 530 on the nose. So I will call this meeting to order. And Ollie, could you call the roll? President Henry. Here. Director Ferris. Here. Director Falls. Here. Director Moran. Present. What was everyone? And welcome everyone. Rick Rogers, are there any changes, additions, deletions to the agenda? Sure, Henry. I'd like to request that we change the order of the agenda tonight and take new business item 3A first out of order, the review of the draft fiscal year 2019-20 Comprehensive Annual Finance Report due to the fact that we have the auditor, Andy Beck, here with us to give a board presentation. I'm going to open it up now for public comment. And because we do have the audit, and I don't, there are very many, well there are more attendees now all of a sudden, I'm going to ask that you only talk for three minutes. Ollie will be the timer, I assume, she was last time. And all of you that are members of the public, I'm going to give you three minutes. You may talk about anything that's not on the agenda at this time. And I just want to remind everybody that when you're talking about, let's say right now, if you talk, you only get to talk one time. Now when it comes to the audit, I'm assuming that you probably can ask questions during the audit. You raise your hand. But then when we get to the final item, you only get to talk one time on that particular item. And again, it's going to be three minutes. So with that said, I will turn this over to Rick Rogers. And with that, Chair Henry, I'll ask our finance manager to present the draft annual financial reports. Thank you. Again, my name is Andy Beg with the firm of Fedac and Brown. And I like to start with the independent auditor's report, which is located on page 10 of the financial state. On the bottom paragraph, we give an opinion. In the case of the district, we give an unmodified opinion by saying that the financial statements are fairly presented. Financial highlights on the statements of net position, total assets and deferred outflows of resources increased by approximately $18.1 million. Total liabilities and deferred inflows of resources increased by $15.9 million, and net position increased by approximately $2.2 million to $33.4 million, of which $868,000 is unrestricted and available for future use. I don't mean to interrupt Andy, but I think we have a presentation that you're talking on and it's not up on the screen yet. I'm sorry. Let me try to do this. Hopefully I could get this right. I thought CTV had the presentation free already to put up so we could get the presentation put up. Apologies for interrupting. The easiest way is for Andy to share his screen. That way he can move the slide along by himself, but CTV does have the presentation if he's unable to share his screen. Share screen. We see the opening page. Okay, the independent auditor's report, as I mentioned, this is located on page 10 of the financial statements. In the case of the district, we give an unmodified clean opinion by saying that the financial statements are fairly presented. Financial highlights on the statement of net position, total assets and deferred outflows of resources increased by approximately $18.1 million. Total liabilities and deferred inflows of resources increased by approximately $15.9 million. And net position increased by approximately $2.2 million to $33.4 million, of which $868,000 is unrestricted and available for future use. On the statements of revenues, expenses and changes in net position, total revenues increased by approximately $1.3 million. Total expenses increased by approximately $1.1 million. Capital contributions decreased by approximately $27,000. And again, increasing net position by approximately $2.2 million. We also provide a management report, which consists of our communication with those charged with governance. In the case of the district, that would be the board of directors. And our communication of control deficiencies. In our communication with those charged with governance, we are required to communicate significant estimates and sensitive note disclosures. In the case of the district, cash and investments, capital assets, net pension and open liability were all significant estimates and sensitive note disclosures. There were no difficulties encountered in performing the audit. There were no disagreements with management and there were no management consultation with other independent accountants. In our communication of control deficiencies, we noted no material weaknesses or significant deficiencies. I would like to conclude by thanking Mr. Rick Rogers and Ms. Stephanie Hill for their assistance in our test work. Questions. Anybody have questions? I don't hear any questions from the board. Should I go to the public and see if they have questions? Chair Henry, I see that Director Ferris's hand did go up. Oh, not anymore. Okay. I do see his hand up. Yes. Okay. Lou, you have a question? I do. Andy, I did not see in the report anywhere a statement of what our reserves were at the end of the fiscal year, June 30th. Can you enlighten me on that? When you talk about reserves, are you talking about the, I guess, unrestricted net position? I'm not a financial person, so I can't answer that question. Okay. Well, let me take a look into your notes and your financial statements. Stephanie, if you're on the call, maybe you can help. That might be better directed at Stephanie. That's what I did. I just asked Stephanie if she's on the call, if she could please help. I am. So, right, so our reserve versus what the unrestricted net position is going to be a little bit different because it's taking all of, it's taking the changes in all of your assets and all of your liabilities. So, for example, we have on our liabilities compensated employee absences. Part of our reserve fund policy is that we earmark a third of our liability for that to go towards that. But from this perspective, that full balance is going to be going against our assets. So, it's not an apple to apples for what the reserves are for what we do through the budget process. So, what's going to happen is now that we have the final audit numbers, the next budget and finance committee meeting, we'll be bridging the gap between how the audit differs from our budget. And so, the next budget and finance will have the full year view compared to the audit, and it'll help pull out some of those, you know, non-cash items and different things like that so that you can see what our true ending cash reserves were at the end of the fiscal year. So, you're saying I was wrong and assuming that there would be a reserve statement in the final audited financial report. Correct. The reserve, the reserve, our reserve fund policy operates differently than what a financial audit report is going to have. Okay, thank you. So, are there any more questions from the board? Don't see any pause. So, I will go to attendees and ask them if they have any questions. Anyone? Okay. Laura or Laura? I just am new to this, but I just wanted to get, I heard that it was the end of the fiscal year. It was at the end of June. So, of course, before all the fires and all the other incidents that happened since then, just to get clarity. Okay, I'll take it again. So, yes, the fiscal year runs from July 1st through June 30th. So, June 30th, these numbers are all reflecting pre-fire. We do note in the document it does acknowledge the fact that we did have the fire that occurred. Any financial impact from that will be seen in this current year that we're in right now. Does that answer your question, Laura? Any other member of the community who wants to say or ask a question? Okay. All right. So, we'll go back to Andy Beck, I guess, right? I'll probably go ahead, Andy, sorry. I'm pretty much done with my presentations. I'm just here to answer any questions. Okay, perfect. Perfect. Yeah. So, I was just going to just say from my perspective, you know, the audit went very smoothly. Fadak and Brown and Andy and his team have always been great to work with. It is great to see the district's unrestricted net position, being a positive balance and, you know, close to 900,000. The prior couple years, we were running at a deficit. There are different reasons for why we were. It was a lot of it was due to the district using cash to fund a lot of large capital projects versus debt financing. So, that was really good to see that we're moving in a positive direction there. The back of the audit does have a statistical section that does lay out a lot of this stuff for anyone that likes to look more so at trends. It does do a 10-year trend for a lot of the different stuff so you could kind of see how the district has grown or developed in different areas. I know this is a bit of an intense document to go through. So, if people ever have questions about stuff, they can always reach out to me. The audit is kind of that postmortem. It's after the fact, look back. A lot of times it is a little bit more structured and as you can see, sometimes there really aren't a whole lot of questions around this. Coming up is going to be the review comparing how it looked against the budget. And then upcoming is going to be when we go back into budget season, which is where we tend to dive into stuff a lot more deeper. Overall, it was a good-looking financial year for the district with some key capital projects like the probation tank being completed in this past fiscal year. And outside of that, it is recommended that the board of directors approve the San Lorenzo Valley Water District financial statements for the fiscal year 2019 to 2020. Does anybody want to make a motion to approve the audit? Excuse me, Lois, I have my hand up. Okay. I had no questions. I wanted to make sure everybody else had an opportunity to ask questions. I have no questions, but I do have comments. And I will go through these as rapidly as possible. I'm very comfortable with the fact that the audit as presented is accurate for what it is covering. And I certainly will be voting for it here shortly. But I also want to make sure that the community understands that there is a gap here