While it plans to disclose the records, the San Juan Bautista
city attorney denied Tuesday that officials did anything wrong by
sending a delegation including two city council members to Seattle
in December to discuss the status of a stalled water infrastructure
grant with the Economic Development Agency.
Hollister – While it plans to disclose the records, the San Juan Bautista city attorney denied Tuesday that officials did anything wrong by sending a delegation including two city council members to Seattle in December to discuss the status of a stalled water infrastructure grant with the Economic Development Agency.
City Attorney Peter Spoerl said Tuesday that consultant Mark Davis, City Manager Jennifer Coile, City Councilman Arturo Medina and another council member did travel to Seattle in December to meet with EDA officials about the grant under the direction of Mayor Dan Reed. However, Spoerl said that no action was taken and the meeting was purely informational.
The denial, which is also the first acknowledgment that the trip actually took place, was released in a statement and will be discussed at Jan. 17 city council meeting. During that meeting, the council will vote whether to approve the trip retroactively. Although encouraged by the announcement, District Attorney John Sarsfield, who had been investigating the council for possible Brown Act violations regarding the trip, said his investigation is not complete.
The admission did not mollify City Councilman Chuck Geiger, who was outraged that he was not informed about the trip and brought the matter to Sarsfield’s attention last month. Geiger admonished his fellow council members and said he hopes the council will conduct future actions in public.
“They did something they knew was wrong, got caught, and now they’re trying to cover it up,” he said. “This is another dirty black eye on politics in San Juan.”
Two weeks ago, Sarsfield started an investigation to determine if the council had violated sections of the Brown Act by using public funds to send the council members to Seattle without voting on the decision. The Brown Act, signed into law in 1953, requires California government agencies to conduct business in public.
Although the city council is denying any wrongdoing, it has decided to fully disclose the purpose and funding of the trip in addition to retroactively submitting the trip for council approval at it’s next meeting, Spoerl said.
“We’re not acknowledging Brown Act violations,” he said. “But in the interest of resolving the District Attorney’s investigation we’re removing any appearance of violations.”
Spoerl said the city was not required to notify the public of the trip because no quorum of the city council – three or more members – made an agreement to go on the trip.
Although encouraged by the admission, Sarsfield said his investigation into the possible violations has not been completed.
“I’m aware that the city is taking steps to correct any possible Brown Act violations and I commend them for that,” he said Tuesday.
Sarsfield began investigating possible Brown Act violations stemming from the trip after getting a tip that the trip took place from Geiger.
Geiger went to Sarsfield after hearing from “someone connected with the city” that two city council members and Davis used unauthorized public funds to go to Seattle to meet with officials Economic Development Agency last month to discuss a suspended $3.8 million grant to overhaul the city’s water system.
When asked last week, Coile refused to acknowledge that the trip had taken place and directed further questions to Spoerl. Coile and Reed did not return phone calls Tuesday and Davis refused to comment on the incident.
Medina also did not return phone calls Tuesday. When called Tuesday, Councilwomen Priscilla Hill said that she does not talk to the press and hung up. Councilman George Dias also refused to comment.
The trip to Seattle to talk with officials from the EDA stems from disagreements between the city council and the county water district over a $3.8 million federal grant intended to repair the city’s dilapidated water system. Tension between the city and the San Benito County Water District has been high over the past several months after water board President John Tobias sent the federal government a letter stating San Juan was not abiding by the terms of the grant.
San Juan city leaders spent months negotiating a contract to administer the grant with water district board members in the hopes of securing another $3.1 million in loans and grants from the district to help pay for the project, but never reached an agreement.
The negotiations fell apart in July when the water district sent the city a letter asking for more control over the project because of the city’s unstable financial situation and what district officials say is a history of mismanagement.
In October, the city and water board officials resumed conversations, and both agencies said they were trying to work together toward a resolution. However, San Juan officials have said they’re still looking at moving forward on the infrastructure project without any financial help from the water district.
Brett Rowland covers public safety for the Free Lance. He can be reached at 831-637-5566 ext. 330 or [email protected].
