If you have been an observer of the Goleta Water District board and management meetings, perhaps you have witnessed an emerging pattern of board meeting dysfunction driven by Jack Ruskey, and a loyal contingent of board meeting attendees. Hereinafter, I shall refer to them only as Ruskeyites!
The obvious goal of the Ruskeyites, over the past years, has been to diminish the effectiveness of water district employees and their management by attacking their professional capabilities and disrupting board meetings with allegations of poor management and inferences that individual self-interests are driving the water district work ethic. These attacks have resulted in the recent resignation of general manager Kevin Walsh. The appointment of Eric Ford to interim general manager, promotion to general manager and then … the rescinding of the promotion/appointment is another example.
Ford also maintained the position of chief financial officer and has been recently accused of mismanaging district investments in CIT bonds. At a recent board meeting, Ford, in detail, explained his investment philosophy, which has returned to the water district more than $1 million in investment growth over the past years. But Ford found himself defending his CIT investment after recent bond devaluation due to the current economic downturn. At this time, there was a rush by board president Bert Bertrando to activate the sale of the existing CIT bonds at an approximate $450,000 loss. His rationale, along with the other Ruskeyites, was to sell now to avoid further devaluation in the immediate future! More judicious board members that evening prevailed, by proposing further evaluation of the CIT bond activity.
When have the water district board meetings not been driven by the accusations of the Ruskeyites? Each meeting experiences Ruskey spouting accusations of mismanagement by water district management and employees, and a demand for further investigations. After he initiates the accusations he is then followed by his fellow Ruskeyites who further validate the accusations. Surprisingly, the next board meeting agenda is spent attending to the allegations and then the process is repeated again and again and again.
There is always a water district manager and/or employee in Ruskey’s sights. At this moment it is Ford. It is obvious, to any first-time observer, that the Ruskeyites want Ford eliminated from his management position. After a recent employment search for a permanent general manager, an expenditure of approximately $24,500 and approximately 68 employment interviews, it was recommended that Ford be offered the position of general manager. The district board members voted 5-0 to elevate him to this position.
Suddenly, Ruskey presented the board with the accusation of Ford’s “unauthorized” investment in CIT single-A bonds and the mismanagement of the funds. The district board immediately called a special meeting and rescinded Ford’s appointment. Only two board members had the courage to not follow the dictates of the Ruskeyites; Bill Rosen abstained in his vote and Larry Mills voted not to rescind the appointment.
When you attend a district meeting and sit behind the Ruskeyites you can observe their collusion conversations with Ruskey. With demonstrative head and hand movements, Ruskey appears to be signaling Bertrando to move the meeting along, to agree/disagree with the current subject matter being discussed, and he exhibits vivid signs of disgust at subject matter not meeting his approval.
The latest kerfuffle is over the water district sending collection notices to customers who have not paid their water bills. It does appear that the district’s accounts receivable department needs a tuneup in collection procedures. Longtime employee Kimble Redmile, who recently passed away, was the account assistant who oversaw accounts receivables. All indications are that he kept a careful eye on them. Who has filled this vacancy and what accountability/responsibility have the board members assumed in overseeing the financial review of the district? While in office approximately nine months, the new/old board members are just now attempting to understand the receivables concern. If there is a serious problem with this department it should have been discussed long before now. Board members, start looking in your own mirror!
While receivables may need a new policy dynamic, why is it not good business to send collections notices to delinquent accounts? As a response to recent comments by Craig Geyer, individuals and/or businesses that do not pay their bills in a timely manner should be sent collection notices, and if this affects their credit rating … so be it! If, as stated, adding to the collection concerns involves UCSB students not paying their water bills, the board should look to changing the current policies to eliminate the problem.
The water district management appears to be in disarray. Gary McFarland, engineer manager, has retired and I believe, has not yet been replaced. Mike Kanno, field operations manager, is apparently taking early retirement. Is there a succession plan in evidence? With each vacancy not filled, a greater work burden falls on the surviving management team! I will, however, make the observation that the Ruskeyites are probably reveling in this current water district management dysfunction! Their mission to disrupt and accuse dedicated water district employees of mismanagement is coming to fruition.
When do the water district board members begin to deal with the functioning of the water district rather than responding to the continuing allegations and disruptions of the Ruskeyites?
W.F. Graham
Santa Barbara