between what the audit information provides. The financial position of the district, particularly with respect to infrastructure and other accrued obligations that are not part of this particular report. Because they are outside the scope of this particular report. And that has to do with a very lengthy list of accrued obligations that this district has accrued over the last few decades. And which are going to be something that we as a district are going to have to deal with in one form or another. And that is going to be a very, very lengthy and probably painful conversation. And I'm hopeful over the course of this next year, we're actually going to be able to bring some clarity to what all of those particular categories are, and how much, how many dollars are associated with each one of those categories. For example, the one that's come out during this year of our tank maintenance being behind to the tune of about $10 million. So, there are there are several other categories that we're going to have to deal with that are in that same kind of picture. And that's why I really want to encourage folks to understand that, while this is a view of our financial health, it is a view from one particular perspective, which is a little bit narrower than what we as a board have to deal with at a strategic level. And at a long term level. I do want to point out a few things in here that I think are interesting. Basically, if you look at operating expenses between 2019 and 2020, they went up about 7%. If we continue down that path are operating expenses will double in 10 years rule of thumb. 7% increase means a doubling in 10 years. It comes to pension liability. The state continues to assume a 7.1% ROI on their investments. And that is simply not borne out by the historical information that provides a balanced view between economic growth and economic processions. The 5.8% is more in line with their 20-year history. And at 5.8%, our pension liability goes from 4 million to over 4 million to probably closer to 7 million. Not quite 2X, but definitely a significant step up. And if you look at our liability, the numbers are definitely going in the wrong direction over the last few years in terms of our liabilities going up. In terms of risk management on note 10, I'd like to encourage us as a board to take a look at adding cybersecurity risk to the risk management that we have to be concerned about. Cybersecurity risk is a regrettably increasing issue for many, many agencies, public agencies in particular. And even though we're a small agency, we're still going to be impacted by the things that are coming down the pipe with respect to managing cybersecurity risk. I want to compliment Stephanie for the great information that is in the supplementary section. I think this helps provide some additional information, excuse me, not the required supplementary information, the optional supplementary information that she includes. This is a good thing for us to be doing and I'd like to see it expanded. I want to point out on page 92 of 121. Our operating revenues have gone up almost 2.5 times in the last 10 years. That's a bit over 10% compounded annually, which is something like three to 4%, three to four times over inflation depending on the year. We have not seriously improved our position as a district with respect to the accrue liabilities that this district has on its books one way or the other. That is not a good trend. We're currently running in place even at a 10% compounded increase in revenues year over year, which is a very healthy increase in revenues, but it's it's merely keeping us running in place. We're going to have to take a look at that. And finally, on the water usage, one of the things I'd like to see us add to water usage is approximations of what the indoor gallons per day per person. We're currently running out because this is typically something that comes up as a very big discussion item should we get into a drought year or multiple years and with La Nina apparently upon us that is a distinct possibility. We're currently for last year sold about 500 million gallons at. But if we look at say winter months usage, which is more of the indoor usage that we expect to see at the estimates of 19,000 people, we're looking at right around 50 gallons a day which is ultimately the state goal. But since we have 18,000 registered voters in our district, I'm believing the census is going to show our population is closer to 22,000. And at that level, we're sitting at about 43 gallons per day. Should we get to the point where the state mandates a 20% drop in usage, that would take us that would require us to go down to 35 gallons a day. In other words, our being well ahead of the state in terms of the goals might actually not work out to our favor if we get dropped into that category. So at some point we also need to make sure we're keeping track of that. So with that, that's some of the highlights I wanted to cover. We will of course be continuing this conversation in the budget committee and other forums. As we work very hard to present a very transparent, very clear picture of all of the accrued obligations that we have that are simply not part of this particular report. Thank you. Do any other board members have a comment? And I'm going to go back to the public and ask them, okay, any members of the public having comment? Seeing none, I will turn this, we need to make a motion here to accept this audit. So I'm going to ask again, would someone like to make a motion to accept the 2019-2020 audit? Lois, this is Rick Moran. I'll make the motion to accept the 2020 audit. All right. Thank you. And this is district council, just a point of clarification. Stephanie, did you want approval or acceptance of the audit? I read approval in the board memo. I mean, I guess it's accepting approval of the audit. I guess there would just be an acceptance of the report. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Do we have a second? Second. I heard one. Yes. Lou, did I hear you second it or not? No, it wasn't me, it was Bob. It was me. It was Bob. Okay. President Henry. Yes. Director Ferris. Aye. Director Falls. Yes. Director Moran. Yes. Motion passes. Thank you, Andy. Thank you, everyone, and stay safe. Thank you. Thank you. All right. So we'll go back to board member resignation, board of directors, vacancy, resolution, and discussion of any possible action by the board regarding the process to fill the vacancy declared by the board. I'm going to give it to you, Rick, and you. Thank you, Chair Henry. For this item, District Counsel Nichols will present this to the board. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Thank you both. All right, so this is the third time now that former director Steve swans the issue of filling his now vacant board seat has come before the board. I'm just going to give a quick history here. So at the regular meeting conducted on November 5th, the board determined that vacancy exists on the board because former director Juan was no longer residing within the district. At the board meeting on November 10th, the board passed a motion to fill the vacancy by calling for an election and immediately put up by the elections office of this vision. The next day, the district manager notified the county clerk of the board's decision. Following that notification, the question was posed to me whether a resolution is required. I contacted the county clerk on Monday, this past Monday, November 16th, and the county clerk provided a template for resolution ordering an election. That they request in order to move the board with actually conducting the election half the difference. We included in the board packet for reference the template that was provided by the county clerk as well as a proposed resolution. Number 8, 2021 that adheres to that template. So it should be, I believe it would be sufficient for purposes of allowing the county clerk to do what they need to do in order to move forward with calling the election. It has all the elements from the county clerk template related to, for example, being able to charge the district across the election, being able to consolidate it with any other election may be called for the same date, which would be off the district of proceeding with the election and so forth. And it provides specific, you know, the exact name of the district and the board seat that's up for election. And that in the packet and the recommendation, the staff recommendation here is that assuming the board wants to move forward with calling an election, it's recommended to adopt proposed resolution number 8, 2021 by motion. And of course, there are alternatives. The board could make changes to the proposed resolution and adopt it with changes or the board could take no action. But that would leave it kind of up in the air how the district would proceed with respect to the board seat. And there's some additional background that's been in front of you before related to the legal basis for the board, taking action to filling the seat, the options that the board has in the election process in particular. And with that I'll answer any questions that the board may have. Well, Rick, Moran has his hand up. I don't have any questions for Gina, but after anybody has any questions I have some comments I'd like to make. Okay. Okay, I'll go to questions and then I'll come back to you for comment. So, as anybody have a question, considering what you were just told, were you able to see the memo. I do. Okay. I think it's more of a point of clarification. In the draft resolution on page two, the term there is stated four years ending in 2022. Just just to be absolutely clear when this election would take place it would be one year left on a four year term. Not that someone's getting a four year term in the 2022. So I think that's I think that's clear but I wanted to make sure just in case anybody might have been. Any other board members have questions. Seeing no questions, I will go back to Rick Moran who wanted to make a statement. Thank you, Los. In considering this motion, I want to voice some of my