Directors take no action in closed session
The Tuolumne Utilities District Board of Directors announced it took no reportable action in a closed session during a special meeting on Thursday to evaluate the performance of the water and sewer agency’s general manager for the second time in a month.
Several members of the public and the labor union that represents most of TUD’S warned the district prior to the closed session that they were watching, because California law doesn’t allow boards of public entities to discuss any form of compensation for their respective executives at special meetings.
“This evaluation seems like it’s being brought up again in between the public sessions, and it’s creating concern about why this is being done out of the normal processes of the open meetings,” said Dana Baker. “I just wanted to express that concern and just ask that you all respect the ratepayers that are watching this closely and just hoping that you are keeping us in mind, especially as we have just elected a new board who should probably be making the decisions about any large or significant financial spending at this time.”
The meeting followed a completed performance evaluation of TUD General Manager Ed Pattison in October and a regular meeting on Nov. 10 when the board considered a proposal by outgoing Board President Bob Rucker regarding Pattison’s contract that generated some controversy.
Rucker’s proposal would have extended Pattison’s
contract an additional two years through 2025, doubled his potential severance from six months to one year if the board terminated the agreement prematurely, and given him a 1.5 to 2 percent raise in 2021 and 2022 that all TUD employees were granted through recent labor negotiations.
Some members of the public who spoke at the Nov. 10 meeting said they felt the proposal would have hamstrung the new board that will look significantly different than the current one when the two newly elected directors take office in early December.
Lisa Murphy, one of the new TUD director-elects, addressed the board before the closed session on Thursday and said she was concerned about why there was a request for a reevaluation of Pattison after completing an evaluation during a closed session at a meeting on Oct. 27.
“I just want to reassure you that we as the ratepayers and Tuolumne County taxpayers, that we as the citizens, are paying close attention to what this board is doing,” she said.
The Laborers’ International Union of North America, Laborers’ Local No. 1130, also sent a sixpage letter to the board listing various state laws the board could violate if it discussed anything other than Pattison’s performance during the special meeting and how board members could inform the district’s attorney or a grand jury if anything illegal occurred.
Barbara Dresslar, of Sonora, also said prior to the closed session on Thursday that she felt calling a special meeting for a second performance evaluation of Pattison in less than a month was a waste of ratepayer money.
“What emergency costs $500 in directors’ meeting fees and all the staff time and expense to add a special closed meeting for a performance evaluation duplicating within a month what is normally scheduled yearly?” she asked.
Several people participating in the meeting, including The Union Democrat, were unable to get back into the meeting via the teleconferencing platform Zoom when the board reconvened in open session to announce that no reportable action was taken behind closed doors.
Any changes to the contract or votes would have to be reported in open session.
District staff said in response to an email from The Union Democrat that
TUD’S IT technician relayed that once the meeting was locked for the closed session, it would have “caused unknown conditions to unlock the meeting (and) let users in and then lock and move participants around and back into the waiting room.”
The video recording of the meeting posted on the TUD website also does not include the report at the end about no action being taken in the closed session. District staff said there is no law that required the agency to keep the video running for a closed session meeting and that the outcome is posted in the meeting minutes.
“Now that TUD is aware of the issue and the circumstances of how it happened, we will take the proper steps in the future when needed to move participants around and manage the meeting so that it should not happen again,” district staff responded when asked how it would prevent similar limitations to public access at future meetings.