the board members as well as generated input from many in the audience.
Director George Osborne called it a very serious accusation and said while such complaints are usually handled internally, because it involves an elected official, it had to be done in a public forum. He went on to say that because EID is not an investigative body, a different organization needed to investigate the charges.
Director Alan Day argued the opposite, saying the complaint could have been sent to the appropriate authority and that making it public “stinks of political theater.”
Director Dale Coco countered by pointing out that the problems Prada was having were of his own making and if he had complied with the court ruling from the beginning, “none of this would have happened.”
Those in the audience agreed and disagreed with the board.
Harry Norris, who previously served on the board, said the facts were not in dispute but there was a need to determine who was right. George Wheeldon, who like Norris previously served on EID’s board, suggested Prada needed to be replaced.
However a large contingent of people from the Save the Canal group were in the audience and they spoke in support of Prada.
This is a politically motivated witch hunt before an election, claimed Pollock Pines resident Jeff Leddy. Others in the group agreed with him, with attorney Joe Baer saying Prada had every right to bounce ideas off Poulson.
However Cumpston said he believed it would be better to have an outside group sort through the facts. At the same time he asserted that when it comes to integrity, he would choose Poulsen over Prada.
In the end, the board was deadlocked in voting on the issue of whether to ask for an investigation with Prada recusing himself; President Mike Raffety and Director Osborne voting for the motion and Directors Day and Coco voting against.
However that was not the end of it as Abercrombie informed the board he had already referred the complaint to the four agencies in question.
After the meeting, Abercrombie issued the following statement: “Based on my analysis, it is reasonable to conclude that this incident occurred and referral to independent agencies to investigate is warranted. No employee should be subjected to threats or intimidation—or perceived threats—by a board member or any employee.”
July 25, 2018
Mountain Democrat
By Dawn Hodson
No comments:
Post a Comment