The Tuolumne County Republican Central Committee has asked the presiding judge of Tuolumne County Superior Court to review the Tuolumne County Grand Jury’s report on Tuolumne Utilities District that was released in July.
In
a letter to Presiding Judge Donald Segerstrom dated Sept. 10, the committee
stated that discrepancies needed to be resolved between the findings reported
by the jury and the water agency’s responses that largely denied all of the
allegations.
“The
reputation and integrity of the TUD leadership and in particular, one member of
the board has been seriously challenged and the dispute has not been resolved,”
the letter stated. “We would also say that the reputation of the Grand Jury is
at stake based on the lack of thoroughness of their investigation.”
The
letter was signed by Randy Hanvelt, chairman of the committee and former county
supervisor for District 2.
Copies
of the letter were also sent to Judge Kate Powell Segerstrom, who was assigned
to advise the jury; Ed Pattison, TUD general manager; and The Union Democrat.
Judge
Kate Powell Segerstrom said any comment on the letter would have to come from
Presiding Judge Donald Segerstrom, who was in a trial Monday afternoon and
couldn’t be reached for comment.
The
letter stated that the resolution should be swiftly and publicly disclosed due
to the upcoming election Nov. 3 in which three seats on the TUD Board of
Directors will be up for grabs.
Ron
Kopf, an incumbent TUD director whose ties to the business and development
interests were investigated by the jury, is seeking another four-year term on
the board and will be on the ballot.
Kopf,
who was identified in the report only as “Director B,” denied the jury’s
findings about real or perceived conflicts of interest in an article published
in The Union Democrat on July 3 two days after the report was released.
“Assuming
this situation is left to continue; to ferment on its own without resolution,
it will be a huge disservice to the people of Tuolumne County, especially in an
election year for the board member in question,” the letter from the committee
stated.
The
letter also asserted that the July 3 article received “broad front page
coverage” in The Union Democrat while TUD’s responses to the jury’s report did
not, though an article about the district’s then-proposed responses was
published on Aug. 8 in the same location on the front page.
Another
article about the district’s responses and infighting over them among members
of the TUD board was also published on the front page of the newspaper on Aug.
13.
Hanvelt
said in an interview on Monday that the committee has not endorsed Kopf in the
nonpartisan race for TUD board, though it feels the vast differences between
the findings of the report and the district’s responses should be resolved.
“Normally,
you don’t see that in grand jury reports and responses to grand jury reports,
he
said. “This one is a virtual rejection.”
The
jury’s report largely focused on Kopf’s connections, the district’s financial
well-being overall, a water service agreement that it found was difficult to
decipher, and TUD’s membership in the Tuolumne County Business Council, of
which Kopf is the executive director.
In
TUD’s response to the jury, the district noted that Kopf’s ties have been
vetted by the California Fair Political Practices Commission and that he has
recused himself whenever a potential conflict arises.
Information
from the FPPC provided by TUD to the jury that found no conflicts in Kopf’s
position with the business council was also omitted in the report, the district
noted in its response.
The
district’s responses also said the agreement in question was vetted by the
district’s legal counsel, that the jury had blurred certain revenue streams and
funds when analyzing the district’s financial health, and that being a member
of private organizations such as the business council helps the district stay
apprised of planning activities and decisions.
“There’s
a difference between the two and what’s correct, and we want them to straighten
it out,” Hanvelt said. “The people don’t know. I’ve heard all sorts of people
who have read one side and not the other side. I personally have a tendency to
believe TUD because they said the grand jury talked to them and didn’t use
their information.”
However,
not all TUD board members agreed with the district’s responses to the jury.
The
board voted 3-1 to approve the responses that were drafted by Pattison and TUD
staff, with directors Kopf, Bob Rucker and Jeff Kerns in favor and Director
Barbara Balen opposed.
Balen
is also seeking reelection on Nov. 3 in a field that includes Kopf, educator
Lisa Murphy, former TUD board member Jim Grinnell, and recently retired
longitme TUD employee David Boatright.
Director
Ron Ringen did not vote on the responses because he dropped out of the meeting
that was held via Zoom on Aug. 6, but he expressed strong disagreement with how
they were written.
Hanvelt
said the public perception over the report will impact the election, which is
why they believe the court should address them before ballots start getting
mailed out on Oct. 5.
“I’ve
got to give credibility to the grand jury, they are dedicated people, but I’ve
got to give credit to TUD,” he said. “When there are two things that are
diametrically opposed, I say someone’s got to resolve it.”
The Union Democrat
Alex MacLean at
amaclean@uniondemocrat.net
September 18, 2020
No comments:
Post a Comment