HomeMy Public PortalAbout19760811 - Minutes - Board of Directors (BOD) *% Meeting 76-22
.vzw i am
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT
Regular Meeting
Board of Directors
M I N U T E S
745 Distel Drive
August 11, 1976 Los Altos , CA
I. ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order by President Hanko at 7 : 35 P.M.
Members Present: Katherine Duffy, Barbara Green, Nonette Hanko,
George Seager and Daniel Wendin.
Members Absent: Edward Shelley and Harry Turner
Personnel Present: Herbert Grench, Anne Crosley, Bradley Clif-
ford, Stanley Norton and John Melton.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Minutes of July 28 , 1976
B. Green suggested the word "could" be changed to "would" in the
second sentence of paragraph six on page nine of the minutes of
July 28 , 1976 . She further suggested that the sentence "The
motion passed unanimously" be added to the end of the paragraph
containing the second motion on page ten of the minutes .
N. Hanko stated the consensus that the minutes of July 28 , 1976
be approved with the above changes .
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
N. Hanko referred the Board to a letter dated July 28 , 1976 from
Mr. Henry E. Anthony, Chairman of the East Palo Alto Municipal
Council , requesting that the Board of Directors meet with the
Council , the Ravenswood Park and Recreation District and the
San Mateo County Parks and Recreation Commission for a joint
study session on August 9 . She advised the Board that she had
contacted Mr. Anthony to let him know it would be difficult to
arrange for maximum Board attendance in that short a time. Mr.
Anthony suggested September 13 as an alternative date. She
suggested the Board consider scheduling a special meeting for
this purpose, and asked that the matter be placed under New
Business With Action Requested.
Meeting 76-22 Page two
H. Grench referred the Board to a letter dated July 27 , 1976
from Mr. William R. Riley of Wiley and Company, asking the
the Board to consider the services of his financial consulting
firm with respect to the Picchetti ranch purchase. H. Grench
suggested that staff send a letter to Mr. Riley advising him
of the status of the Picchetti property and that his letter
will be kept on file. The Board agreed that this would be
appropriate.
IV. ADOPTIO14 OF AGENDA
H. Grench asked that the Board consider the matter of appoint-
ing a representative to the Shoreline Regional Park Subcommittee
under Old Business With Action Requested.
B. Green asked that the Board consider sending a congratulatory
letter to the new Santa Clara County Executive under New Business
With Action Requested.
N. Hanko stated the consensus that the agenda be adopted with the
above additions .
V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
There were no oral communications at this time.
VI. NEW BUSINESS WITH ACTION REQUESTED
A. Response to East Palo Alto Municipal Council Letter
N. Hanko referred to the Board's discussion under Written Communi-
cations of a letter from the Chairman of the East Palo Alto
Municipal Council requesting a joint study session with the MRPD
Board.
D. Wendin said he felt it would be appropriate for two or three
Board members to attend, but he did not consider that the circum-
stances warranted calling a Special Meeting. He cautioned the
Board about establishing a precedent.
In response to a question from B. Green, S. Norton advised that
if more than three Board members planned to attend the meeting,
he felt the District should give notice.
Ms. Dorothy Jennings , 441 East Meadow, Palo Alto, said she thought
responsibility of giving notice for the meeting should belong
to East Palo Alto, not the District.
G. Seager said it was his interpretation that the Board was being
invited to a joint study session, not attendance at an East Palo
Alto meeting. He felt this would be an excellent opportunity for
the Board to establish good relations with officials in the annex-
ation area.
Meeting 76-22 Page three
Motion: N. Hanko moved that a Special Meeting be called for
the purpose of attending a joint study session with
the East Palo Alto Municipal Council , the Ravenswood
Park and Recreation District and the San Mateo County
Parks and Recreation Commission at 8 :00 P.M. on Mon-
day, September 13 , 1976 at the Municipal Center at
2415 University Avenue in East Palo Alto. B. Green
seconded the motion.
Discussion: N. Hanko said she would expect either the
General Manager or Assistant General Manager to attend
the meeting. H. Grench pointed out that minutes would
have to be taken. The motion passed on the following
vote: AYES - K. Duffy, B. Green, N. Hanko and G. Seager;
NOES - D. Wendin.
B. Interim Conflict of Interest Code
N. Hanko said this matter had been placed on the agenda so the
Board could consider the possibility of adopting an Interim Con-
flict of Interest Code that would require disclosure of certain
financial assets of candidates for the Board of Directors in the
November 2 , 1976 election. She said it was her understanding
that it was highly unlikely that the Board could adopt a code
and have it approved by the Fair Political Practices Commission
in time for that election.
