Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout19981021 - Minutes - Board of Directors (BOD) p Open Regional 4p Sp, e 1 �+1y.�ti "�►1rti MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL N SPACE NSTRICP �► Meeting 98-24 SPECIAL MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS October 21, 1998 MINUS I. ROLL CALL President Betsy Crowder called the meeting to order at 6:33 P.M. Members Present: Mary Davey, Betsy Crowder, Ken Nitz, Jed Cyr, Peter Siemens, and Nonette Hanko. Members Absent: None. Staff Present: Craig Britton, Sue Schectman, Deirdre Dolan, Jodi Isaacs, and John Escobar. II. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Phillip Hearin, District Ranger, 22500 Prospect Road, Saratoga, referred to the Family Medical Leave Act of 1993 and said he was giving the Board notice that there was intent to file a complaint with the Department of Labor regarding reduced leave schedule and altemate position due to a reduced leave schedule. He said he did not expect any discussion or comment at this time. He urged the Board to contact the General Manager within the next ten days to get information on what is going on and to clarify. S. Schectman advised the Board that this was a personnel matter and could not be discussed in a public meeting. She said if they had questions they should talk to her or to the General Manager. She said staff was scrupulous in complying with the Act. She advised the Board to do nothing at this point, adding that if potential litigation were to result, they could discuss it in closed session. , B. Crowder asked for copies of the Act and District policies. III. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Motion: J. Cyr moved that the Board adopt the agenda. K. Nitz seconded the motion. The motion passed 6 to 0. IV. BOARD BUSINESS 330 Distel Circle . Los Altos, CA 94022-1404 . Phone: 650-691-1200 FAX:650-691-0485 . E-mail: mroscl(0openspace.org . Wei)site:www.openspace.org 1 Board of t)irer tors_Pete Siemens,Mary C.Davey, led Cyr, Deane Little, Nonette Hanko, Bekv Crowder,Kenneth N'47 . General iktanapter:L.Craig Britton Meeting 98-24 Page 2 ' A. Agenda Item No. 1 -Final Interviews of Applicants and Appointment of Director- Ward 4. The order for Board questioning of the finalists as determined by a random drawing was: l. Deane Little 2. Curt Riffle 3. John Miller The Board recessed at 7:47 P.M. following the 20-minute question and answer period for each applicant. They reconvened at 7:57 P.M. and there was a random drawing for order of appearance for summary statements. The order was as follows: 1. Deane Little 2. John Miller 3. Curt Riffle The results of the voting was 4 votes for Deane Little and 2 votes for Curt Riffle. Motion: J. Cyr moved that the Board adopt Resolution 98-41 appointing Deane Little as Ward 4 Director. M. Davey seconded the motion. The motion passed 6 to 0. D. Dolan administered the oath of office to Deane Little, and Director Little took his seat with the Board. There was a recess from 8:20 to 8:30 P.M. B. Agenda Item No. 2-Continuation of Discussion and Ac-=tance of the final Drat} Report of the Operations Program Review by the Warner Group from the September 28. 1998 Special Meeting and Direction by Board for Future Action G. Baillie introduced Christine Wilson and Dick Barbar of the Warner Group and referred to the supplemental information packet and letters received by the Board. C. Wilson described the information that had been added to the report at the request of Board members. This included an organization chart, a seven-year summary of field enforcement activity showing numbers and types of enforcement contact, staffing relative to comparable agencies, and an introduction to Appendix C describing the composition and process of focus groups. In regard to the information requested about badges, J. Escobar said that information would be provided separately. Meeting 98-24 Pa ge e3 In response se to a question regarding firearms training cost and time, J. Escobar described the training staff has completed. He said that he would not recommend firearms, even though staff training met minimum requirements of the Penal Code. He said the full academyis 20 weeks long. In addition, there is the issue of liability S n, ability and they have to constantly re-qualify. S. Schectman said those who c 'guns would not necessarily have a higher salary; that would be subject to collective bargaining. D. Barbar explained how enforcement activity would change under their recommendations. He said each group would retain their existing peace officer authority, but their authority would extend primarily to the violation portion of District ordinances. He said that under their proposal, they have discouraged a District ranger from dealingwith matters such as assault and batteryand others cited b N. Hanko. Y The Sheriffs office would still be notified by the District ranger. He said it was their recommendation that rangers deal only with infractions and code violations on District lands. Brian Malone, District ranger, said those situations would not go away or become less dangerous. D. Barbar said there is no purpose in having rangers deal with such things as cultivation of marijuana in a dangerous situation on behalf of the District. That is a function of the State