4.20.18
The Other Side of BWSD – The Blame Game – Denial, Part II By Karen
Renner
A lack of transparency was one of the leading complaints about
the previous BWSD Board of Directors by several candidates who ran for a
position. What I have witnessed over the
past several years is clearly a current and very accurate complaint of secrecy
regarding the current board. When
questioned, the board denies Open Meeting Law violations as well as reckless
management of this district. Denial is a
powerful tool when left unchecked.
However, over time this is easily exposed when you compare what is said
to facts. It is difficult to talk your
way out of a corner you behave your way into.
The first meeting I ever attended was the swearing in of
Steve May and Sharon Meyer. When Steve
May and Sharon Meyer were sworn in, they were asked to sign the following
agreement and both refused, citing they should not have to sign a document
agreeing to dismissal for violating laws, rules or acting in unethical ways.
I was present at nearly every board meeting during the transition
to new board members after the death of previous Chairman Chuck Waller. I listened and followed carefully for almost
2 years before asking questions or challenging inaccurate information. Narrow minded agendas emerged, with a clear
inability of new board members to ask questions and learn about various aspects
of district management and operations. I
continually heard new board members challenge more experienced board members
and then state “oh, I didn’t know that”, “I wasn’t aware of that” or “no one
told us that”…truth is, no one was willing to listen (and learn) because they
had all the answers prior to becoming
a new board member. Fast forward several
years, Sharon Meyer recently writes to a district customer that the board is
“actively learning more and more about water & sewer systems individually
and collectively”. The problem is, trial and error management is costing our district tens
of thousands of dollars in mistakes. The
cost of learning should not be passed to customers, yet the board continues to
deny and absolve themselves of any responsibility.
On 5/16/16, without board approval, Richard Doney and Sharon Meyer met
with the district’s attorney to find out how to vote themselves into power
(Chairman and Vice Chairman). This would
circumvent the typical board process of electing officers every 2 years, after
each election cycle. This meeting with
the attorney was followed by two telephone calls resulting in a $232.50 invoice
to the district. This was entirely
without board approval or knowledge of the then Chairman and Vice
Chairman. Apparently, Rich and Sharon
were not satisfied with leadership that followed laws, held to ethical behavior
and refused to engage in board business outside of public meetings. When this unauthorized meeting was announced
by the Chair, I asked which board members had done this and both Rich and
Sharon sat silent, refusing to face the public and take responsibility for such
unethical and backhanded conduct.
When I asked the board why the district should pay for unauthorized
access to the district attorney, the board exited into the privacy of executive
session and authorized payment out of public view (as I was informed at the
following meeting). The following month,
Rich and Sharon were voted in for Chair and Vice Chair (3 in favor, vs 2 against)
after stating that “nothing was getting done” and “these positions should only
be one year appointments so more directors could have the opportunity”. One year later, they voted to return to two
year appointments so they could extend their term of control for three
years. Another board member spoke openly
during the initial efforts to remove the previous Chair regarding the law and
procedure for election of Chair and Vice Chair. In opposition to typical board
procedure, Rich Doney admitted he spoke with the attorney and states his motion
to un-seat Chairman Marsha Ritzheimer was legal and proceeded with a motion and
vote. After the vote to return to 2 year
leadership terms, I questioned the efficacy of appointing officers mid election-cycle
and questioned why they believe newly elected directors should not have input
and voice regarding board leadership - the response was “oh, I guess we didn’t
think about that”. They went further to
discuss how the Vice Chair should ‘automatically’ become Chairman after serving
for two years (because the Vice Chair would now have experience from that role)–
which, under their belief system would have meant Rich Doney should never have
become Chairman until he gained experience as Vice Chairman. Interesting how beliefs change when
self-serving principles prevail.
Board meeting minutes document the previous Chair Marsha Ritzheimer
addressing improper email communications between directors which violate open
meeting laws (“it’s like having a meeting without the public”) and resisting
efforts by other board members to impose actions such as oiling roads which
don’t belong to the district (and which property owners did not agree to). I remember Sharon Meyer bluntly criticizing
Marsha for not returning her emails regarding board business, to which Marsha
calmly replied it was not proper communication. I thought to myself, Sharon is
actually criticizing Marsha for following the law. This is very interesting.
Question No. 26: Are discussions conducted via telephones, computers,
cell phones (including texting) or other electronic means exempted from the
Open Meeting Law?
Answer: As discussed in this manual, the Open Meeting Law applies
to the deliberations and discussions between two or more members of a board or
commission on some matter which foreseeably will come before that board or
commission for action. The use of a telephone to conduct
such discussions does not remove the conversation from the requirements of the
Open Meeting Law.
Similarly,
members of a public board may not use computers or texting to conduct private
conversations among themselves about board business. A one-way e-mail or text
communication from one city council member to another, when it does not result
in the exchange of council members’ comments or responses on subjects requiring
council action, does not constitute a meeting subject to the Open Meeting Law;
however, such e-mail or text communications are public records and must be
maintained by the records custodian for public inspection and copying.” (Idaho Open
Meeting Law Manual, pg. 16)
Mr. Doney announced in a recent meeting that a group of concerned citizens
submitted a complaint to the Prosecuting Attorney of Kootenai County regarding
continual patterns of Idaho Open Meeting Law violations by this board. Not surprising, the district has denied they discuss
or conduct business outside of open meetings or that they make final decisions
within executive sessions (or elsewhere).
