Blog Post < Previous | Next >
RVSD Logo
Good Governance Deserves a Hearing
Ross Valley Sanitary District’s board majority once again proved itself an exemplar of bad governance at its June 17 meeting when it approved a bloated budget for fiscal 2016 that ties to a large rate hike (which they will likely approve at the July 15 board meeting and public hearing) . Particularly disturbing was that three board members who vote as a bloc rejected calls from the public and two other board members to delay a week in order to consider a lower rate increase that could have been achieved through more careful scrutiny of spending.
Elected board members have a fiduciary responsibility to represent the “best interests” of the parties they represent. This duty includes, but is not limited to, the constituents’ financial interests.
Elected officials are also required to hold public hearings, the purpose of which is to listen to and consider input from constituents.
RVSD’s majority bloc, which assumed control of the board following the June 2014 election, now repeatedly demonstrates its disregard for their basic responsibilities as board members.
At the June 17 meeting, the board majority bloc was completely derelict in its duty to oversee the district’s finances. The three members who wield voting control of the board – Tom Gaffney, Michael Boorstein, and Mary Sylla -- did not question or challenge a single line item in the 34 page $42 million dollar budget that underpins a whopping 7.4% proposed rate hike.
Some members of the public questioned the spike in miscellaneous overhead expenses budgeted for the 2016 fiscal year, up more than 26% over the spending level projected for the 2015 fiscal year ending June 30. The net effect is a $104,000 jump in general and administrative spending (on items other than compensation). The public raised other issues, including a suggestion that the board adopt a formal plan for robust public participation prior to approval of salary and benefit increases in upcoming contract negotiations.
Constituents’ suggestions and questions were for the most part unanswered by the board, which is not required by law to respond to public comments. The fact that ignoring the public’s participation is permitted doesn’t mean it’s prudent.
To his credit, Director Frank Egger asked many pointed questions about budget line items. He most notably pointed out that the district would save $495,000 (!) if they didn’t fill two authorized positions (which had been left vacant under the prior year’s more restrained spending regimen). Director Pamela Meigs expressed concern about the district’s salary and benefit spending of $165,000 per employee (which they plan to further increase 6.7% in 2016 owing to “merit” increases and wage hikes from upcoming contract negotiations). Director Meigs asked whether staff could find a way to cut 2 percentage points from the 7.4% planned rate hike, which she deemed a “shock rate” that’s “too aggressive.” Meigs moved that the board take a week to examine cost cuts and consider useful input from the public before “just rubberstamping $42 million” in fiscal 2016 spending. Adopting the bloated budget provides a rationale for RVSD's board to approve the attendant rate jump at its July 15th meeting.
Another week also would have provided a good chance for those board members to more carefully examine the budget, hit the calculator, seek help in understanding the figures, and ask staff to do a little belt-tightening.
As General Manager Greg Norby pointed out, $180,000 equates to 1 percentage point in rate hike.
Knocking out that $104,000 in overhead spending growth would have enabled RVSD to drop the rate hike by more than 0.5 percentage point. Deferring filling of the two positions Frank Eggers had questioned could have been saved much more, up to 2.75 percentage points. That’s real money to many ratepayers, particularly as successive planned rate increases compound the pain in the “out years.”
Nonetheless, the majority bloc, knowing it had the votes to prevail, pressed ahead to approve without further delay the budget and greenlight the resultant large rate jump (subject to a public hearing and final vote on July 15). In so doing, the board OK’d the maximum rate hike permitted under a five-year schedule adopted last year that aims to jump most single-family residential rates by almost 50%. Although RVSD's board approved the five-year rate hike schedule in 2014, the law requires the agency's board to pass a rate resolution annually. The current board could therefore choose to raise rates less than the 7.4% for 2016 should its budget discipline provide the opportunity. (The unrestrained rise in miscellaneous parcel taxes and fees contributes significantly to the affordability crisis in Marin, which Eggers noted has the highest tax rate in the state.)
In a bizarre postscript, President Gaffney conceded that he’s “not opposed to finding something in the budget that saves something.” He proposed that after approving the rate hike, RVSD look for changes to the budget. He is clearly of the view that the rates should be raised to the maximum permissible level, taking cover in the assertion that RVSD’s percentage rate hikes are “the same as everyone else.” That’s the argument that universities made about tuition hikes over the past two decades. Look where that’s gotten us!
Besides failing in its fiduciary responsibility to provide oversight of staff and protect ratepayer’s interests, the board majority’s rush to rubberstamp staff’s budget and rate hike recommendations short-circuited the opportunity to consider the public’s suggestions. All too commonly, our officials regard public comment as an agenda item to be endured before moving on to do whatever they wish. RVSD appeared to do just that.
Representative government means electing folks whose job is to represent our interests. That doesn’t mean we’ve given them license to do as they choose or to shirk their responsibility to provide oversight. Most of the public is too busy to attend board meetings, write letters, and keep a close eye on elected officials. That doesn’t mean the “Silent Majority” accepts bad behavior. Richard Nixon learned that lesson the hard way.
Good governance deserves a hearing. Is anyone listening?
This is the second in a blog series advocating for Good Governance in Marin. Each installment looks closely at how Marin’s governing bodies conduct business. The aim is to encourage elected officials to (1)respect the statutes AND underlying principles of laws promoting open, transparent, and participatory government and (2)diligently represent constituents’ concerns and to favor those over special interests.
For an in-depth look at related issues, and how they may effect high density development on the San Quentin Peninsula, read the prior installment in this series, “Bad Governance Needs a Holiday.”