Department of Justice, and the Sheriffs office has organized means of dealing with that. The District could provide support as far as location, access information, and vehicles. C. Wilson said they had tried, in the report, to distinguish between regulation enforcement and law enforcement. She said they think enforcement of District regulations and a small amount of State and County laws that support the mission of the District is still the appropriate responsibility for rangers. J. Escobar added that the incidents could still occur, and while they might tone down their role, the summary would still mention the incidents. N. Hanko asked if they noticed a change in the number of assaults when the baton was provided to rangers in 1994. J. Escobar said that they had never studied the correlation. N. Hanko said she wanted to know if staff thought the batons were successful in warding off some of the problems. Regarding the law enforcement package, N. Hanko asked if not adopting it as a package would throw it off. D. Barbar said they took the approach that they would recommend a defensive posture for the rangers with the understanding that it would be accompanied by a contractual agreement with the Sheriff to deal with the higher level of criminal activity on District lands. Their recommendation was based on the number of incidents, perception of visitors, comparable agency study, and discussion with key stakeholders including adjacent law enforcement agencies. Meeting 98-24 Page 4 K. Nitz commented on the table in Appendix B, stating that perhaps the incidents should be divided differently to provide a clearer picture of what is happening. He said field staff must be doing a great job because things are decreasing. He also expressed concern about Appendix C and the operations staff focus groups in the main report that said there was no delegation, no trust, management did not empower employees, and management intimidates staff. He said he thought that was why they had held the Art O'Neal training. N. Hanko said she thought this document was supposed to be a kind of implementation by putting the questions to the Board who is in charge of management. She said the crux of the Art O'Neal training was communication between groups and she thought they were in the process. C. Wilson said their recommendation regarding cooperation between District management and staff and decision-making focused on clarifying the field staWs role in the decision-making process. The Warner Group sees that role as providing input and they should work within an established process. The Board ought to continue to make decisions based on sound business factors and communicate the rationale behind decisions back to staff. Discussion followed regarding the purpose of the report and the Board's role at this meeting. Committee members agreed that they would like comments from each Board member so that they could pursue the direction they want them to go. N. Hanko referred to the February 11 report, Appendix B, regarding acres per ranger. She said Castle Rock Park would have 3,868 acres per ranger. Harry Haeussler, 1094 Highlands Avenue, Los Altos, asked if the 3,000 acres for one ranger were all in one spot or were spread around. On another subject, he said he did not think there was good cooperation between planning and rangers. He also talked about the hitching rack at Windy Hill being in the wrong location. C. Britton commented on Mi. Haeussler's concerns. Brian Malone addressed why staff felt the way they did in regard to input and communication issues. They had hoped the report would address these but it did not. He said the report did not provide what the Board asked for and did not include input from rangers. He said they want to be involved in the process as it goes forward. He said there were some gross errors in the add-on to the report. Richard Schwind, 11825 Skyline Blvd., Los Gatos, said he lived opposite Long Ridge Preserve. He said in his experience, rangers and volunteer presence are very thin on the preserve. Because of the large amount of land the District controls, decisions made by the District have an increasing influence on their quality of life. He said he believed that a large number of his neighbors and people he hiked with felt the same way he did. He said he believed the Warner Group report has erred in recommending 1 Meeting 98-240 Page 5 removing batons and not providing firearms. He said police are only effective after they arrive and then are not equipped to deal with the wilderness. He said the county took weapons away from their park rangers about 15 years ago and that had not been successful. He said he believed that the District rangers were very competent and the Board should go with their recommendation of keeping batons and handcuffs and adding firearms. Michael Newbu member of MPPO said he thought it w v rn, A, gh as very important that the Board understand that the Association feels the report had a lot of things wrong with it, not just in the law enforcement area, but in the areas of maintenance, planning department, and resource management. He asked that they not accept it as it was. He asked that a member of the union be involved with the ad hoc committee and management to come up with the best possible solution. Ken Miller, District