Monday, July 21 at 5:30pm – The CCSD canceled plans to announce the results of all the tabulating and verifying of protest letters done last week. Four CCSD Staff and two League of Women Voters observers spent all day Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday logging in and verifying protest letters, setting some aside to be validated by Legal Counsel Art Montandon. It was around noon on Friday when they finished the stack provided to them by the group that campaigned against the rates. Then they logged the dozen or so submitted individually at the rates hearing on the 14th. There were three or four letters in support of the rates, but since the writers didn’t include an address, they were not included in the official log. This wasn’t the end of the counting, though. The District hasn’t decided how they will count the votes – by parcel or by meter. Mr. Montandon said he was in communication with some attorneys for other districts with Prop 218 experience and would be taking their opinions into account, but the decision was ultimately his.

But allow me to go back to last week:

For anyone who didn’t have a chance to go watch democracy in action as the ballots were counted in Suite 204 – you really didn’t miss much – at least not on the surface. It reminded me of high school detention: Silence was required of the citizens watching the as addresses and corresponding CCSD customer numbers confirmed almost inaudibly with a pencil on a printout, then quiet exchanges as the same addresses were checked off on the computer spreadsheet.

I sat with four or five people on Thursday, passing messages on scratch paper while some took notes. Since I’d come in the middle of things, I just watched and tried to figure out what their process was. Turns out, none of the observers knew what the process was – not those who had been there since Tuesday morning nor the observer who had asked to have it in writing, just for her own understanding.

In spite of these (and other) frustrations, I do feel a bit reassured that the CCSD isn’t just tossing votes or “losing” them – at least not while I was there. I’m still not sure what standards the staff relied upon as they evaluated the letters or what would cause a letter to be deemed “provisional”.

Fast forward to Monday night:

I arrived early and was chatting with Rich Davega when Art Montandon, District Legal Council, appeared to let us know there was no final count yet, so instead of a meeting, he and Tammy Rudock would be available for answering questions. The representative from the League of Women Voters didn’t stick around. Since there had been a noticed meeting, the Brown Act requires a meeting. So at about 5:30, District Clerk Kathy Choate called the meeting to order, immediately adjourning for lack of quorum (since no Board Members were present). This action adjourned the public hearing on the rates increase. The agenda for Thursday’s meeting doesn’t include this issue – Mr. Montandon doubts the count will be done before next week, at the earliest. When asked about when the count will be certified and action taken by the Board on rates, Mr. Montandon said he had no idea. Likely the next regular meeting, because he and Tammy were both unsure whether the Board President could call a special meeting.

Of the twenty or so people who showed up and stayed, nearly all of them asked questions. After spending many dozens of hours over the last six days, including the weekend, Art, Tammy, Kathy, Pam and Monique spent an hour and 15 minutes addressing the confusion and questions of those who had stayed. There was some tension and combativeness in the room and some answers were not entirely satisfying, but I for one appreciate the time and clarity – even when the answer was “We don’t know yet”.

This was a hard answer for most to swallow, considering the recent history of Prop 218 in Cambria. Art explained that last fall, it was very clear that there were far more than enough protest letters to stop the rates. They didn’t need to do a lot of the kind of verifying and validating of protests they are doing this time around. Why the difference? This time around, the count is much closer, so every protest that doesn’t match the records on file with the CCSD or the County or has an incorrect address will be verified before being counted. How many of these “provisional” protests are there? Your guess is probably as good as mine. The District wouldn’t let any numbers slip except these: 4016 customer accounts (meter), in about the mid 400′s, and 4547 notices mailed.

I asked one main question, and it was a question I had as an individual and one I imagine many of you who submitted protests have on your mind. I wanted to know if a person could check whether or not their vote had been counted or invalidated. The information is in a spreadsheet by address, so it shouldn’t be too difficult for the district to find the information. Art replied that everyone could get that information, but not until after the letters are validated. If I hadn’t personally heard my letter counted, I wouldn’t know that mine had been counted.

To really delve into the nitty gritty details of the concerns is beyond the scope of this article. I invite anyone at that meeting to write about their impressions of it and their understanding of the complaints and compliments regarding this process. Login or click the “Submit a Post” tab near the top of the page to contribute your Point of View.

So will this be history repeating? And how will the board respond. In a recent post, I wrote about the reaction the Board had when the 218 protest last fall was successful. You can view those clips at google video.

More valuable than a gallon of gas? Say YES! with a small donation today.

Last 5 posts by Amanda Rice