Our view: Some good news can be found in jury's report

The Del Norte County Grand Jury’s Final Report issued last week produced good news along with a healthy dollop of constructive, sometimes scathing, criticism about the twisted path Crescent City has taken to expand its wastewater treatment plant.

The first bit of good news is the overall quality of the report. In addition to evaluating facilities and programs such as Pelican Bay State Prison and the county Mental Health Department, jurors completed work begun by the previous Grand Jury to analyze what has happened at City Hall from 2002 to present in regards to the wastewater plant.

Jurors deserve medals for sifting through hundreds of documents and conducting 16 interviews to produce a thorough account of what transpired, lucid analyses and reasonable recommendations that, if followed, would guarantee that the city does a better job of handling major projects in the future.

For example, City Hall critics have focused much of their attention on the counting of ratepayer ballots, the results of which could have overturned rate increases to pay for the expansion. Jurors found city officials didn’t understand this balloting process themselves, and initially provided incorrect information to the public about it. Ultimately, however, jurors found that those who were eligible to vote got the opportunity, and that the ballots appear to have been counted properly.

Jurors also noted the “appearance” of a conflict of interest on the part of city Public Works Director Jim Barnts, who was overseeing the wastewater plant project as a public official while also playing a key role as a private businessman in the development of property outside the city but still dependent upon connections to the city’s sewer system.

The report stops short of finding an “actual” conflict, and in fact found that evidence refuted the claims of critics that Barnts pushed for an “overly expensive” treatment plant to satisfy the development needs of property he had a private interest in. Jurors question Barnts’ contention that he didn’t have to note his private business interests in annual reports he filed with the California Fair Political Practices Commission from 2004 to 2007. But they also note his private development dealings were widely known at City Hall, and that the city’s Conflict of Interest Code was far too ambiguous until it was amended last March.

What most dismayed the Grand Jury was the perceived failure of City Council members, and at least initially the public, to vigorously question staff members as the project evolved. In early stages, cost estimates were as low as $10-$13 million. Just a few months before the City Council accepted a $37 million bid for the expansion, it approved an application to the state Water Resources Board for $19.6 million.

The report found it “disturbing in the extreme” that the wildly escalating cost wasn’t more of a concern for City Council members. Mayor Kelly Schellong this week questioned the jurors’ technique, noting that if they had listened to tapes of the City Council meetings in question instead of just reading the minutes, they might have found that Council members were more engaged than the Grand Jury thinks.

If that’s the case, maybe another City Hall reform is needed: better keeping of the meeting minutes to truly reflect what transpires. But remember,  the jurors also conducted interviews and were repeatedly told that the details of all this were being left to the staff.

The Grand Jury’s Final Report was published in the June 20 edition of The Triplicate. It can be found by clicking here, and online as a “featured item” at dnco.org. It’s highly recommended reading, not only to look back on the dubious process that led to the expansion project, but to look ahead and expect better of our city officials in the future.