At a Special Meeting of our Board on May 9, 2018,an Agenda item which I requested, seeking information from district counsel Mark Hudak, was considered. A supporting statement, included in the board packet posed the question: “Shall district counsel Mark Hudak be directed to provide a legal memorandum supporting the creation of a 2 director Zone, and assessing the risk of litigation and likelihood of a successful defense. And, shall he also be directed to revisit his opinion that an initial election in 2018 for a 2 year seat in Zone D to place it in the Presidential election cycle is not provided for by statute, with an added opinion as to whether it is prohibited by statute?”
I made a motion to approve the request for information. There was no second to the motion. Director Shefren commented "I would like to offer, Jack, why I wouldn't second it is that I am not interested in the information."
"Boardmember CYA" It was the best information available to the board at the time of the action.
Six days after that meeting, I received an official letter from district counsel. Web Link In that letter, Mr. Hudak asserts the following: "...you have claimed that the action is illegal...", "It would be a different matter if the Board's implementing process were illegal, as you claim.", "But it is a much different matter to accuse the District Board, staff, and legal counsel of acting contrary to law, when you have no law to support your position."
NOWHERE in my postings do I use the word "illegal"! Do a search
On May 22, 2018 I sent the following to Director Shefren:
Jerry, in Mark Hudak’s letter, he stated that “... the vote is final and the action is not going to be changed unless the matter is brought back to the Board for reconsideration by at least one Director who voted for it.”
You are “one” Director who voted for it.
At our public meeting on September 20, 2017 you said “Whatever zone you are in, Katie, will not be up for re-election, cause you’re there.”
At another public meeting on October 2, 2017, hypothetically you said “Just to say, for instance, me, I was in the same district with her and I’m up for election in 2018. There’s no question! I can’t run!” (There was nothing hypothetical about the identical situation in Zone A with Katie and Art residing in the same complex)
Paul Mitchell then said “Unless, you numbered your district, district #5, and you say district #5 is going to be up in 2018, and then, you can run. She’s still serving out the term from the term she was elected to …” You replied “A-ah! Ah.” Obviously, you then recognized how the district could “legally” hold an election allowing Art to run.
I’m sure that the 2 options presented to the board on February 2 were “legal” However, the legal opinion used to deny an election for a 2 year term in minority zone D was flawed. In his letter, Mark says “It is questionable whether Section 10506 applies to elections by healthcare districts. But even if it does, the section applies to situations in which a district or agency is increasing the number of divisions, for example, from five seats to seven. If the increase were to happen in a year in which three existing seats are up for election, the addition of two more seats would place the district or agency on a permanent cycle of having five directors elected in one year and only two elected at the next election cycle. In that particular circumstance, Section 10506 allows the district or agency to make one of the new seats an initial two-year term, so that the district or agency eventually will be on a four seat/three seat cycle. Since our District Board will continue to have five seats, Section 10506 does not apply.” What does Kim Manolius say about that?
On 4/18/2018, Diana Izaguirre Deputy Assessor-Clerk-Recorder said
“Yes, EC 10506 applies to the Sequoia Healthcare District (SHD) as a special district.”
I ask you to have the board reconsider it’s vote.