ranger, addressed the badge issue and described an off-site incident where he had assisted a Sheriff who was looking for a county park ranger. He said they had always requested Sheriff assistance when dealing with marijuana cultivation. He said all rangers are comfortable with how they are working with District, state and county ordinances and have no desire to change their role. He said contact with violent people almost always occurred as a result of them making contact under a District ordinance. Matt Ken, District ranger, talked about Menlo Park toning down the image of their police officers and how it did not work. He said San Mateo County Sheriff Horsley said he would not object to rangers carrying weapons on duty. He described encounters with wildlife where he thought firearms would be appropriate. He said the decrease in bicycle violations might not be attributable to education but might be due to rangers being unable to patrol because of the wet weather last winter. Kerry Carlson, District ranger, talked about an incident where a person attacked him and another ranger with a digging bar and the Sheriff was unable to locate them. He agreed with B. Malone regarding the need for more staffing. He said part of the reason they can't hire rangers is that potential candidates say they don't want to be involved with the Warner Group report and the turmoil surrounding it. Loro Paterson, District ranger, said it was not possible to change to a defensive position because by policy and protocol they already are. She commented regarding how data was gathered for the report and said regulation enforcement is law enforcement. Discussion followed regarding how incidents are logged and reported. J. Isaacs said the Resource Management Program was supported by everybody. She said she felt they need more stewardship on the land. Rangers are the ones who know what is happening and she relies on them. She said there need to be changes in the Meeting 9i24 Page 6 level of commitment to the program depending on how much stewardship we want on the land. She said this was a great time to assess the program. Grant Kern said he wanted to make sure Board members got the letter from the maintenance staff. He said there were many questions the report did not answer and he wanted to make sure maintenance staff had a voice. M. Davey suggested that the Board adopt the report and each Board member give his or her points that they want the committee to consider. Motion: I Cyr moved that the Board accept the report with the caveat that the staff ratio chart numbers be validated as outlined by the General Manager. N. Hanko seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0. Board member listed items for the ad hoc committee to consider as follows: Mary Davey Clarify authority of area superintendents. Encourage cooperation between management and field staff. Devise a written policy and procedure for receiving input from the staff, including field staff, so that they y know the are heard and are part of the ingredient for decision making. Increase funding and staffing for a long-range plan for resource management. Tie the plan to trail use, consider single-purpose uses and maybe not opening any more paths at this time until we have a maintenance plan that is of the quality that it is today. Take a look at visitor use and wilderness use. Keep present staffing level in the maintenance department unless we can see that there is a need for more; if we maintain this quality, we really might need more maintenance staff. Keep present safety equipment and badges for rangers but not have guns as part of safety equipment. 1 C specific law c a enforcement responsibilities with h es th then arify p po o the defensive posture. Clarify relationship of sheriffs department communication and training program in what District roads and lands are. Hire more rangers. Meeting 98-24 4F Page 7 Critical that field staff and planning department work together. Explore the need for improved equipment; essential to keep quality of maintenance up. The challenge is balancing maintenance and operations budget against what our purpose is—to buy open space. Pete Siemens Agreed with pretty much everything M. Davey said. Good plan for communicating when we decide to do something to get input from the field and make sure it happens consistently. Don't agree with changing equipment. Agreed that at this time should not carry firearms. Don't agree at this point carte blanc saying we need more ranger or maintenance staff, but as we open more land to use we will have to have more staff. Agreed with some of the changes in fire equipment. Things ought to work. Would rather buy equipment and have people be very efficient and productive. Nonette Hanko Warner Report suggests developing visitor use reporting process to consistently track use levels and patterns. Include polling of constituents(not just users) so we can track opinions of constituents who may not be using the District lands for some reason or another. Received excellent feedback and suggestions for improvement from the external stakeholder interviews—users and those who five near preserves. Have workshop where we bring them together and talk about issues and find solutions for the problems that came out during those interviews. Our