The undersigned, a 37-year customer of the Goleta Water District, would like to respond to the acrimony evidenced at the recent Goleta Water District board meeting, as reported by Independent reporter Ben Preston on Aug. 3, 2009.
There appears to be a plan afoot by board president Bert Bertrando and attorney-activist Jack Ruskey to rescind the board decision to make permanent the promotion of Eric Ford to the position of general manager from his previous position as chief financial officer of the Goleta Water District. Once again, Bertrando invoked accusations of Brown Act violations against his fellow board members for having initiated a board meeting without his approval with the purpose of finalizing Ford’s appointment to his new position. Board attorney Fran Farina was required to inform and educate Bertrando that his Brown Act threats were ill advised and the board acted in accordance to its mandate.
Lest we not forget, Bertrando, as did other members of the board, approved expenditures for hiring an employment search entity to conduct the search for a new water district general manager. After exhaustive efforts were effected and numerous applications were reviewed and interviews were completed with all applicants, it was decided that the best-qualified individual, with local knowledge of water district requirements, was Ford. Now, Bertrando is objecting to his own board’s confirmation of the employment search results that he originally agreed to put in place!
Ruskey, a devout Bertrando supporter, entered the fray during the board meeting being discussed by distributing his latest epistle, “A letter of protest to the Directors of the Goleta Water District as to the unauthorized investments by Eric Ford as the Chief Financial Officer of the District and the request for a special investigation by the legal counsel of the District as to the losses facing the District due to such investment activities in the purchase of $1,500,000. of CIT Group bonds.”
It is the understanding of the undersigned that, as chief financial officer of the Goleta Water District, Ford was authorized, as opposed to unauthorized, to initiate investment of district monies. In all activities, it is understood that Ford did so with the approval of the district board members. If Ruskey’s accusations are implying that board approval of district investments made by Ford were not approved, at any time, he should direct his accusations to the board members whose fiduciary responsibility, is of course, to provide this approval.
Therein lies the core issue for the Ruskey-Bertrando faction regarding Ford’s promotion. But if you drill deeper behind this complaint you will find that Bertrando, the board president, was knee-deep in the knowledge that the water district was electing to invest the water district funds with CIT Group through Great Pacific Securities. These investment actions were taken by Ford, with the full knowledge of the board members. Ford did not, without board approval, autocratically invest the water district funds, especially without approval to do so. While Bertrando was not board president at the time the investments were made, he was a key participating board member.
While Ruskey and Bertrando choose to place blame on Ford for water district investments, they are conveniently obfuscating the fact that the water district board members were fully cognizant of the investments, at the time the investments were initiated. Bertrando had the fiduciary responsibility to speak against the investments if, at the time, he felt the investments were not properly positioned.
At this point in time, the entire country is facing investment losses, regardless of how sound the investment was at the time of financial commitment. To now invoke investment hindsight as intelligent foresight, the Ruskey-Bertrando duo is using the most basic of instincts to demean and impugn the integrity of a long-term, perhaps tenured, water district employee. Now Bertrando, as board president, has led the rescinding of Ford’s appointment. This could be litigation just waiting to happen! As a post note to this effort: a meeting has been held to rescind Ford’s appointment. Those approving this action were board members Bertrando, Lauren Hanson and Jack Cunningham. Bill Rosen abstained in his vote and Larry Mills provided a no vote to the rescind action. Question: How can board members, who have benignly accepted Ford’s previous investment actions and having approved his recent promotion to the position of general manager, justify their recent rescinding of their approved appointment? This is convoluted logic at its worst!
It is interesting to note that the newly elected board members, some strongly supported by the Ruskey-Bertrando faction, in concert with an existing board member “pushed back” at the Ruskey-Bertrando tirades, Brown Act threats and attempts to, once again, commandeer the board meeting. This self-aggrandizing act, by both individuals, has been playing far too long to the detriment of the Goleta Water Board meetings and the customers of the Goleta Water District.
One final note: I have never understood how Bertrando, who in his water district biography states that he is a 30-year Goleta resident, yet he resides in the community of Hope Ranch and obtains his water requirements from La Cumbre Mutual Water Co. How is Bertrando permitted to run for, and attain, a board position in the Goleta Water District? Perhaps it harkens back to an ancient grandfather clause, prior to the establishment of the La Cumbre Mutual Water Co. Bertrando needs to look to his own backyard for political positioning. This could be an electric issue the voters need to address during Bertrando’s re-election bid!
W.F. Graham
Santa Barbara