ECCFPD Agrees to Move Forward with 5 “At Large” Member Board, All-Mail Election

On Monday night, the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District Board of Directors voted to move forward with an all-mail, at large election next year.

With a 6-2 vote, the District opted against creating Districts in favor of calling for an all-mail ballot Special District Election on March 6, 2018. The board would then drop from a 9-member appointed board, to a 5-member “at large” elected board.

The ECCFPD Board is currently made up of four-members appointed by the City of Brentwood, three-members appointed by the City of Oakley, and the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors appoints two members from the unincorporated areas.

The cost of the election is estimated around $225,000, however, that figure could change due to the possibility of other agencies deciding to hold an election at the same time.

According to the District legal, they got late information that another special district has decided to hold an all-mail ballot in March while another city is considering doing so which would potentially lower their costs. They also stated that County Elections has rescinded the offer to provide district mapping at no cost due to their workload.

“A lot of that information was provided at 6:02 pm this evening or we would have provided it to you sooner but we were still processing it,” stated Helmick.

During Board Discussion, the board debated for about 45-minutes on whether or not to hold an election by five districts or “at large”.

Director Susan Morgan argued that the cost of running an election should be a concern.

“The difference between a division of roughly 22,000 to 23,000 people versus an entire at-large district of 115,000 people, that is 5-times the cost,” said Morgan. “My concern by not going to divisions, we will eliminate that opportunity for the little guy who doesn’t have a lot of money but may be interested in running. We will close that down and only people who are very well healed, or funded by special interests with large deep pockets will have the opportunity to run and I think that is wrong.”

Morgan stated based on her personal experience, within her own election on Ironhouse Sanitary District, was around $12,000. She explained in an election featuring divisions, it could cost anyone around $8,000. In an at-large election, it could cost $30,000 to $40,000 to mount a campaign.

“I just think we are cutting out the little guy and that is wrong,” said Morgan.

Director Joe Young stated the public has already voted on this issue explaining he wrote the opposition to Measure N.

“Going to at-large elections which is what Measure N was, impacted the representation by areas that were so carefully structured in the appointed process for the directors that are currently on the board,” explained Young. “I was opposed to that, that opposition was position was in the voters booklet for them to read. The voters voted and voted to go at-large, therefore I believe we should carry out the mandate of the voters.”

Young added that when you draw those districts, some of them may be economically less able to provide a candidate. There may also be districts without any candidates. He also added there is the issue with drawing district maps and a timing issue.

“I think all of those things say the public has voted on it, the train has left the station, its time to get on with the job that was charged to put this resolution through,” said Young.

Morgan clarified Mr. Young’s comments saying at the last meeting the chief said the public wanted Districts.

Chief Helmick stated based on his travels within the District, that is why he recommended divisions.

“In talking with the CSD’s, the MAC’s, TACS primary the unincorporated areas stated they would desire there be wards,” said Helmick. “That was with individuals, not the boards as a whole, but there was a trend.”

Morgan said there was not a definitive answer from the public.

Young replied, “perhaps you have not read Measure N. It specifically said shall we move to a district with 9 directors at large, we have the vote of the public, they said yes.”

Morgan stated she understood that, but the public was not given any alternative choice at the time which they are having now.

“At that time, the alternative was not to move to an elected board at all. So as a voting member of the public, I voted yes because I preferred an elected board with the understanding, and discussions that were held at the time, that this would come back to the board for further refinement as to number and process. At that time, the public was just voting between moving to 9 at-large or not having an elected board,” said Morgan.

Young argued it was specific because of language stating “at large” within the Measure. He also urged the board to consider his argument at the last meeting.

“With approximately 115,000 residents and the Districts being drawn based on population and not voters you would end up with each district being 20,000 to 22,000 people with the exception of Brentwood and Oakley, there is no representative population group that would have control over a District,” explained Young. “So the idea you are going to go to Districts and create representatives within that District, there aren’t any population centers that could be represented, the only one who could come close is Discovery Bay at 13,000 people. Even then it would not be a District of Discovery Bay. The District you create are gerrymandered Districts, represented by Oakley and Brentwood and one heavily weighed by Discovery bay. That is not going to gain you a lot in representation. Its not going to be a mathematical process as was used to create the current board.”

Young continued saying the other areas of 2,000 people on Bethel Island, 1200 in Byron, 1500 in Knightsen the Marsh Creek area is 500 and there is not enough people there to create a District–it will be Districts that include a part of Brentwood or Oakley in it.

“You are not creating Districts that bring anything to them as far as representation, its still driven by the main population centers,” said Young. “The idea of a director is you need to represent the entire district, not there ward.”

Director Cheryl Morgan stated that the board should worry about the optics of having every single member of the Board coming from Brentwood or Oakley.

“You have basically written off the outlining areas,” said Morgan. “You have a whole bunch of people in my area, the eastern side of Contra Costa who are already pissed at this District to no end. You are going to have a bunch of people in this District who are not going to cooperate. This District is on the edge of being sued into oblivion. You can’t handle two or three major lawsuits. The whole election process is going to drive us into that. I really do.”

Board President Joel Bryant asked Director Morgan to consider a line of reason and thought.

“Do you feel that you do not represent the area that you come from well as a board member of this District,” asked Bryant and asked if she had ever made a decision that was specific designed to benefit that particular area against and at a cost against a benefit to the rest of the District.

“Yes, when I voted not to close Sunshine House,” stated Morgan.”When I voted to keep to keep the Amador Contract, that specifically benefits Marsh Creek/Morgan Territory. I also think it benefits parts of Brentwood.”

Bryant responded.

“So do you feel that we are a single district and you are a representative of the entire 249-sq miles, do you feel that you have a difficult time representing fairly as a board member,” said Bryant.

Morgan replied “no.”

Bryant then responded to Morgan stating that it was unfair for her to insinuate and wrong to insinuate that anyone would make decisions about the District sorely on geography.

“We have never done that and I am shocked to hear that a board member has done that,” said Bryant. ”

Morgan replied by stating how her goal was for the District to stay together.

“I think this will be the dissolving of the District,” said Morgan.

Bryant replied, “I absolutely disagree, I think this will be the strengthening of this District.”

The motion passed in a 6-2 vote with both Cheryl Morgan and Susan Morgan voting against.