Posted by: Kim_Hamilton on 07/29/2009 05:43 PM
Updated by: Kim_Hamilton on 07/29/2009 05:47 PM
Expires: 01/01/2014 12:00 AM
:
"Davidson’s polemic and my response"~by Bob Dean
"How do you clean up a train wreck? By “train wreck” I mean ThePinetree.net tirade CCWD director Jeff Davidson represented as an editorial. I had to read it several times to sort out the many threads of confused thoughts that were woven through the paragraphs of vitriol. In many places it is difficult for the reader to separate opinion from fact, from anger and from conjecture. Leaving the reader hanging on points that were never addressed (and can never legally be addressed because of confidentiality issues) begs the question: why bring it up in the first place? Perhaps it was for dramatic effect. Perhaps it was for impact. After all, if you want to be.....
critical of someone and have no evidence to back it up, it’s best to just leave something hanging and allow readers to fill in the blanks. Sadly, that is what this editorial represents.
Ordinarily, I would ignore this kind of attack because I feel that such behavior is inappropriate for an elected official However, since Davidson has entered the public forum to attack and malign his fellow directors and indirectly the staff of CCWD I feel it necessary to respond. Historically, Davidson and I have had significant disagreements on what we each believe to be appropriate methods of governance. Frequently, these disagreements have taken the form of personal attacks because Jeff doesn’t know how to argue an issue. These personal attacks, the attempt to bludgeon an opponent into submission, don’t carry any weight with me. Snide remarks at board meetings, petty remarks about my meeting attendance and its compensation are all designed to belittle, diminish and embarrass me.
My philosophy of governance begins with the fact that knowledge is the basis upon which all sound judgments are made. From that point decisions concerning CCWD policy issues, financial considerations and CCWD’s role as an agent of change in a changing world are all things that demand involvement in many kinds of activities to obtain that knowledge. These activities, by necessity, demand time, incur expense and require a willingness to sacrifice personal interests to accomplish the mission of a CCWD director.
Mileage reimbursement for my meeting attendance is something that he has complained about. But, as yet, I haven’t seen a way to attend a meeting that did not involve travel. He has also complained about the number of meetings that I attend. There have been months that I have attended 20 or more meetings. CCWD directors, by law and board resolution, are entitled to compensation for up to ten meetings a month. What about the rest? I gladly attend them, not only for my own edification, but because I believe that this is what my job as a director entails--becoming as informed and knowledgeable as I can in order to make the most appropriate decisions for my constituents, the District and Calaveras County. I was elected in 2005 to represent the people of my district and the people of Calaveras County to the best of my ability. To do less would be abdicating my responsibility. I present this background so the reader can be aware of some of the assumptions I have in approaching my responsibilities as director and why I have taken
exception with Davidson’s position.
I would like to share with you my interpretation of some of Davidson’s comments. I won’t cover them all here because, frankly, it would take too long and be too lengthy.
Additionally, there is so much misinformation, misrepresentation, fuzzy wording and off- the-wall comments in his piece that I haven’t the time, space or interest to deal with them all in detail. However, a few observations will suffice to demonstrate the convoluted thinking, ad hominem arguments and outright misrepresentations. Should you require further amplification of any of the issues not discussed here I would be happy to address them.
The first issue I’d like to address is Davidson’s position regarding the GM. He is entitled to his opinion regarding the choice made by the board and I would defend and support him in having that opinion. However, I would not agree that it was a decision made frivolously, precipitously or with malice. I cannot speak to the mindset of the other directors or what some of the specific motives might have been that caused them to vote the way they did, I can only speak to mine. Frankly, I regard these as confidential, but I will say that the decision I made was one of the most difficult and painful decisions I have ever made because of my great affection for the GM and the fact that I regarded him as a friend. This is one of those decisions that had to be made regardless of the personal connection because, in my mind, it was best for the district, the ratepayers and the people of Calaveras County. As to Davidson’s statement that the GM was told he would be fired before he and Director Underhill were informed is absolutely untrue.
Prior to the board going into closed session to make the decision I had many doubts and reservations and could have easily changed my mind. Had the roles been reversed and I was on the losing side, I would have accepted the decision with disappointment, tried to find out why the decision was made, what I might have missed that caused me to not have the same understanding as my fellow board members and what was to be learned from this process to make me a stronger board member in the future. If I felt that the answers presented to me were inadequate or wrong-headed I would engage in dialogue with my fellow members to attempt to change their thinking. If, after this, I had convinced none of my fellow board members of my position, I would accept the decision and get on with the business of running the district. If I believed there was a legal issue or some possible violation I would bring it to the attention of the appropriate investigating body for their review.
At no time during this process would I use the public forum to attack, or in any way impugn the integrity of a fellow board member until accusations were substantiated. The kind of behavior exhibited by Davidson in writing his “editorial” makes me question his motives. Is he grandstanding for political reasons--attempting to influence the upcoming election by throwing out unsubstantiated material? Is he trying to make a case in the public forum since he doesn’t have one in a legal forum? (CCWD’s general counsel reviewed the Brown Act issues and didn’t believe there was a violation.) Or is he like a small child who wants to play in a game, but doesn’t want to follow the rules and, not
getting his way, pouts on the sidelines and tries to make life miserable for everyone else?