S. Norton said that in January, 1975 he prepared a memorandum
(M-75-4) advising the Board of the general parameters of the
Political Reform Act of 1974 (Proposition 9) . The Act prohibits
voting by public officials on matters involving conflicts of
interest. It requires disclosure of campaign contributions and
also compels disclosure of financial assets and sources of income.
Disclosure of financial assets and income sources applied to
city, county and State officials on an immediate basis, but did
not apply to special districts. However, special districts were
required to adopt a code when requested by the appropriate
agency (e.g. , Board of Supervisors) , which would cover the key
employees of the district as well as public officials and candi-
dates for such offices. S. Norton said that until the June 8 ,
1976 election, the MRPD was under the jurisdiction of Santa
Clara County with respect to Proposition 9 requirements. How-
ever , the MRPD is now a bi-county agency and is therefore under
the jurisdiction of the Fair Political Practices Commission.
He noted that the District Clerk has directed a letter to the
Commission advising them of the MRPD's changed status. He has
had several conversations with Commission representatives, and
they have informed him that the District will not be expected
to file a code with them until February, 1977 . The Commission
will send a model code as a guideline in mid-September, 1976.
S. Norton said the Commission would not be able to consider a
code from the District until October or November in any event,
when a public hearing on the code would be held. Then, if the
Meeting 76-22 Page four
Commission approves the District 's code, the code will become
effective in thirty days. The District can enforce the code
thirty days after that thirty day period. S . Norton said he
did not believe the code could be made effective in time for
the November election. He added that he preferred to delay
drafting a code for the District until he could use the Commis-
sion's model code as a guide.
G. Seager suggested the Board consider using the Santa Clara
County code as an interim code.
In response to a question from D. Wendin, S . Norton advised
that the Board can request candidates to make financial dis-
closures.
Motion: N. Hanko moved that the District' s Legal. Counsel be
directed to develop an interim conflict of interest
code under Proposition 9 which would cover candidates
for Director, Board members and key employees , which
would be the General Manager, Assistant General Manager,
Land Manager, Legal Counsel, Controller, District Clerk
and Land Endowment Specialist, and candidates for said
positions. K. Duffy seconded the motion.
Discussion: H. Grench said he would assume the provi-
sions of the code with respect to employees would
cover at what point candidates for those positions
would be expected to provide such information.
Motion to Amend: D. Wendin moved to amend the motion
by striking the reference to employees. B. Green
seconded the motion to amend.
Discussion: N. Hanko said she would withdraw the
reference to employees in her motion. D. Wendin said
he did not feel it was proper to ask candidates to
disclose, and not expect employees to disclose. S.
Norton said he did not think the Fair Political Practices
Commission would approve a code that did not refer to
employees, or that did not follow the Commission's model.
J. Melton suggested the Board simply ask for voluntary
compliance. K. Duffy and G. Seager suggested the Board
pass a resolution requesting a voluntary statement of
candidate' s and Board member' s financial assets, and
wait until the Commission sends its model code before
proceeding with the drafting of a code for the District.
The motion to amend passed unanimously. N. Hanko said
she wished to withdraw her original motion. K. Duffy
concurred with the withdrawal of the motion.
Motion: G. Seager moved that the Board direct Legal Counsel to
draft a resolution of the Board that an interim voluntary
request be made of Director candidates and Board members
to file financial disclosure statements. B. Green
seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Meeting 76-22 Page five
VII. OLD BUSINESS WITH ACTION REQUESTED
A. Shoreline Regional Park Subcommittee
H. Grench stated that the Board had considered at its July 28 ,
1976 meeting a letter from Mr. Dwight Martin, Director of Parks
and Recreation from the City of Mountain View, inviting a
representative from the District to serve on a Shoreline
Regional Park Subcommittee that was being formed by the Mountain
View Parks and Recreation Commission. The Board had decided
to place the item on the August 25 , 1976 meeting agenda when
Director E. Shelley was expected to be present. H. Grench
advised that staff had just learned that Director Shelley will
not return until September 1. He suggested the Board direct
staff to inform Mr. Martin that a representative to the Sub-
committee from the District will be appointed at the first
meeting at which E. Shelley is present.
Motion: D. Wendin moved that staff be directed to send a
letter advising the City of Mountain View Parks and
Recreation Commission (through Mr. Martin) that
the Board will appoint a representative from the
District to serve on the Shoreline Regional Park
Subcommittee at the first meeting when E. Shelley
is in attendance. K. Duffy seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
VI. NEW BUSINESS WITH ACTION REQUESTED (continued)
C. Letter of Congratulations to Santa Clara County Executive
B. Green noted that Mr. William Siegel had recently been
appointed the new County Executive for Santa Clara County.
