Craig Harrington of the Water Resources Subcommittee made the surprising motion to dissolve his own subcommittee. Analysis and editorial polemic by H.R. Downs           artwork by Tom Giansante

In a surprise move at the April 3rd Citizen's Advisory Committee (CAC) meeting, Craig Harrington made a motion to disband the Water Resources Subcommittee. Andy Rodgers, who served as chairman of the subcommittee supported the idea and it went to a vote. However, before the vote, CAC Chairman Don Marquardt (and one or two other members) seemed to reflect the perplexity rippling through the audience when he asked what the "urgency" was to disband a subcommittee still in operation and still making major contributions to the Water Element.

Ever-helpful staff member Greg Carr, cheerily volunteered that disbanding the subcommittee was indeed a choice the full committee could act upon. Carr seemed to smile on the idea. The next thing anyone knew "ayes" rippled through the voting members like a moving wave in a football stadium and, in an instant, the now famous Water Resources Subcommittee melted into County history. Rick Savel, who voted against dissolution, was the only countercurrent in this wave.

But instead of resolving anything the action provokes disturbing suspicions surrounding a subcommittee already ripe with disturbing suspicions.

Behind Closed Doors

The most obvious consequence of disbanding the Water Resources Subcommittee is that the three members are now free to discuss water policy with each other secretly. The single most disturbing suspicion about that possibility is why on earth would they want to do that? Why would a prominent land investor/developer, a land use lawyer who procures permissions for developers, and a geologist who lists as clients the Sonoma County Water Agency (!) and numerous municipalities want to discuss water policy in secret, especially when they are already actively crafting water policy in public at the full CAC meetings?

The undertow created by Harrington, Rodgers and Carr yanked the CAC committee so swiftly into a vote that none of the other members seemed to appreciate the implication of disbanding the Water subcommittee; they didn't seem to "get it". But several audience members did. They visibly shifted in their seats and squirmed as if recoiling from something unpleasant.

The Brown Act

Previously, as official members of a CAC subcommittee, these three men were bound by the Brown Act which prohibits a quorum of members to discuss policy in private. In this case, only two members of a three-member subcommittee constitute a quorum. The Brown Act requires members to hold their discussions in public, which, by the way, they have been doing just fine.

Dissolving the subcommittee means that's not true anymore. Now they can meet and discuss water policy in secret. Why is this OK? Because the full CAC is 15 people and three out of 15 does not constitute a quorum.

Unfortunately, it is probably more important for these three individuals to continue their discussions of water policy in public after submitting their draft if for nothing else than to maintain responsibility for their work.The policy is still their draft no matter how many changes they make to it with the other members. But only after their connections with development became public, they want to distance themselves from this responsibility and be able to meet in private. What's wrong with this picture?

For starters we now have a developer, a developer's lawyer and a developer's geologist sitting on the full CAC who may, if they so wish, slam the door to public scrutiny and devise orchestrated strategies to influence future water policy. No one is saying that they intend to do this. But dissolving their own committee certainly suggests that they wish to be freed from the constraints of the Brown Act.

Adding to these disturbing suspicions is the mysterious absence of Steve Butler, the developer's lawyer who sat on the subcommittee. When the subcommittee's connections to development interests became public knowledge (this was revealed at one of the public meetings) the subcommittee appeared in a decidedly less-than-objective light. As people voiced various opinions about this compromise, Butler confessed to the world that he was "thin skinned", implying that he felt the revelations to be damaging. That was the last time anyone saw him, at least anyone who attends the full CAC meetings. Butler, the lawyer, simply disappeared.

Of course, disbanding the subcommittee raises the possibility that Steve Butler, Esq., may once again rejoin the full CAC meetings. But you will have to wait until the next meeting on April 21st to find out if he does.