CORRECTION
Mark Hudak sent me the following:
Mr. Hickey – I received a copy of an email you sent to members of the press about the District’s elections. In it, you misquoted me. You wrote that I said “voter intent” prevented the District from holding elections in all five new zones simultaneously. I said no such thing.

After reviewing the audio of the meeting, I stand corrected.

No one used the phrase “voter intent”. The attorney hired by the district for election changes used the term “will of the voters”.

Here are his comments, followed by those of Mark Hudak.

“The voters of the District could have... duly (s)elected their representatives under an existing system... so basically removing Directors early would defy the “will of the voters”.

Mark: “The Health and Safety Code requires that there be staggered elections for the District Board, 3 and 2.”

These do not rise to the level of “poppycock”.

I am seeking an Attorney General Opinion as to whether it is legally permissible to have an election in ALL 5 zones in 2018, so that voters would have an opportunity to choose which incumbents remained. Election in the 2 zones occupied by Kane and Griffin would be for 2 years, to preserve the staggered election provision of the Health and Safety Code. And, the election for those 2 seats should be restricted to current board members.

Today's Daily Journal has a story on this subject.
See:Web Link
Here's an excerpt:
"In making the change, Michelson said the district is falling in line with other voting districts complying with the California Voting Rights Act, which states at-large systems cannot be upheld should they impair the ability of minorities to elect candidates of their choice."

True, but incomplete. Let me connect the dots.

At a special Board meeting on Sept. 11, Web Link there was the following agenda item:

ACTION 3. Adjourn to Closed Session For The Purpose Of:
a. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Consideration of potential litigation pursuant to Government Code
Section 54956.9 (d) (2) and (4) – Two potential cases

When we reconvened to open session and proceeded to:
ACTION 5. Authorize the Chief Executive Officer To Enter Into an Agreement For
Specialized Legal Services. The meeting audio recorded this:

Male voice: "This is for the specialized legal services."
Jack Hickey: "Can we continue without stating exactly what it is?
Mark Hudak: You can make a motion to retain the Hanson Bridgett law firm to provide specialized services with respect to elections issues.

Motion was made and seconded, and passed unanimously.

Clearly, discussions in closed session facilitated the passage of the motion.

Question: Does the public have a right to know what discussions of the board, in closed session, contributed to the result of an ACTION taken in open session?

To get some idea of what the zones would look like, take a look at the final bounderies of the Sequoia Union High School District: Web Link

If Kim Griffin, Jerry Shefren and I were to run for a Trustee seat on their board, we would be competing with each other, with only one winner. Since SUHSD includes EPA and EMP which are not in the Sequoia Healthcare District, another zone would have to be carved out of the remaining four to establish SHD zones. This could reasonably separate Jerry, Kim and I into different zones.