concerns. First, I believe that a board member must live in the district they are voted to represent. The present board is within its authority to fill that vacancy as quickly as possible. Due to the compressed time of events and the probable disagreement over a quick appointment. I chose not to do that. Secondly, I will always believe in elections as the best way to fill up to fulfill our democratic obligations. I have always tried to be pragmatic and after serious consideration. I realize a few things. One, there is election fatigue in this valley in this country everywhere. Our national election nightmare has caused an undue amount of consternation. To we are all faced with the stress of this pandemic that is getting worse. And three, we are recovering from the catastrophic CZU fire and possible debris flow. I am willing to reconsider my motion to have a special election. The election laws are too restrictive to have a quick election. And this would drag on until next November. Quick, less expensive local water district elections should be available, but they are not. While election costs are burdensome, the cost of good government is a price we should be willing to pay. As for the board's responsibility to fulfill this vacancy, we should be aware that two years ago a slate of three new board members were elected for four years each. Steve Swan's vacancy had two more years left and we should be able to have filled that. It was that vote. It was what that's what voters wanted. We voted for a platform of infrastructure building, financial responsibility, transparency, stopping the use of glyphosate, expanding the number of citizen members on our committees, and creating a more civil atmosphere. We have had two years without drama. We would be regressing on all the progress this board has made and which so many people have acknowledged if this vacancy is filled without the consideration of those facts. To demonstrate to put action into words that we all want a more civil discourse in our politics. I am asking that tonight, the newly elected board members commit to appointing someone who all the board can agree upon. There should be no split decision. The board should unanimously move forward and do the work of the San Lorenzo Valley Water District. Thank you. Would you mind if I said something? Not at all. Just to remind you that both you and Lou were picked and the whole board picked you both of you both times. It was unanimous. And what we did was we asked everyone who applied some questions and they all answered the questions. And then it came to the board to talk about. Some people like one person. Some people like two or three people. And as the discussion went on, you could see how people looking at what the other board members were saying, well, I like Tom and I like Harry and whatever and somebody else said, well, I like Joe and then somebody likes all three of them. Anyway, we worked it out. We it was unanimous both times. And I would imagine it would work that same way. Now, I think maybe we could go to the attendees and see what they say to that if board members are have had their say on that. Would that be okay with you? Yes, well, I would prefer to hear from the board members first and then attendees. Yes. And I appreciate your comments. So I agree with them. Okay. All right. Any of the board members have something to say. Interesting idea. I think very much in line with as I think I've been saying now almost every meeting one of the reasons I'll be disappointed to see Rick leave the board. He has very creative ideas about how to reduce potential conflict around board operations. So I'd be very interested in hearing, excuse me, yes, from the audience and newly elected board members. Lou, we haven't heard from you. Do you have anything you want to say? The only thing I'd like to add is that I hope we can resolve this issue tonight and move forward so that we don't have to discuss this issue again at the board level. Okay. Thank you. You know, I'm having a problem here because I keep thinking I'm missing somebody forgetting there's only four of us. And I keep thinking, who am I not calling on? Sorry. It's just kind of unnerved me. I realized there's only four of us. So if all four of us have had our say, I'll move on to the public that are in attendance. Okay. Hey, Beth Thomas, you have your hand. Thank you, Lois. I also appreciate Rick Moran for his creative ideas about making this a democratic process and really honoring that decision making model. I'm a Quaker and we always deal in consensus. And so that's my preferred way of doing business. It's not always possible because a lot of people don't understand the give and take of a real consensus model. I'm curious. I'm curious as to how it would work. As I understand it, Rick, you're talking about this decision being made by the current board members and the newly elected board members together. Yeah. And, okay. And so since they're not a part of the decision making tonight, I'm, I'm not certain how that works because a consensus model would really require everyone's agreement. Thank you. Any others of the public wishing. Okay, Laura. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak. I appreciate everything that's been said so far and I just want to speak as an individual citizen in the valley. I would like to move on from this decision also. And I'd like to continue working with the board and staff to, as I have been over the last year or so to positively, you know, support the direction that the board is going and this that the kinds of things that the staff needs. Especially now during these crises where we need to mitigate for damage from the wildfire where we have the very severe risks of the reflow and flooding coming in the next few months. And then, as you will expect me to say, to prepare for the next major wildfire that is very likely to come in a few short months from now. When we reenter the fire season. And so I would greatly appreciate it if you as a board would change your mind from the previous meeting and decide not to do an election, but as was suggested consistent with the highest ideals of democracy in our country and in our state and county. That you move ahead with the appointment process which, as I understand it, Beth is would take several weeks because there has to be an announcement and you have to go through that whole process before you'd be picking who gets appointed. Anyway, I think it's really too expensive to do an election, both in terms of the fiscal issues but also for the staff and for the board members, they're the resources that are available are just too few. We need to be dealing with these crises that I mentioned. And I know that delays would occur because of being, you know, short on board members to fill committees and, and that kind of thing so I really appreciate the conversation that's going on right now and I, and I urge you to move in the direction as soon as possible towards appointing some a new board member. Thank you very much. Any other member of the public who wishes to speak at this time. Okay. I saw Kelly Sanford. Hi, yes, I just wanted to voice my agreement with what Larry was saying. I was a little bit shocked that the board would choose to move forward with an election. Given everything that's happened and how critical and even what I've learned today about the water boards challenges, how critical it will be to have a fully functioning team. And I want to reiterate how excited I am to have Gail and Tina on the board with their expertise and just how critically important I think it is for them to be involved in this appointment process, which is part of, you know, a functioning local government. Karen. Yes, I wanted to echo the points of Larry and Kelly that and to support Rick's proposal that I feel like the board has moved towards collegiality I know that Tina and Gail support collegiality to and that it seems really, I don't know hypocritical to me to be spending a lot of money on an election when we know how much the whole focus of the board and they were like you were elected on a slate that to cut costs and this seems like not the thing we want to be spending money on and not just financial money but also just more, you know, ranker and so it's much more collegial. It's, we're talking about, you know, it's a part of a term, and we have two people on the board who have been who were appointed and that's worked really well and so there's a precedent for this and it's demonstrated that it worked well and then we really need to continue this and I'm very concerned about the burdens on the current and incoming board members if we end the process that we can't make progress because we're missing somebody along and it just, it sort of seems to me like I obviously support the democratic process but it seems like a fairly straightforward decision to say let's follow the precedent that's happened before and move forward with this and put out a call because we have time to do it and then try to work together to on, you know, on somebody that everybody can agree on to the best of our abilities. Thanks. Thank you. Christina Wise. Christina. Hi, yes, here we are. Hi, good evening. I'm curious as to what Gail and Tina would weigh in with and what they would like to see the board do because ultimately, as newly, you know, as newly elected members of the board, whatever decisions are made are going to reverberate against them as well. So I'm curious as to where they stand on this position. I'm also wondering, Lois, if you could, can you tell me the total number of attendees for tonight's meeting? There are 15 attendees and then the 12 of us so there's 27 people in this meeting right now. