“[we] are doing this for the community” is a common statement heard from Board members. That’s a paternalistic statement unless the the Board knows what the community wants. And how can the Board know what the community wants? They haven’t asked.
The Board has two policies guiding their communication with the community (their constituency).
- ‘Don’t Ask – Tell’
- ‘Receive & Ignore’
Don’t Ask – Tell Policy
The Board Never Asks
- How do they know whether the community wants to buy the forest? They have never asked!
- How do they know if/ how much the community wants the forest logged? They have never asked!
- How do they know if the community wants recreational use of the forest? They have never asked!
(And at their April 21st meeting, the Board dismissed as an “independent effort… not from the Water District” the community’s Recreational Use survey that actually asks community members what they would like to see happen.)
- There is one exception to the Board’s ‘Don’t Ask’ policy. They do ask for money!
They Always Tell
- They tell positively spun, highly abridged information that is stuck in bill mailers
- They tell one-sided information and mis-information in the Arch Cape Falcon Cove Beach Community Club Forum and its web site (click to see Example).
- They tell the press about their purchase decisions and recreations plans even before they vote on them
- They tell whatever story they want to tell in overcrowded, time-limited Town Halls
Receive & Ignore Policy
The Board does have mechanisms in place to receive input from the community, which is then virtually ignored, i.e., doesn’t factor into shaping new/different ideas or decisions.
Public Comments
For all intents and purposes, public comments are received and ignored by the Board.
The Board will absolutely “receive” public comments via mail, email or at structured times of the Board meeting. Those comments are rarely acknowledged, much less become a subject of Board deliberation.
In 3 years of Board Meetings, there have been only a handful of public comments about Board ideas/positions and almost all of those comments were favorable to the Board. I have come to understand why. All ‘not-in-support’ public comments fall into a black hole never to be heard again. So why bother? (Example: In the March 16th meeting, the Board chair tried to cut off a public comment regarding the community petition by asking for it to be emailed “as a courtesy to the Board”. That community petition, which was also submitted by email per the Board Chair’s request, has never been discussed by the Board even though the number of signatures continues to grow – now 56 voters, 37 non-voter ratepayer hookups, 28 non-voter owned tax lots.)
‘In-support’ public comments however, warrant a jovial interchange.
I have yet to hear the Board engage as a group in a Public Meeting to consider “not-in-support” public comments and to deliberate and determine if/how Board ideas should be accordingly refined. The Board does engage as a group in self-defense of their positions and in self-accolades.
( Check out Zoom recordings, they are all public records.)
Hear-Say
Perhaps Board members hear differing preferences and opinions as they move about the community. Perhaps a Board member might even ask another community member what they think about something. However, I have yet to hear a Board member bring a ‘not-in-support’ hear-say comment from the community back to the Board to deliberate and determine, as group, if/how Board ideas should be accordingly refined.
Hand-Picked Committees
And of course, there is an exception to their Receive & Ignore Policy
The Board does occasionally; a) hand-pick community members for adjunct committees, b) give the committee a very narrow mission that is consistent with the Board’s vision, c) staff and facilitate the committee with the Board’s paid consultants, and d) then ask the committee for recommendations about the Board idea, direction or decision. And even some of those recommendation aren’t followed.
An All-Knowing Policy – Perhaps?
For a brief moment, it appeared that a new and constructive policy was taking shape for interactive dialogue between Board member and their constituency.
Members of the Ratepayer / Taxpayer Advisory Council were invited to sit down with two Board representatives on Friday April 29 “to talk about your objectives, how you make decisions, and what you envision as the future role of the advisory council.” How encouraging!
The encouragement was short lived. We had a week before our hopes were dashed and the invite was rescinded. On the 28th we were told “that should be done at any public Board meeting’s public comment period, or in writing according to the website”
If board members don’t meet with their constituency for interactive conversations, don’t ask their constituency what they want, and don’t deliberate as a Board about alternative ideas or perspectives received from their constituency, how can the Board “know” what the community wants?
So the next time you hear a Board member say “we bought the forest for the community”, or “we are doing this for the community”, ask them “How do you know what we want?”.
A.C. Water District Board (Go to Home Page) 