Green Mountain Water and Sanitation District, with the new majority, meets tomorrow evening at 6 pm. It is an opportunity to share your thoughts and hear their responses regarding:
1. Transparency
2. Status of Mr. Yost as temporary engineer after he quit and was then asked by the new majority to stay on
3. Status of the independent environmental study for the Federal Center. Mr. Yost apparently recommends just go along with the developer’s evaluation instead of paying for an independent evaluation.
4. Process and selection of a new manager.
5. Response to Brookfield’s request for extraterritorial service.
6. Responses to Big Sky and Cardel’s requests for extraterritorial service and responses to their lawsuit demands to give them what they want.
At least two of the board members are interested in what you have to say.
Here is the agenda and link to the meeting and public comment:
I could be wrong, and hope I am, but the following agenda item sounds like the new majority may be “doubling down” and trying to be less transparent instead of more transparent regarding the flow of information shared in their recent emails:
“5. Executive Session pursuant to C.R.S. 24-6-402(4)(d)
Specialized details of information technology security arrangements and policies, and including where disclosure of the matters discussed might reveal information that could be used for the purpose of committing, or avoiding prosecution for, a violation of the law.
a. IT security policies“
The statute they are referring to is the open meetings law that provides an exception allowing a private meeting in executive session to discuss:
“Specialized details of security arrangements or investigations, including defenses against terrorism, both domestic and foreign, and including where disclosure of the matters discussed might reveal information that could be used for the purpose of committing, or avoiding prosecution for, a violation of the law;” C.R.S. 24-6-402(4)(d)
Hope they don’t think that public scrutiny of their emails discussing policy and procedure outside public meetings is tantamount to “domestic terrorism”.
If so, we do have a serious problem.
Discussion of
- the process for hiring a new manger,
- whether or not to provide extraterritorial service to Brookfield (in Solterra),
- whether or not to provide extraterritorial service to Big Sky and Cardel (in Rooney Valley),
- whether or not to obtain an independent environmental study of the Federal Center
Are not state secrets.
And public scrutiny and input on these issues is not domestic terrorism or a violation of any law.
Ultimately the new majority is just as accountable to the voters as any other previous board and transparency regarding important decisions is fundamental to that accountability.
But, maybe I’m wrong. Maybe the new majority are trying to be more transparent. Let’s see what happens tomorrow evening.