As to violations of the Brown Act, or any other illegal activity alleged to have taken place, I would welcome an outside impartial investigation. I would go so far as to recommend that the state Attorney General’s office be the investigating body so impartiality would be guaranteed. Any local jurisdiction such as the District Attorney would be subject to the same vitriol as Davidson’s presumed enemies on the CCWD board have been when the no-violation decision would be handed down.
Second, I would like to address the issue of public cost. There are two things here that need to be discussed, one is the actual costs and the other is their being made public. There were several clauses in the GM’s contract that had to be honored, all of which were accepted by the board at the time of signing. There was no way that these could be avoided. Hiring a GM is like making a marriage commitment. Optimism reigns in the beginning, but should a relationship grow in different directions and a divorce becomes necessary, things can get expensive. The alternative, however, could be a lot worse. The figure of 200K, thrown out by Davidson, seems to have little basis in reality. There was a severance agreement with some additional expenses. There is also the possibility of a “golden handshake” agreement. This was worked out by board resolution earlier this year and was offered to all qualified CCWD employees including the GM. The only certain expense is the severance package and some of the legal fees associated with it. There probably will be additional expenses but they are unknown at this time.
In addition to these expenses there are also savings, some directly associated with the GM’s contract, others related to items that were eliminated as a result of his departure. All the expenses and savings to date, I have been assured, will be presented at the next board meeting. Until that time I cannot present an absolute figure, and even then there will be expenses and savings that will accrue. My guess is that the net amount will be, at that time, about a quarter of Davidson’s figure.
Why did Davidson inflate the figure? Is he so totally uninformed? Is he attempting to make a point, thinking no one will question him? Does he believe that his attack, with the election around the corner, won’t be countered in time to blunt his attempts to influence the election? The answer is probably any and all of these and some I haven’t thought of. It is interesting to note the by the time Davidson got to the bottom of his “editorial” the amount had increased to 300K. I hope this is not an example of the hyper-inflation that we could be faced with in our economic crisis. If Davidson can inflate the numbers by half again, imagine what it would be like if the same process were applied to our economy.
The other issue I want to address regarding the costs relating to the GM was Davidson’s comment, “I’m concerned the total is being held back until after the upcoming election”. This comment has several parts to it. First, he has access to the same sources of information as I and every other director does. A simple phone call or a visit to CCWD would be sufficient to gather any and all information needed. This obviously wasn’t done because, based on the information I received, our numbers are very different. Why would he say that information was being held back? Obviously it is because it served the purpose of discrediting his opponents. For Davidson, opinions are most important, and should never be confused by facts. Davidson has the same access as any other director and he chooses not to make use of it. Perhaps he should spend a little more time at the district gleaning information as other directors do.
The most significant point I want to make is the implied suggestion that there is coercion or complicity in withholding information from other directors or the public. Both behaviors, if true, would be reprehensible. That Davidson would even suggest it in his comment shows the lengths to which he is willing to go to make a point. This impugns the integrity of the staff, suggests complicity in dishonest acts and brings back memories of CCWD in days of yore.
At the CCWD board meeting on the second Wednesday of July, Davidson requested an accounting of all the expenses incurred in the termination of the GM’s contract. This was a request that was seconded by me and concurred with by all the other board members. Since that time we have not met, as our next meeting will be the second Wednesday of August. Subsequently, I spoke to the finance manager and asked him about the figures. He told me that not all the figures had come through as yet, that the “golden handshake”, if it were ever used, would be a couple of years out and the actual cost would be impossible to compute until we get closer to that time. There would be offsets and savings that would be part of the formula, but right now he was looking at hard numbers and not projected numbers. If I had access to this information why didn’t Davidson? Why would he say that information was being held back? Obviously, because it served the purpose of discrediting his opponents. It doesn’t matter if the information is true, it doesn’t matter whom he hurts in the process, it matters only that it’s damaging.
I could go on. In a future op-ed piece I can discuss the issue of micro-management and
the cost of litigation of personnel matters. I can go into great detail about the $1.5 million investment loss. And, I can discuss at great length openness issues and the success CCWD has had in developing good governance in the four years since I’ve been on the board. (Remember when CCWD was the centerfold for the Grand Jury reports? Guess who was on the board then?) For every accusation and innuendo Davidson puts out in his “editorial” there is another, stronger message that will refute him.
I’m sorry to have had to take the time to respond to such a poorly conceived diatribe which had no purpose but to create divisiveness, disseminate misinformation and demonstrate to what depths some elected officials will go to promote their own agenda. But someone had to do it no matter how distasteful.
There is one thought that has emerged in my mind while I was writing this response, and it has emerged with a clarity and a certainty that surprised even me. I will work tirelessly to oppose Davidson’s efforts to seek public office anywhere at any time in the future. The people of Calaveras County do not need a self-serving, shadow-dwelling, special-interest egoist representing them in public office.
Thank you; Bob Dean, CCWD Division 2 director and Board President."
|