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Okay, Gail. I should have said Gail Mayhude. Yeah. Responding because of Christina's urging. I was struck that when there was a discussion of who would be involved in this conversation, I saw Rick say that it would involve the current board and the next board and Holly shook her head and said the opposite. And so I'd like to ask Gina, I don't see how there's any legal precedent for what is being requested by Director Moran for have, for example, Tina and I have no standing right now. We're simply concerned citizens at this point until we're sworn in. And once we're sworn in, Director Ferris and Dr. Director Moran don't have any standing. Let me also go on to say that I agree with Director Henry that in the past many of these decisions have been unanimous and there's no reason that in many cases they shouldn't be. But I can't be held hostage to that in any way because to say that we're going to do that means that we are not holding true to our responsibility to choose the person that is most qualified. And that's what the application process is for is to develop is to determine which people are qualified and then to make a choice among those. So, Gina, could you just elaborate on whether you think what Director Moran has suggested is actually something that is doable. I don't think Tina, I don't see Tina's name. I think she said Gina. Okay, I was asking Gina. She was asking Gina, yes. Yeah, Henry that's that's up to you if you want to refer those questions to me, or, you know, any of them. I'm fine with you or answering a question. Okay, so I'll do, I'll do my best here as best I sort of understood the questions. Maybe this goes without saying maybe not. Of course at this point that newly elected directors don't have any kind of a say in what the board decides to do. But if this process is still going on. Once the new directors take office that could change. In terms of the proposal to have a consensus process. I don't my interpretation of that proposal is that it's not to have some kind of a legally binding process and maybe this should really go back to you director Moran but as I understood it you're trying to get sort of a commitment on the record to a consensus process. That would not be, you know, binding on whoever ends up making the decision, because it couldn't be. Thank you. Rick Moran, do you want to respond to that. Certainly close. I realize that this is not. There's two boards changing members here at the time here. I'm not trying to usurp any power or any position of any votes here. My time is coming quickly to an end. I'm trying to voice here is there was a large number of people who supported folks Henry and swan afford supported a platform and the people that voted for that have a expect that that platform be followed through. Okay, and I understand Lois's point about previous appointees have been unanimous. I just need, and I think the people that supported that platform and supported Steve, and I disappointed that he's not here to fulfill that platform need some sort of verbal commitment. You know, just like they would make a campaign promise they promise to, you know, clean up the sewers or clean up you know add more money to the pipes, just a verbal commitment that they can be held. And I see a record of that they supported this they support the process of trying to find a consensus to approve the next vacancy. There's a number of people. Again, I'm going to repeat myself there's a large number of people who voted two years ago to pursue this platform, and they don't want to give it up. Because two new members came got elected that that that's not what those people anticipated. And because of Mr swan's resignation and choice choosing to live in Texas. We're put in a very difficult situation. And I'm trying to find a way out of it that still protects the interest of those people that supported that platform and I read off all those things that they promise to do and they have been doing those making good on those promises. That's what I'm trying to do is make sure those people get their voice heard and acknowledged. Okay, I maybe gail doesn't feel like she wants to commit to that, but certainly I think it would be not holding anybody hostage to acknowledge that a large number of people two years ago, supported this platform, and I want to see that platform pursued. I'm sorry. Wait a minute. I meant to say Rick. So, would you repeat those items of the platform. You're muted. You're muted. They voted for a platform of infrastructure building. Financial responsibility. Transparency. Stopping the use of glyphosate. I think it's a great idea to have a number of citizen members on committees and creating a more civil atmosphere. And you know, that's just my summer organization. Bob may have some clarification there. Yeah, but I mean I heard what you say it said and I, I personally believe that the two board members would be doing those very things. But I can't speak for them. And I, I could ask, I could go back and ask. Okay, Bob. Well, there's a couple of things that I that I want to bring out on the table and you know they're, they're probably uncomfortable but you know I think we need to to recognize this. You know, there was a real, in my opinion, lack of transparency around Steve's situation. And, you know, based on when his house was sold and when his time here came to an end which was 40 plus years and I'm very sad to see him go. But that event happened at a point in time where had that been dealt with in a more forthright and transparent fashion. We wouldn't be having this conversation, we'd be having a different conversation perhaps but not this conversation. And for whatever reason there was this sense on his part that he needed to use a clause in the water code I believe it was to justify him continuing to represent people even though he didn't live here anymore. Had no intention, more importantly, no intention of coming back. That, that to me is, is really disappointing and, and I'm, I'm, I'm sad that we got to this point where by the time we could get around to dealing with it. We were now running up against deadlines and the like, and post election situation that that we simply wouldn't have. Had we dealt with it in September, like we should have. And so that's, you know, that that's one thing. On the other side of this, I am a big believer in elections to begin with, but I am especially so when there is in fact a philosophical perhaps is the word split on the board. You know, two years ago in 2018. The slate that I was on was opposed by the people that supported Dale and Tina. I mean if you look at the roster on both endorsement lists, it's, you know, 80%, 85% overlap. What we have here is definitely a question mark inside of the community as to where the emphasis needs to be what are the issues in fact that are most important to the voters. And really the only way that you can address that is through an election. I keep hearing, you know, people talk about the cost of the election. Yes, I get that there is a cost to our democratic process. But I also want to remind folks that might be listening to this as well that we agreed to pay three times the amount for a consultant on the day that we voted to go to an election. There are other examples of where, in my opinion, we have overpaid for consultants. I am when it comes to priorities spending priorities budgets of course are a reflection of a board members priorities. I place the priority of our democratic process. The top of the pyramid. Nothing more important than that, from the point of view of the board operations. I place putting money in the hands of consultants to produce reports that are really nothing more historically have been nothing more than something we put on the shelf and use in order to make sure we can get grants, but that don't impact our operations in any way shape or form. And we spend tens of thousands of dollars on it. I looked at those things as a low priority. Those are the things that I would like us to stop doing, because if they don't bring us any benefit. There's no reason to keep doing the same thing over and over again. There's a word for that. And so whether that's going to the legislature to make changes, what have you, those are the kinds of things that we need to do to lighten the load of the amount of money that we shovel into consultants pockets here. It is an enormous amount of money. So from my point of view, my spending priorities are clear. Other folks may have different spending priorities. They may view spending money on consultants as more important than spending money on an election. Okay, that's part of the conversation that we would have. And so I'm intrigued by Rick's proposal, because if we could get to a commitment that we would seat a board member with only a four zero vote, even though this is not legally binding. It's clear this is not legally binding. This is a, this is sort of a campaign promise, I think is what Rick said. If we could do that, that might be something that might work. Short of that, I think where we have this split in philosophy between the, and emphasis, and it may be a matter of emphasis, more than anything else, I guess we'll find out over the next few months. I think you have to go to an election to make that happen. So far, I haven't heard the commitment that if we can't get to a four or vote. We won't seek somebody. I believe. Let me also say this about qualification. Our system of governance at this district is a citizen governance process. It is a process where any citizen in our Valley, should they be motivated enough, should they be interested enough. Any citizen our Valley has the opportunity to serve in this board if they wish to, whether they get to it or not is a different thing, but the qualifications. Excuse me that I'm looking for may be very different than the qualifications other people look for. I personally believe the vast majority of our community could serve in this board in a capacity bring the skill sets that they have the life experiences they have and a commitment to learning about the other things that need to be learned about. I think that covers, you know, the vast percentage of our of our population. I'm not particularly concerned about our ability to find a person who would be acceptable to all parties to serve on on the board. And I do believe that part of what we need to be looking for here is a transition to what I would call the we've talked about this before next generation. We