HomeMy WebLinkAbout21-1 Grand Jury-Draft Response, 6-6-12Attachment 1
TDPUD Board Formal Response to Nevada County Grand Jury report
June 6, 2012
Note: TDPUD Response in Bold
Grand Jury Findings
F.1.1. The District Code does not specifically address the process for responding
to a complaint concerning a member of the Board. Agree.
F.1.2. The District Code does not specifically require the GM to keep the Board
informed of a complaint concerning a member of the Board. Agree.
F.1.3. The GM's failure to notify the Board of the cOplaint regarding the Director
denied the Board the opportunity to address the complaint. Disagree. There is
no requirement, regulation, or law for the GM to notify the Board in this
circumstance. Additionally, the Board was given the opportunity to
address the complaint.
F.1.4. After the Director's public statements at the December 15, 2010 and
February 16, 2011 Board meetings, the Board showed a lack of engagement and
responsiveness by failing to address the issues raised by the Director's
statement. Disagree. Director Hillstrom addressed the question of his
residency multiple times in open session and the Board was satisfied with
his statements. The Board and GM were fully aware of their
responsibilities regarding this issue, followed District code and State law,
and took appropriate actions. The State of California, Office of the Attorney
General and the courts, have sole jurisdiction regarding issues relating to
residency requirements for local government officials.
r
F.1.5. The Distric ode does not require the complainant be notified of the
disposition of a complaint made concerning a member of the Board. Agree.
Grand Jury Recommendations
R1. All members of the Board should seek out and attend training regarding the
roles and responsibilities of Board members in special districts. The
recommendation has been implemented. The District has an on -going
program to train Board members.
R2. The Board should develop written policy which clearly defines the roles and
responsibilities of the GM, the TDPUD legal counsel and Board in response to a
complaint concerning a member of the Board. The recommendation has not
yet been implemented, but will be implemented within 120 days.
Attachment 1
R3. The Board should amend the District Code to require the complainant be
notified of the disposition of a complaint made concerning a member of the
Board. The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be
implemented within 120 days.
R4. The Board should develop written policy that requires the GM to keep the
Board informed of a complaint concerning a member of the Board. The
recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented
within 120 days.
R5. The Board should improve communications among TDPUD management,
TDPUD legal counsel and the Board. This recommendation will not be
implemented because it is not warranted. See the District's response to
F.1.3 and FAA The District strives to continually improve communications
among the TDPUD management, TDPUD legal counsel and the Board.