She suggested the Board send a letter of congratulations to
Mr. Siegel.
N. Hanko added that it would be nice if as many Board members
as possible could sign the letter.
Motion: D. Wendin moved that a letter of congratulations be
sent from the Board of Directors to William Siegel,
Santa Clara County Executive, for his appointment to
that position. B. Green seconded the motion. The
motion passed unanimously.
VIII. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS
A. MRPD Open Space Foundation
B. Clifford advised that most of the people he had contacted
regarding the establishment of an open space foundation were
very positive about the idea. Articles of Incorporation and
Meeting 76-22 Page six
By-laws had been drafted, and the objectives of the foundation
had been refined to include the following: (1) to enhance the
District's open space program, (2) to provide exposure regarding
the tax benefits of donations , (3) to inform the business com-
munity about open space and (4) to communicate open space values
to the public.
K. Duffy noted that the East Bay Regional Park District fund-
raiser seeks funds for almost anything, not just land. B.
Clifford replied that the open space foundation is just a start,
and that donations of any kind will be welcome.
B. Shooting Incident at North Foothills Open Space Preserve
H. Grench advised the Board that the County Sheriff's Department
and City of Palo Alto Police had responded to a report from
District Ranger Aide J. Frosch that several gunshots had been
directed at her from persons on the North Foothills Open Space
Preserve. Two suspects were apprehended with respect to the
incident.
C. Office Space Requirements
H. Grench advised the Board that staff was working on office
space requirements , including discussions with the landlord
regarding expansion possibilities at the District's present
location. In response to a question from B. Green, he said
it did not appear that the District would gain much in terms
of keeping in the geographic or population middle of its
territory by moving further north.
N. Hanko suggested the matter be agendized for discussion so
the new Board members can become familiar with office space
requirements , and the Board can re-evaluate the need for
a greater meeting room area.
G. Seager said he would not want to expand the meeting room
area solely to accommodate two monthly meetings. A. Crosley
advised that the room did receive substantial daily use for
map work and by volunteer and intern workers , and for other
conferences.
D. Wendin said he felt office space arrangements and floor
plans were administrative matters would should be left to
the staff. K. Duffy said she agreed with this.
N. Hanko said she felt the meeting environment was important.
D. Jennings urged the Board to give the General Manager their
confidence that staff can handle office space arrangements.
Mr. William Lloyd, 2555 Park Boulevard, Palo Alto, suggested
staff should contact adjacent office space renters.
Meeting 76-22 Page seven
G. Seager said he agreed that further proceedings with regard
to office space requirements was an administrative matter which
could be handled by the General Manager.
V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS (continued)
Mr. William Lloyd, 2555 Park Boulevard, Palo Alto, said he was
the real estate agent for Washington Realty, Inc. , which owned
the property on which both the Nellis family and the District
had options. He said it was his understanding that the Board
would discuss the property this evening, and he was anxious that
a decision be made as to the District 's interest in the site.
H. Grench said he had advised Mr. Lloyd that the matter would
be discussed in Executive Session, not in the public portion of
the meeting. He suggested Mr. Lloyd call the office the next
day if he wanted information about the outcome of such discus-
sions.
In response to a question from N. Hanko regarding his prefer-
ences about District involvement with the property, Mr. Lloyd
said he had first brought the property to the District's atten-
tion about a year ago, but the Nellises want the property also.
He said he would like a decision by the District or an indica-
tion that the District would attend a meeting of the interested
parties. He said he would rather the District withdraw its
interest in the property.
IX. CLAIMS
Motion: B. Green moved approval of the revised claims (C-76-14)
dated August 11 , 1976 . N. Hanko seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
VIII. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS (continued)
D. Governmental Liaison in Ward 7
G. Seager advised that he was continuing his efforts to establish
good communications with officials of Redwood City and San Carlos.
X. EXECUTIVE SESSION
The Board recessed to Executive Session at 9 :16 P.M. to discuss
personnel matters and land negotiations.
XI . ADJOURNMENT
The Board reconvened to adjourn at 10 : 38 P.M.
Anne Cathcart Crosley
District Clerk
A. Minutes of August 11 , 1976
B. Green suggested the word "would" be changed to "which"
in the first sentence of paragraph seven on page six of the
minutes of August 11, 1976.
H. Grench suggested the following change in the second sen-
tence, paragraph four on page seven: He said he would like
a decision by the District or an indication that the District
would "call a meeting within the next few weeks at which time
they would reach a decision" .
N. Hanko stated the consensus that the minutes of August 11,
1976 be approved with the above changes.