need to be bringing folks that are new to our community that have been here for a while have families have a commitment to being here and growing here. We need to bring them into this process as well. And I would certainly be looking to do it. Thanks. Lou you wish to speak. Yeah, something quick. I want to point out that we've been going back and forth between the public and the board members. And I'd like to point out to President Henry, a point of order and that is you had yielded the floor to the public. I think allowing the board members to speak is is not right. I think the public have there's four people waiting to speak and awaiting patiently. I think we should turn it over to the public and leave it there until they're all done. Okay. Can I comment on that. Yes. I agree. Generally, Lou, I think it's a good thing to make sure that we get all the public input, but I do believe the proposal that Rick has made is one where there is probably a little bit more interactivity that needs to go on. You sort of in a perhaps less formal manner and I believe that Lois is handling this well in terms of having a little bit of that back and forth, even though it's not according to our sort of strict operating guidelines. I think this is a very important issue that we need to have that flexibility. Okay, any other board member have a comment. I'm going to go to attendees. And I am, I'm going to have to, I think the way things are going, I have to let you speak if you've already spoken, let you speak again because I, it's just the way it is, it's not normally what I would do. Okay, Cynthia. This is Cynthia, can you hear me. Yes. Okay. I just wanted to respond to what director folks just said. I have watched the board meetings. I have seen many resolutions accepted where there was one person not in agreement. I don't think it is reasonable to tie the hands of the board by letting one person have a veto over the majority. And I trust that the new board members are going to have the same values that Rick expressed, which is to try to serve the public to the best of their ability. I think that the people who are expressing their opinions are those who cared enough to vote and attend board meetings and they should be considered more than the people who have not cared enough to participate. So I hope that you will use a little common sense and proceed. Thank you. Thank you. Jim Moser. Yes, can you hear me. Yes. I want to thank the board for having me speak and for your careful deliberation on this. And I guess I my comment is it is also directed to director folks whose comments as someone who was very active in 2018. It has been my goal since then to try to build consensus find areas of agreement and move forward and when when director Moran listed the planks from that election. I agree with all of them. And I just think it's for the betterment of the district and for the community, especially in this period for us to find ways to heal the fine commonality to move forward together I believe that you as a board have been working to do that. I think it's time for us to look forward. I just want to note that in this election there was there was there were some echoes of 2018 but it was a very different election the two people that were elected had nothing to do with the election. They bring forward some new ideas and one is in the new generation. I think we can expect the board of excellence as we move forward. I think it's important to maintain the the process of appointment to be the goal is consensus, but that there shouldn't be a campaign promise at this point that that it would have to be anonymous and have the goals that have consensus. The purpose of it is to pick who the board thinks is the most qualified. So I appreciate director Moran's efforts here. I think that the instinct is right. And I think but I think we need to move forward in an expeditious way to get a new member on the board as I agree with what Larry Ford said about the reasons why we should go forward with an appointment rather than an election. Thank you. Elaine Fresco. Hi, yes. You know, as everyone else has said I do appreciate director Moran's reconsideration of his support for the election. I think that it's entirely possible that the new board could all agree on a replacement for Steve Swan. I know that the new elected board members leave strongly in collaboration. Steve Swan ran on the slate with with director folks and director Moran and his decision to leave. I don't know. I don't know what you're implying director folks just about his decision to leave but it had nothing to do with the newly elected board members. And I have to say that I am continually upset by your use of the term of the opposition. I suggested that Gail should run because she was not involved in any way in the election two years ago. She did not write any letters about glyphosate as as a small director small man accused her of which was ridiculous. And she ran such a positive campaign. I'm very curious and either you director folks or you director Moran even read her lengthy replies to the questions that the press banner asked her and the other candidates. Or if you went on her website to read her goals and priorities. I can't believe that you would disagree with any of them. And I would think that you would appreciate how helpful she's been to the ratepayers in explaining their water quality and and and and debris flows. I do think that putting restrictions on the board members would give you director folks more power. But on the other hand, I know you and I think that you're perfectly qualified to to express your opinion and come to an agreement with the other board members. So I don't know why all this drama about this thing I would like it. I think we the board the district needs to get on with the real issues and settle this once and for all. Thanks. Just to clarify one thing with you Elaine. I'm the one who ran with Steve and Bob, not written around Gail. Thank you. And I'll just follow up on that comment in that it was indeed Lois Henry that ran in that slate. And so I really regret that director folks seems to want to put us in them versus us mentality. This was something that both Tina and I really wanted to transcend. I think that if Lois really believed that I was going to betray the sorts of things that she cared about in the slate cared about that she wouldn't have chosen to endorse me. I would also say that if you had read my website or the answers to the Christina wise in the press banner. Everything you said, Rick, I, I support. And in fact, I explicitly support with the exception of life is safe. And that's because I consider it settled law that the the fact that that was part of the slate and that was what the public voted for in 2018. I respect that and I would not do anything to change that so I didn't even think that was something that was up for debate. If you read my website, you'll also see that I make an explicit statement director folks about the fact that we spend far too much money as far as I'm concerned on consultants, and that I would hope that we could figure out a way to use less of them. And in the future. So I'm totally with you on that one and I, and I just, I think that actually you and I agree on a lot of things. And I think you'll find that I will actually be somebody you can work with on on the board and so I, I guess I'm just hoping that I can convince you that I think that it will be possible and I support everything that that slate ran for the fiscal responsibility, the infrastructure, the having cordial relationships as we run the board, having more people public on our committees, transparency, all of those things are things that I support and I'm pretty sure that Tina I'm not sure she can be here tonight also supported as as well I guess I'm more hopeful about this and I really don't think that there's a them versus us mentality, and I don't think the people that voted for us feel that way because we wouldn't have gotten as many votes as as we did, if that were it. Thank you. Any other members would like to speak. Seeing none. There is one more. Just put her hand up. Okay. Okay, Joanie. So I just want to say, as a rate payer I really appreciate that Rick Moran has come up with a way of revisiting the idea of the special election because I was really deeply saddened that there was the possibility of such potential financial waste at a time when so many people in the Valley are suffering financially and the district itself has so many unexpected costs and you know we need to focus on the rebuilding and we need to be ready for what else could come in the case of other potential disasters and I am just so heartened by the fact that Rick you had the courage and creativity to say let's take a second look at that decision and I applaud you and I hope that however you end up coming to this decision that you will step away from that ledge of the special elections this time because you know elections and democracy are important. I don't think the water district has lacked for elections in the past and if there's ever a year to forgo a special election I feel like this would be it so thank you for the fresh perspective and the pause on on that momentum toward the special election and that's all thank you Myra Paul. My name is Paul Mackless in Felton and I would also like to appreciate the fact that this has been opened up again for consideration I was disappointed to think that we would be spending so much money on an election and I think most rate payers would like to see us not spend money unnecessarily on pointless consultancies and elections that could be avoided so I think we shouldn't set up a false dichotomy. All of the rate payers want to see money spent wisely and I think we have heard from at least one of the new incoming directors and it sounds to me very hopeful that the four members in the future could come to an agreement and I hope that you're able to support that. Thank you. Thank you. Laura. My name is Laura Triana I've been a resident of San Lorenzo Valley for about 20 years a direct rate payer for most of them and