HomeMy WebLinkAbout21-Consideration of a Response to the Grand Jury Report dated May 25, 2012Agenda Item # 21
ACTION
To: Board of Directors
From: Steven Poncelet
Date: June 06, 2012
Subject: Consideration of a Response to the Grand Jury Report dated May
25, 2012
1. WHY THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE BOARD
This item concens the Nevada County Grand Jury report published on May 25, 2012
which requires formal response to the Grand Jury Findings and Recommendations by
the TDPUD Board of Directors by August 23, 2012.
2. HISTORY
On April 19, 2011, the Nevada County Grand Jury received a complaint from the
member of the public. The complaint asked the Nevada County Grand Jury to review
the eligibility of a Director of the Truckee Donner Public Utility District to serve on the
board of Directors. On May 25, 2012, the Grand Jury posted their report on the
Nevada County website.
3. NEW INFORMATION
TDPUD staff has reviewed the Grand Jury report and are seeking feedback and
direction from the Board on how to respond to the Grand Jury Findings and
Recommendations.
As required by the California Penal Code, with regards to Grand Jury Findings, the
Board shall indicate one of the following:
1. The Board agrees with the finding; or
2. The Board disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response
shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an
explanation of the reasons therefore.
As required by the California Penal Code, with regards to Grand Jury
Recommendations, the Board shall report one of the following actions:
1. The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the
implemented action; or
2. The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the
future; with a time frame for implementation; or
3. The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope
and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be
prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being
investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when
applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of
publication of the grand jury report; or
4. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not
reasonable, with an explanation therefore.
Based on the above, staff has drafted
Attachment 1, to facilitate this discussion.
Grand Jury report is:
a response to the Grand Jury report,
In general, staffs assessment of this the
• The State of California, Office of the Attorney General and the courts, has
jurisdiction regarding issues relating to residency requirements for local
government officials. It is not appropriate for local agencies to interfere.
• The District does not agree with many of the 'facts' and findings of the Nevada
County Grand Jury as they are erroneous and inaccurate.
• Director Hillstrom addressed the question of his residency multiple times in
open session and the Board was satisfied with his statements. The Board and
General Manager were fully aware of their responsibilities regarding this issue,
4. FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact assocaited with this item.
5. RECOMMENDATION
Provide comments on this report and draft response to the Grand Jury report and
direct the Board President to respond to the Nevada County Grand Jury.
/t/T/L�f
Steven Poncelet
Public Information & Conservation Manager
Michael D. Holley
General Manager