SD Water Authority directors vote unanimously to keep you out of 'their' board meetings

Here's what one irate customer told them by phone. What do you think?

Two weeks ago, I wrote about a single question on the action-agenda of an upcoming (Oct. 13) special meeting of the San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA): whether to continue denying the public an opportunity to appear in-person at the water district’s public meetings or not.

Meeting of the Orange County Water District, c. 2015. Many public water boards would like to believe that the public isn’t interested in what they’re doing and that, therefore, there’s no reason to livestream their meetings. This crowd overflowed into the foyer just outside the doors. Photo: SoCal Water Wars

The SDCWA’s board of directors is made up of 36 officials appointed by its 24 member agencies.

Under Gov. Newsom’s pandemic emergency-declaration of March 2020, and under AB 361, legislation that loosened up the Brown Act during the pandemic, the SDCWA has been holding public meetings out of the direct sight of the public.

Every 30 days local governments are required to justify continuance of the less transparent meetings policy allowed under AB 361.

In my article posted just prior to the special meeting, I wrote:

Greater transparency, not less, would help eliminate the problems that come with SDCWA’s meetings. Some other water districts already have better meetings practices but still fail to encourage full utilization of available technology that would ensure greater transparency during a pandemic or normal times.

You can hear the results of that special meeting—which lasted just under 13 minutes—in the audio recording above. As expected, the 25 directors present at the meeting voted unanimously to continue as usual instead of restoring in-person meetings and expanding public participation (rare at water board meetings all over Southern California even before COVID-19) by using virtual technology that has been available to every computer and cell-phone owner for decades.

Before the vote, however, one public citizen did call in to comment on the agenda item. Her remarks are worth hearing (above) and reading (below).

Hi, this is Mary Davis here, and I'm just asking you to please quit the charade of teleconferencing under the guise of safety. The public and the media need to know that this vote is really about continuing convenience and privacy for you, the members of the governing body.

AB 361 serves as a floor, a minimum standard for you, the members. You should have codified a virtual participation by the public long ago as you have the authority to do.

Points to consider: teleconferencing is already allowed, albeit under higher and stricter standards under government Code Section 54953.

2) AB 361 makes life easier for you. It relaxes the standards so that essentially you can teleconference from home in your jammies. Please at least wear a nice top.

But the public cannot show up to speak from your location. It makes teleconferencing easier, more convenient, and more private for you.

3) Quit hiding behind COVID. There are already teleconferencing measures in place to allow you to participate remotely.

I would ask you to reflect on your own personal behaviors. Are you attending outside meetings, events, or even campaigning while opting to keep relaxed standards for yourselves? Are continued relaxed standards for teleconferencing about safety, or are they much more likely about you and your convenience? Do your personal behaviors and actions align with your vote today?

In closing, all your governing members, as well as the public, need to be aware that you already have the power to keep people, quote, safe, via codifying a hybrid public participation and to teleconference remotely for the members, albeit under stricter standards.

As we are well into year three, it is time to give back the keys to the COVID Powers Castle and return back to normal operations.

Please quit trying to gaslight the public that this is about safety when it is really about privacy and convenience for you.

P.S. I also wanted you to take a cue from SandDag, who let teleconferencing under AB 361 quietly slip away. The last time they voted on it was July 22nd and it has not been brought back since. It seems a good and fitting end, a gentle into the good night ending to a policy that is no longer warranted.

Lastly, I sent you a chart showing that the vast majority of water districts have their meetings open to the public. Considering you send a representative in person to other meetings, it is beyond time for you to open fully back up as well and to hold yourself to a higher standard. Thank you.

Ms. Davis also sent the directors a chart she made showing which water agencies have in-person meetings. Unfortunately, the public couldn’t see her chart as she spoke, as it could have done if meetings were in-person or video-streaming were used. So, I have posted it below.

On Wednesday, I will post my own more detailed transparency-rating list for each of SDCWA’s 24 member-agencies. I will also explain a new law that goes into effect on Jan 1, 2023, and sets higher transparency standards for livestreaming public meetings only to eliminate them on the road back to normal in-person only meetings by 2026.