Thursday, December 6, 2012

Bond debt limit waiver: documenting objections

Last night, the CBOC committee was requested by the board to approve a debt limit waiver.  This was an action item that needed to be completed prior to next weeks board meeting.  I've just sent the following request for clarification to the CBOC Secretary (Charley Cowens), copying President Ramsey.

Hi Charley,
Although the CBOC voted to approve the debt limit waiver, will any objections be documented on the waiver form as a result of the nay votes?  The form specifically asks if there were any objections from the CBOC committee.  Can you also please seek clarification as to why the previous 2011 waiver document was revised on 10/10/12?  Thank you.

2011 Waiver
2011 Waiver (revised)

Giorgio Cosentino

1 comment:

  1. By the way, it wasn't clear to me if the CBOC members were aware of their right to have any objections documented on the waiver form or if they had even seen a copy of the form. I'm not sure who is responsible for educating the CBOC members on protocol. They were not given much information ahead of time, yet were expected to vote last night. I, personally, don't function that way. I want to go home and do my homework before I vote on anything.

    The CBOC should request that the district assign one contact person for all of their requests. Last night, there was confusion as to who was supposed to respond-handle concerns regarding the CBOC website. The CBOC members should not have to figure this out. They should make their request to one Assoc. Superintendent and they take care of it. The chain-of-command and communication should be defined in the bylaws.

    All such requests-reports should be documented in the meeting minutes as action items. Such action item requests made by the CBOC members should be carried along to all subsequent meeting minutes as "pending" until they have been completed.

    Last night, a very motivated CBOC member proposed the implementation of a mechanism-document for the purpose of monitoring the performance of the bond program. Such a document should have already existed, being used by the district for their own purposes. The Assoc. Superintendent said he started such a document 4 years ago and is now "sufficiently motivated" to complete it. Four years later. He is NOW motivated.

    It was also mentioned that some CBOC members might have exceeded their number of allotted absences per the bylaws. All members should be clear on the rules, yet it appears not all rules have been written down in the bylaws. At some point, someone decided that absences could be "excused" if the member called-emailed, notifying the committee of their absence.

    If members have exceeded their allotted absences, then they are not able to perform their duties as a committee member and should be replaced. One member was replaced for this very reason, and now we learn that other members are being granted "excuses" because they simply phoned in first? Are you kidding me?!

    Lastly, committee members need to be respectful of citizens who voice their concerns during public comment. Last night, a citizen was attacked by a committee member. This raises the question "If absences are grounds for dismissal, shouldn't harassment of citizens also be?" Isn't such harassing treatment a Brown Act violation? I shouldn't have to put on the boxing gloves before attending a CBOC meeting.