a voter for both the elections we've been talking about in the meeting today. I also want to thank director Moran for his attempts to find a way to avoid the cost of an election and also the cost of not having a board trustee on the board for about a year why we wait for that potential special election to happen. And I appreciate director's false willingness to be open to consider using the appointment process. While I don't think it's reasonable to require a four zero vote for that appointment I think it's clear based on the comments and the board elect members actual stands in the election that the whole board want is committed to transparency and having an open discussion and through the open board member process of making that appointment. I'm really confident that this can really be a beneficial to go through an appointment process with the new directors as they're seated. Thank you for this time. Thank you. Any anyone else. I'm looking looking. I do not see anyone else. I'm going to go back to the board. Okay. Okay, I got Gina there first. Thank you chair Henry and I see that the district manager also has his hand up if he wants to go first here. I would defer to him, but I guess I just want to say with with all respect to the board. Whose decision this is and has to be And to the members of the public who are so, you know, committed to this issue and concerned about it. That As the district's lawyer looking down the road. I see Potentially a lot of turmoil that could result if this doesn't get resolved one way or the other here tonight. I also have concerns. Frankly as the district council and I know there are a lot of responses to this but about having a four member board. For a year in a year where we've already gone through wildfires with emergency meetings and debris flow. We don't know what the future will hold. And there are challenges that come with having a four member board. Because there is business the district needs to conduct and that often takes a majority vote of the board in order to move that forward. I Do agree, you know, the proposal that director Moran has made that perhaps an appointment could go forward if unanimously supported by the board. As I as I interpret that because it has to be interpreted not as a legally binding commitment. It's not something that would force any board member any incoming board member To vote in a particular way. It couldn't be enforced in any way whatsoever if somebody had reasons to do something else. I suppose that could happen. I, but I do think that What has been proposed is a reasonable way to get folks to get the decision makers of this community on board to reach a solution. All four of them mutually to move the district forward on from this issue. And, you know, just from my point of view where as I said as district council to have a full complement of board members going into this coming year with all of the new challenges that it may bring on top of the old challenges that we faced this past year. So, you know, I again with all respect to the board members I don't report to, you know, I try to stay as neutral as I possibly can but I do have legal concerns related to this and I wanted to say that thank you. Thank you. Rick Rogers. Thank you, Chair Henry. I, I kind of want to echo what council said and from the perspective of your district manager, I do believe this is a board decision. However, in all transparency, I was fortunate enough to meet with director Moran and talk with him on this situation. And I find his comments to be white director Moran is such a great director. He's very passionate about this board and about moving, moving the business of the district forward. I just have concerns if we go to election that will be an election mode and not governing mode for the next two years. I see a much more contentious time over the next two years by constantly being campaigning and in election we have fire recovery. We have Santa Margarita groundwater. We have a serious financial situation right now to address due to fire recovery and COVID do the economy. I believe that the board could come together. I've seen it many times and find an individual burst that individual has to apply and select the board always seems to work well together at this time of bringing a new member on the board. And I have concerns moving forward and running the district that with four directors, it will be a contentious time until we get back up to five and then we'll be right back in campaign mode again. We spent some time with some training on contentious issues and so forth on how to bring the board together. I think it was somewhat successful. She had a lot of these same points about, you know, you're no longer campaigning and you need to go. We have a lot of governing to do starting, you know, the first year once the new board gets seated. So, you know, I really need, I really would request that you think, you know, think it through and it is your decision. And obviously, you know, his staff supports your decision, but we do have a lot to get done over the next couple of years. Thank you. Thank you. Before I call on you. I want to say one thing. I haven't said anything because I voted no, and I don't believe I should speak. That's the only reason I haven't talked. So, Bob, you still want to talk? I'm going to let Rick go first. You're going to what? I would like Rick to go first. This is his proposal. Rick Moran, you want to go first? Sure. I'll defer to anybody and everybody, but as long as I get my shot at it. So, I appreciate everybody's comments. Glad to see so many people are here to try and participate in this and try to square this away. Pardon an old Navy phrase here. I first want to try to answer Beth Thomas's question. And I appreciate her Quaker training. And I think, Beth, to that there's a certain amount of risk here and there's a certain amount of trust that has to happen. Right? So, that's wherever these contentious issues that have existed in this community, I'm trying to bridge that with some trust. And there's a little bit of risk that goes along with that. Okay. Okay. There's many people that made comments. I can't answer them all. But one of the things that I learned to do is not necessarily listen to the most numerous voices in the room. I've been part of trying to make the most numerous voices in the room. So, always not listen to and for good reason, because there's a lot of people who can't participate in the hard work it is to come to meetings and be informed about the background of the issues. Okay. So, I appreciate what Rick Rogers had to say. And I want to make sure that when Rick and I met, it was my behest that I asked to meet with him. Okay. And what I'm trying to find is some sort of compromise. And what I've heard is enough people speak in favor of consensus, collegial proceedings, those are kinds of things that I need to hear. Again, I realized through genus counseling that, you know, this is not a legal commitment that we can make and nobody's trying to hold anybody hostage here. But we are trying to make sure that people are committed to working collegially together and creating a civil discourse. That's how I got involved in this water district. And it's a theme that I continue to press forward on. So I've heard to my satisfaction, people speak to their desire to do that. So that's, so I'm happy to have heard people say that. Okay. And I'll kind of leave it at that. I'm going to ask later for genius helping possibly wording emotion how to get up because I do want to get through this tonight, but I'm, believe me, as much as I want to get through this tonight. I'm going to take my time and we're going to do this right. Okay. So if anybody's impatient or needs to go take a break, then go ahead, but I'm going to slowly walk this through so it is clear and clean of what we're doing here tonight. Thank you, Lois. Okay. Director Paul. Yeah, there's a number of thoughts I have as I was listening to the conversation. These aren't in any particular priority order importance order but just just some thoughts about what we've what we've been talking about. I agree with Rick. There are more voices in our community than those that attend the meetings. And, you know, I've said this consistently from from day one that, you know, my job as a board member and I would certainly hope that anybody serving on the board, or who would like to serve in the board who may someday in the future serve on the board. Recognize that it's not just the folks that are in the room that you are representing. It's the people that you're having a conversation with that is a much, much broader set of people a much, much broader set of concerns for the most part. Most people are going to be looking to the board to do the work on their behalf so that they don't have to come to each one of the board meetings they're going to look for the board to advance. What it what it or each board member promise to do as part of their campaign platform. That's why you know the promises to me are very, very important. So I will have to respectfully disagree with some of the comments expressing that we are to listen to only or at least mostly the folks that are in the room. I'm, I'm still sort of in the camp of I think an election is probably still a better way to go. You know the school board and I don't want to minimize our challenges, but the school board also has its challenges, and they are going to an election. We could have been able to make that election. Had we been able to deal with Steve's vacancy in a timely fashion. That notice that was required would have had to been granted I think it was October 24 or something like that. And then a month after Steve actually sold his house, I would have been plenty of time for us to do that and be able to allow the people, the ability to have their voices heard which to me is much much better than even for people or five people having a say. And that to me is extremely disappointing. The question that the school district itself was going through lots of issues right now I can only imagine all of them. And they're able to do it