A note to those of you who participated in our recent straw poll. Unfortunately, we had too few people voting to have a statistically significant result, and so didn't post incremental results as we had intended to do, but those who did vote were unanimously for the reform candidates. We also read, noted, and appreciated your comments.
Revised on August 24, 2014 to clarify our discussion of Finding 5.
This paper discusses the Grand Jury report on SLVWD and its relation to the upcoming BOD elections in November.
First, a brief note about the active internet links found in this paper. All of them, whether in the body, references or footnotes, have been specifically configured to open in separate browser tabs. The idea is that you can participate with us by actively reviewing any of our cited sources or references.
10.20.2014: The mandatory responses to the SLVWD Report are included as red links; the subtitle is our characterization of the District's Report.
The following links refer directly to the Santa Cruz Grand Jury reports for both the recent San Lorenzo Valley Water District and the more distant in time Lompico County Water District. Reading and digesting both of these are necessary to providing an understandable historical context to what's happening now with respect to the consolidation of the two Districts, and to better understand the significance of the recent report.
In June of this year, the Santa Cruz Grand Jury issued a report following a civil investigation of the San Lorenzo Valley Water District's management and governance practices. This was discussed in our critical essay White Paper on Governance and Elections. As explained in that paper, the District was legally required to respond to the summary Findings and Recommendations in the original Report, where both the Board and District Manager were instructed to reply. And they did.