job is to address the negatives. Rangers should be present. Would like to know what ran equipment ers need in order to address the violations 8 that occur on trails. Resource Management and District-wide Planning—recommendation to include possibility of additional District funding by way of a measure that goes to the voters that would assist in more funding for Resource Management and District-wide Planning process. I Meeting 98-24 page 8 Law enforcement—issues raised: change of uniform, badge, etc. —other agencies liked the way the rangers dress now and whatever equipment they carry now. Like star badge. Sheriff response times too long. Ability to locate District preserves and lack of four- wheel drive vehicle not acceptable. If we are to go to some agreement negotiating with sheriff s de t w ne ed eed to be assured that the will be there when w p Y e need them and sure that the response time is what we want it to be. Need to know what our rangers' response will be when people need Even help. thought of having l� heavily deputy sheriffs that work directly for our District, not going so far to recommend that rangers carry firearms, don't know enough about the implications(how constituents would support idea). Neighbors are concerned that there are rangers to protect them; however, we shouldn't let the Sheriff off the hook. Rangers are supposed to be taking care of District lands. Need to make sure we good ood attention from the Sheriffs department g up there. Letter from Maintenance Dept. —would like to study recommendations in committee. Betsy Crowder Going to have to do something with budget because a lot of the things that are needed are going to cost money. Difficult to balance purchasing open space with adequate management of open space. Safety of field staff is paramount but can't go for firearms. Keep uniform as it is including star. Body armor optional. No reason to get rid of batons. No point in having handcuffs if they're in the truck. Set up series of meetings with Sheriff and fire departments. Lots of options. Repeater for radio. Ranger dogs. Need to hire more field staff. Jed C Began as safety question and expanded into operations review—appreciate that. Time to take a look at entire process. Every choice has a financing impact. i Meeting 98-24 Page 9 Five priorities(but others need to be addressed): 1. Arming rangers—question of safety and backup is a function of distance. Primary function of ranger at this point is to be a generalist. Don't believe it is to be law enforcement. Safety could be enhanced by making sure we have enough radio repeater sites. Not support arming rangers or modifying uniform at this stage. 2. Deal with issues around resource management. 3. Serious consideration of staffing levels. 4. Trail construction/management, including some of the things coming to the fore like wilderness experience, trail access, the redefinition or clarification of document in terms of use of preserves. 5. Planning program: communications and coordination and cooperation. 6. Others as we can get to them. Ken Nitz Budget and balance—what are we getting for our money. Improving cooperation between planning and operations, between operations and management and field staff. Safety is important, but training should be improved or increased. More rangers —would like to wait for new stats but believe we probably should have more. Batons—should keep. Like 7-pointed star. Don't see why soft armor should be mandatory—maybe in some places and situations. Handcuffs—keep them on belt. Firearms—look into statistics. Potential of arming should be looked into every four or five years depending on statistics. Maintenance of equipment— agreed that it is better to buy than have them spend their time fixing. Meeting 98-24 Page 10 Memo from maintenance department—hope Warner Report will consider it too. Resource management plan—need to stress. Time response from Sheriff—did timing test, can see how time is so large. If Sheriff is cutting back on number of people on Skyline, we should tell them not to. Rangers are not there to enforce laws not on our property. Look into getting repeaters(for radios) if there are dead spots. Like the idea of canine units. Don't think we should open more trails until we get things figured out, especially things like wilderness experience. Need to look at things in terms of usage, population exposure to our preserves, remember they are preserves not parks. Matter of balance—what we can do with the money we have. Deane Little Working from small data set—are larger ones available on public lands across country? Consideration be given to lesser weapons like stun guns, and are there stun guns that are designed to look like a firearm? What is expected expense to District if firearms were allowed—could be considerable because of training, retraining and equipment issues. District probably needs more rangers and field staff—would support. Motion* K. Nitz moved that the Board direct that the Operations Program Review Ad Hoc Committee work with the General Manager and Operations administrative staff to develop a specific implementation plan based on the input received. P. Siemeas seconded the motion. The motion passed 7 to 0. V. ADJOURNMENT At 11:03 P.M., the meeting was adjourned. Roberta Wolfe Recording Secretary