with a four person board I don't have any doubt that we will as well. For the most part as I've expressed before my experience on on studying board behavior and board votes and having served on boards. Well, 80 to 90%, sometimes even higher of the votes are all going to be anonymous. There are going to be votes where that is not going to be the case. And for me, for example, this past couple three months, you know, the votes that I've taken in opposition to the majority have been around rate increases have been around our budget, where our budget has basically consumed the entire the operating expense increase consumed the entire amount of the rate increase which we're just running in place, not voting for consultants. You know, contracts that I think are really large. And so that's the area that we're likely to see perhaps some disagreement, but based on the comments that I've heard so far. And in the comments that we heard during the budget and the rate increase and all that. I think I will probably be the only voice, you know, an opposition again next year should we have a budget that mirrors what we did this year. But outside of that when it comes to disaster recovery. I don't see a whole lot of. I don't see a lot of issues here with our ability to keep the work moving forward. And I want to assure Rick that it is definitely not my intention and I don't believe it is any other board members intention. I think we need to have a conversation about how best to reconstruct our raw water collection line. That is a conversation that will probably take a while to have. But that's a conversation we need to have with our community anyway. And so that's not one you're just going to bang out in a couple three days or a board meeting. That's going to be a lengthy conversation. But outside of that in terms of, you know, voting for recovery, that sort of thing, board members is going to work just as well. So I'm, I'm still not. I guess Rick, I'm still not completely comfortable with with the proposal, but I'm continuing to listen. And I'd like to hear perhaps from Lou and and Lois what they what they think about as well. I know Lois has said she didn't vote for the election last time. That's fine. At this point in time, we're talking about a different proposal. And so I'd like to hear some more before making up my mind. But again, it's it's an incredibly creative way to try to do the work of the district in a consensus fashion. And if that is the pleasure of the board, I certainly hope everybody is moving in that direction. Thank you. Lou, did you want to say anything? Sure. Thank you, Lois. Last board meeting, I asked Rick Rogers to comment on this topic. He respectfully declined and I understand why. But I'm glad that he volunteered his input for this meeting because knowing that this is going to be a very onerous effort on the staff for basically being as he put it in election mode for the next year. That that really goes a long way towards changing my thinking. But I would like to also point out that we're faced basically with a binary decision here. It's either election or it's appointment. And I'd like to point out that if we do decide tonight to go to go the appointment route. It's a very, very short timeframe. If we don't make, if we don't take action before January 4, it's out of our hands and with the board of supervisors. So that's why I said earlier, we need to make a decision tonight, because if that decision is to change our path and go on appointment, we need to do that. We need to be real expeditious on how we move forward. That's all at this point. Thank you, Lou. Rick Moran, you want to get him. Gina to help you with the motion. Is that it? Yes, but I think Bob asked if you would make your comments available to us. Lois, if you don't want to do that. My understanding is that I can't vote it against this. No, you can of course comment on this. There's nothing stopping you from doing that. What is my understanding? Well, where did you get the, I mean, so I understand that. Gina, could Gina clarify that? I mean, what kind of motion you're talking about, if you're talking about a motion to rescind that has to be done by a person that voted in favor of the resolution you're wanting to rescind, but that doesn't stop you from talking about it. Yeah, it's correct that there are limits on who can make a motion to reconsider. It doesn't prevent any director from participating in the discussion. Right. I believe the appointment process has worked well in the past. It's been transparent. I certainly never went out and try to get people to apply. And I wouldn't do it this time. And as just so you know, I went in before I knew if Rick Moran or Lou Ferris were going to run for sure or not. I said I absolutely could not endorse anybody. Until I knew whether they were going to run or not, because I feel a loyalty to board members. When Rick Moran told me he wasn't going to run, I endorsed Gail Mayhude. I believe that it would be a waste of time. It would cause a train wreck. If we go to election and that person, the person running for election. If they want to put a statement in, I mean, it can cost a lot of money. And I can't see putting people through that for just one year. They would only be on the board one year if they were elected. It just, it doesn't seem right. That's all I want to say. So that satisfies Bob's willing desire to have everybody heard. I'll ask Gina for a little bit of help here. Okay. Is that okay with you? President Henry. Should we take a break while you're doing that? What was that? I think Rick was asking for Gina to help him out a little bit and I was maybe we take a little break while he does that. Do you need a break? Well, you talk. Yeah, short recess would help. Yes. How do we recess? Recess. I turn video off and go mute. Are we going to turn our ears off? I mean, I don't understand where you're going. Well, I don't think we can stop. I don't think we can stop CTV. I think the record, I think we'll still be broadcasting live. I mean, we basically the board takes a little recess and Gina, I don't know if there's special provisions around this for online meetings versus in public, but in public, we would basically take a short recess, right? Right. I mean, there could be a recess here as Rick points out the cameras will keep running and it'll be up to each individual user whether to stop their video. If you mute and leave and come back, that should be fine. That way Rick and Gina can work on language. Well, and I, sure. I mean, do you want us to work on language while you're not there? I could propose language right now. I'm prepared for that. Okay, that's fine. Okay. I'm going to try and push ahead Bob. Yeah, sure. Maybe need it a little more time than that. I'm going to try and push ahead here. Gina, what I would like to try and do here is back us out of our commitment to have an election. I would like to propose that we proceed as quickly as possible to have the new board or to the staff go through and seek applications for the vacancy. Okay, would it be all right director Moran to take that in two pieces? Yes, it would. Okay. I think legally it's especially important to do the first part first. And that would be, I would propose a motion to reconsider and rescind the board's motion adopted, I'm sorry, the board's motion passed on November 10th calling for a special election. So, I would have ordered. I would have to hear both motions before I vote on any motion. So, could you do that, Gina, could you say what the next motion would be on top of that? Okay, I could try that. I mean, just the reason that gets complicated is because I'm assuming that based on what you said, director Moran, that what would happen upon the reconsideration and rescission of the calling for a special election is that the board would move forward with an appointment. And that means choosing a date for the closing of the closing of date and time for the closing of the receipt of applications by the district to fill the vacant board seat. And so I can just throw out a date. And it, you know, I guess I picked something that provides a couple of days buffer so that, you know, we're not trying to do this in exactly 15 days but something a little more than that but of course it's awkward because it pushes the process into the holiday season. So, with that, with that long winded caveat I could go ahead and suggest something and then I guess it could be discussed. Did I say something here. The next week is Thanksgiving and I feel like it needs to be more than 15 days and granted people may not be going anywhere, but people are going to be cooking at doing whatever they do with their immediate family. And I really think it needs to be more than 15 days and that it ought to be. It almost seems like it'd be a lot to put on the new board for their very first meeting on on the 7th of December. That's just what I'm thinking so you can do whatever it's up to you, Rick Moran. Okay, and as I'm thinking through this, Gina, help me that if the applications are in before the January, our first meeting in January. Do we meet the legal obligations that Lou had talked about. No, because the first meeting in January will be after the deadline. Okay, so some meeting before that so they'll whatever last meeting in December there is. Yeah, well let me suggest there isn't a meeting right now that I think is really adequate to do this. I mean in theory the deadline could be met for a December 7 meeting, but there would be very little time to review the applications. Now, the board does not necessarily right now have to decide what the dates of those meetings would be but it would have to decide on a closing date for the receipt of applications because that's part of the package that gets, you know, part of the notice that goes to the public about how to submit their applications. Do you have a suggestion for that date. Yeah, I mean I could just looking at a calendar I could throw out December 9 at 3pm as the closing date and time for the receipt of applications by the district secretary. Okay, if that's what fulfills our legal obligation