ITEM:		DISCUSSION ITEM
20.	CONSIDER OPTIONS FOR ASSIGNMENT OF RULE 19.8 RESPONSIBILITIES TO STANDING COMMITTEE OR NEW COMMITTEES TO BE ESTABLISHED
Meeting Date:			March 18, 2019	Budgeted:
From:			David J. Stoldt	Program/
			General Manager	Line Item No.:
Prepared By:			David J. Stoldt	Cost Estimate:
General Counsel Approval: N/A
Committee Recommendation: N/A
CEQA Compliance: This action does not constitute a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378.

SUMMARY: This item was continued from the Board’s February 21, 2019 meeting.

During the January Board meeting two inquiries were made regarding the Monterey Peninsula water system acquisition feasibility study:

1) Should the ongoing work of the consulting team be reported out to an existing standing committee or a new committee be established by the Board? and

2) Is there a role for a citizens panel to review the ongoing work and provide advice to the Board?

Having reviewed the nature of the work the consultant team is undertaking, as well as various conversations with Directors, District Counsel, and the District’s eminent domain attorneys, the General Manager makes the following recommendation.

RECOMMENDATION: The General Manager recommends that Rule 19.8 work product, when available to be reported out, should be done at the full Board level, rather than a committee. A citizens panel should not be formed, rather all members of the public may participate when there is reportable information at the Board meetings.

DISCUSSION: The recommendation to report out Rule 19.8 work product at the Board level is simply because the information is too important and of such public interest that all Directors should have the same opportunity to review and discuss material at the same time. This may occur in both public and closed sessions (see below regarding “safe harbors”.)

The concept of a citizen review panel is not workable because the work has been structured to be attorney-client work product, and some findings or work product may need to remain confidential until the appropriate time for disclosure. The District is mindful that it must protect its interests and avoid revealing confidential information that may prejudice future legal or negotiating positions of the District.  This concern is recognized as “safe harbors” under the Ralph M. Brown Act, Government Code sections 54950, et. Seq.

One safe harbor applies to pending or threatened litigation, another applies to real property negotiations. This latter safe harbor contains specific language to provide “Nothing in this section shall preclude a local agency from holding a closed session for discussions regarding eminent domain proceedings pursuant to Section 54956.9”.  Hence, engaging a panel of citizens would necessarily be limited to publicly disclosable information. Such information need not be filtered by a small group of the public, rather should be available to all of the public just as with the full board, at a public meeting.