It is evident these violations are typical practice for the current
board, however, it was decided that it was not in the best interest of time,
energy and resources to continue to dispute past violations since resolution or
cures were all but moot. The BWSD Board
of Directors should adhere to Open Meeting Law requirements, specifically practicing
transparency by deliberating and making final decisions at open meetings
(excluding the very narrow criteria allowed for executive sessions). While the law states certain topics may be
closed, it certainly does not mandate this and in fact, states when in doubt,
open the meeting. “The public’s business ought to be done in
public”.
Idaho Open Meeting Law Manual
“POLICY CONSIDERATIONS UNDERLYING THE OPEN MEETING LAW
The Idaho Open Meeting Law1 was designed to ensure transparency of
the legislative and administrative processes within state and local governments.
The people of the state of Idaho in creating the instruments of
government that serve them, do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies so
created. Therefore, the legislature finds and declares that it is the policy of
this state that the formation of public policy is public business and shall not
be conducted in secret.2
Open meetings offer the public a chance to observe the way their
government operates and to influence their government in positive and important
ways. Closed meetings often can lead to distrust of
governmental decisions and acts.
Those who conduct meetings must
remember this policy above all when deciding whether a meeting should be open.
If a meeting is closed, there must be a compelling reason, supported by the
statute itself, or by subsequent court rulings.
Remember, when in doubt, open the meeting.” (pg. 1)
The purpose of the formal complaint was to force compliance with Idaho
Open Meeting Laws. We are outlining a
few of the historical actions which have been taken by the BWSD board without
any proper documentation of board approval (motion and vote) at an open meeting. When a motion and vote are not held within a
public meeting, one may assume decisions were made and authorized during some
other deliberation or meeting – which the board continues to deny. Per the Idaho Open Meeting Law, board
decisions not made at a duly noted meeting are void. The public has a right to know how each board
member is voting on each business item!
·
May 2016 – no board authorization for Richard
Doney and Sharon Meyer to meet with the district attorney, without knowledge of
the Chair and Vice Chair
·
June/July 2016 – no board approval to utilize
district funds to pay the unauthorized access to the district’s attorney
·
November, 2017 – no approval to reduce the full
time office position to part time
·
January/Feb, 2017; no approval to hire secretary Jessie Roe as
an employee, no approval of hiring terms
·
January, 2017 – no board approval to revise or
terminate an agreement for district snowplowing which had been in effect for 10
years
·
February, 2017 – no approval to contract with
new snowplow agent; no follow up on
board agreement and request to secure 3 bids from other companies; same
individual continues to be paid for plowing without contract approval from the
board
·
June, 2017 – no approval to recruit for contract
based system operations
·
August 14, 2017 – no approval of severance package
(payment) for employee when position eliminated
·
August, 2017 – no board approval to enter into a
contract executed 8.16.17 between BWSD and Water System Management for
Responsible & Substitute Charge Wastewater Operator (put on the agenda in
September after the contract was already executed)
·
August 2017 – no board approval for revisions to
proposed budget for FY 2017-2018 which was posted in the newspaper and on the
district website; changes were announced
at the budget hearing August 31 bypassing the required posting timeframe
·
August/September 2017 – chairman polled board
members via telephone calls regarding board approval to file criminal complaint
against two district members for allegations of vandalism and trespassing
·
Fall, 2017 – no approval for the purchase of new
office flooring
·
Unknown – no approval to reduce hours customers
may access the district office - which is now M/W 8am – 1pm (the district pays
for 30 hrs/wk office support)
·
October 2017 – no approval for revision of the
agenda structure, moving public comments to the beginning of the agenda after
the board previously voted to move public comments to the end of each agenda (previous
Chair was rudely criticized for not having input following business conducted,
district Secretary made the decision without approval of all board members)
·
October 13, 2017 – No approval to revise or
amend a previous resolution regarding Public Record Request form and fee schedule; distributed directly to a customer by the
district’s secretary with an email from the district attorney with revisions; topic
never present on an agenda at a public meeting until January 2018
·
January 2018 – no approval adopting new rules
for public comments during meetings –(apparently agreed upon in executive
session with the district’s attorney)
Rich Doney insists he follows ‘the letter of the law’. The law
clearly states the intent of the Idaho Open Meeting Law is public business
shall not be conducted in secret. It is
easily witnessed that deliberations, discussions and board business take place
outside of public meetings. I personally
have overheard Mr. Doney and Ms. Edwards discussing dissatisfaction with the current
engineering firm JUB at The Captain’s Wheel, including Ms. Edwards desire to
change engineering firms out of dissatisfaction with timeliness. None of the decisions bulleted above were
motioned for a vote, approved and documented in any board minutes. Common sense leads one to believe that
directors are in fact holding discussions and making decisions ‘in secret’
outside of public meetings.
We
understand that certain deliberations are reserved for executive closed sessions. Common practice is for a board to exit into
executive session for deliberations which meet criteria to be held in private.
However, law states the board must return to an open meeting to motion and vote
on a final decision. Current practice of
the BWSD board is to excuse the public, enter into executive session after all
business has been conducted and not return to the open meeting after executive
session. Executive session has yet to be
held within the flow of a general meeting (exiting for private deliberations)
and returning for a motion and vote on action.
Of
final thought…the board has yet to adopt a Code of Ethics, or use the
previously suggested Responsibilities of the BWSD board member. I
guess if you deny the need, you can evade accountability. Our community deserves ethical and accountable
leadership that is not forced by legal proceedings or other action. This brings us to the next topic of interest
-- non-compliance with DEQ Re-Use permit (issued by DEQ March 2, 2018) and the
district has yet to acknowledge this or discuss the mandated plan of correction
within the last two monthly board meetings.
Stay tuned…..