and gives, you know, I realize this is all compressed here. There's a lot of moving parts going on here, and I hope people will be flexible and forgiving if it seems a little hurry here but this is what we've been left with. And we're trying to make the best of that. So, December 9. Yeah, at 3pm at 3pm. Do we need to set the date for the meeting to review applications in a point. I don't. I mean that would be good I suppose but I'm a little because it would give a lot of notice but I'm concerned that if we did it we wouldn't be able to stick to it because nobody knows the board schedule for that time. Okay, we could pick that date then on the 7th. Yeah, the third or the 7th. Well the new board will be seated on the 7th. We could pick that date. Well the accurate the new board is eligible to be seated on the fourth. That's correct but I do believe we're scheduled to swear in at a board meeting on the 7th. Well, they can go get sworn in earlier. What Lou has his hand up and If I have a question, are we sure that the election department for the county is going to certify the election by December 3rd or 7th or 9th or whatever. They have to buy December 1st. If they don't, I'm sorry. Lou, they have to buy December 1st. I talked to them. Yeah, so we have reason to believe that that ending we do after the December 1st is going to be appropriate. Yeah. Okay, so we're getting we're getting some dates here. We're fine. narrowing this down here. All right, so if Bob had suggested he wanted to hear the second motion. I'm the my intent of the motion. I'm not asking you Gina to make that motion or to craft it yourself. My intent is what I'm asking you to clarify and put in the best legal terms for us to proceed here. Okay. That would be to have the new board read read read the applications and appoint a new member. That's my 10th. You tell me how to best to get there. Okay. I would recommend the motion along the lines of Moving to fill the vacant board seat by appointment under government code section 1780 and to set the closing date and time for the receipt of applications as December 9th at 3pm. Okay. Now, excuse me, Lois, if I could just one thing about his hand up again. Yeah, that's exactly what I'm trying to do. And Rick so I mean obviously there is nothing in the motion that can lead to the consensus process that you would like to see where we only do a appointment on a for vote. You're comfortable that you heard a commitment from Gail, at least that that in fact is her intention. And from other people who are concerned about this process as well. Okay. Okay. All right. And we get on with this then. I'm going to make a motion to reconsider and resend calling for a special election. And after that vote, I'm going to make a motion to where my notes are to fill the vacancy by December 9th at 3pm. And Gina has the precise wording on that. But that's my intent here. So, yes. And you're comfortable with that. Yes, I am. Do you do you mind director Moran if I restate that briefly consistent with your intent. Go right ahead please. Okay. I'm going to make a motion to reconsider and rescind before motion passed on November 10 to call for a special election. And a motion to fill the vacant board seat by appointment pursuant to government code section 1780 and set the closing date and time for receipt of applications as December 9 by 3pm. I'm going to make a motion as stated. Okay. Do we have a second? I guess I can second that. Okay. Is that right, Gina? Can I do that? You can second that motion. Okay. Bob, you have your hand up. I do. This is this is an interesting situation for me. I want to make some comments here that I think probably have the definite potential of perhaps upsetting one or more of the attendees. But, you know, again, for me, it's important to state what reality is and make sure that we're being transparent about that. This is not being done in any way, shape or form to be to be hostile or aggressive or anything like that. It's simply business. It's a statement of fact. So when the when the new board is seated, I will be the sole member on the board that did not support the election of Gail and Tina to the board. I supported to other people. But Eric, what you're what you're doing here through this process, what you're encouraging, I think me to do is to take a huge leap of faith and trust. In fact, we as for people who have as their main objective to serve the community in the best way possible. And with the campaign done to move forward in a way that is collegial and courteous, even if perhaps we disagree that we can achieve a four to zero vote. I'm not sure I heard a commitment to that, but I certainly heard everybody say well that's what's happened in the past and you know we're very hopeful we can achieve that in the future. And on a personal note, I recognize that even though I did not support Gail and Tina in the most recent election that Gail and Tina bring to the board their backgrounds, their expertise, their willingness to serve their dedication to serve all four years and to invest the time and energy into it that is required to do so, particularly challenging for folks that may still have other obligations in in front of them, based on where they are in their in their life and their career And then I'm committed to do that. I mean it is an important thing for boards to find as much common ground as they possibly can find and to achieve a working relationship that is collegial courteous business like and gets the business of the district done in a way that makes our district better. I don't expect that we're going to agree and everything. And I don't expect that we will necessarily have 100% unanimous votes but I do expect that most of them will be that way. And so Rick, from the point of view of this leap of faith that you're basically asking me to do. As I said earlier, it's creative. It's interesting. I certainly think it has an interesting potential. If we can all walk into it with that kind of commitment to try to achieve a four to zero vote. I would be willing to do that. That's what I'm going to be looking to do. I hope that Lois and Gail and Tina will join me in that effort, and that this is something in fact that I'm hopeful we get some folks applying for this that can bring new expertise, new experiences to the board, new faces, new blood that will continue to advance this district in the path that it needs to go. I want, you know, you've done a lot of work in this, obviously, you've thought a lot about it. And like I say, I'm sorry to see you go. But I think this, this is a real indication of the kind of leadership that you've brought to the district. And I hope that you won't go too far. When it comes time to have those conversations and sort of remind all of us that you brought this forward with the expectation that everybody would work towards getting a consensus for who the new board members should be so that that person would basically reflect the kind of issues that were important, not only this last election, but the one before it as well. So please do plan on attending those those meetings that would be very helpful. And Lois, if I could. And then a second on the floor. Do you do you want to not go to it right now or No, I, I wanted to address Bob's point there, but I don't want to go and lose this motion here I want to keep this thing going as quick. Once motions are made we can always have a conversation about them there's nothing cutting off. Let me order by the way. Yeah. So let me just, if I may Lois continue with some of Bob's questions here that I can hopefully answer is. Yes Bob, I have seen you in action in the board of directors and on the board and on committees, and I applaud your commitment to this community and this water district you have worked. tirelessly, and yes, this does require a little bit. Well, it requires a leap of faith, and it is potentially filled with some risk here. But I'm hoping, and that that's me I'm hoping the for the best here. So, I'm glad to hear that you're willing to do this. And I am around. I'm not leaving any place. I don't have a home in Texas or Nevada or any place else I just have a home here. So I will make sure that what I've heard here tonight gets repeated and stuck to later on in any choice that board has to make about a replacement. Okay. Thank you. And I appreciate your service to this. And I'm going to ask Holly to call the question. All right. For the first motion to rescind the previous decision by the board. President Henry. Yes. Let me just jump in here. I think the two motions were joined. Oh, they are. Okay. Yeah. So it's one motion with a couple of components. Okay, one motion. So if you could, you agree with that director Moran that was your motion, or did you mean for them to be called separate. I was taking your suggestion that they be done separately. Oh, okay. I apologize for that then. You're calling the motion to reconsider and rescind. Yes. Okay. To be followed by the next motion. Okay, thank you. Sorry for that. Yeah. Director falls. Sorry, did we already get director Ferris's vote. Yes, he said yes. Yes. Director Moran. Yes. On the second motion to a point. Holly, could you just state for the record what the vote was because I couldn't hear everybody. I am in favor. I never got. Yes, you voted first. I did. Yes. All right. Would you like me to call it again? No, it's fine. Could you just let everyone know what you recorded as the vote that it's on the record. All voted in favor. Everyone said yes. Thank you for the second motion. To a point. President Henry. Yes. Director Ferris. Yeah. Thank you. Director falls. Yes. Director Moran. Yes. Motion passes. Thank you all. Yeah, that's hard work. Thank you. As far as as far as I've worked a while. Does that conclude this item? Or is there additions to the sign? That sounds like we're done. Okay. I believe that is everything that. Under the item tonight. Okay, thank you. Okay, so. Vote to adjourn. Everybody in favor of a journey. I see a raised hand there. Okay. And everybody. Thank you. Thank you everyone. 34 734 is the time. Thank you, Holly. Thank you.