To: Contra Costa County Special District Directors 
  
Subject: LAFCO nomination/election 
  
Please direct this correspondence to all Directors within your Special District. 
  
On March 5, 2008 a citizen approached the Discovery Bay CSD with a legitimate concern regarding David Piepho’s LAFCO seat. The issue is whether the public is assured that David Piepho can act independently and in the best interests of the Special Districts in his LAFCO capacity given that his wife is a County Supervisor. This potential ethical conflict of interest and definite mixed allegiance is further heightened by the possibility for financial conflict of interest that must be specifically addressed during this election year. These days the public maintains a low tolerance for actual or perceived political manipulation and misconduct. Maintaining the public trust at the highest possible level should always be the foremost priority and must come before political favors and cronyism. Why would the Special Distinct Association knowingly choose to elect a candidate who is surrounded by a cloud of controversy? It should be the utmost goal of the Association to seek election of a candidate that allows the Special District Association to receive full unencumbered representation with no perception of conflict or mixed allegiance. 
  
When the citizen raised this issue Mr. Piepho lapsed into an indigent statement accusing the citizen of not understanding LAFCO. He further stated that LAFCO commissioners are not nominated or elected merely appointed. Unfortunately for Mr. Piepho the citizen understood LAFCO, knew why the CA Legislature created LAFCO and knew exactly how the CC Special Districts Association fills its two LAFCO seats. Mr. Piepho’s attempt to obfuscate was further heightened by his absence at the very next DBCSD meeting when a resolution with his name already printed on it was submitted for nomination. Mr. Piepho knew the community had legitimate questions and he chose to ignore the public rather than face them. 
  
Mr. Piepho acknowledges a level of conflict by stepping down from his seat when his wife acts in her alternate LAFCO capacity. Even if his wife does not continue with her LAFCO position he has clearly demonstrated that a conflict with her as a County Supervisor exists. When challenged on this issue, besides indignantly saying “this is getting a little old with me”, Piepho emphatically claimed this matter has been well looked at “5 different ways”. I believe the matter may not have been properly studied in the context of a possible financial conflict of interest specifically related to his wife’s BoS position and her reelection bid. Using the California Public Records Act I requested supporting documents from all parties. None specific to this situation were produced. Verbally the DBCSD’s lawyer gave a convoluted explanation as to why he believed there was no possibility for financial conflict of interest by relying on the principal that one can not be in conflict for earning their own government salary. I completely agree with that, however, that is not at all the issue. What is being questioned is a second party (David Piepho) who during this election cycle does have the opportunity to influence his wife’s standing with the public and most importantly, as an example, with other officials/individuals who may or may not endorse her or contribute to her campaign. The lawyer was talking about a principal intended to be applied to one individual. It was an absolute stretch to extend the same principal to married individuals occupying positions on separate and possibly conflicting boards. In the absence of compelling independent legal review that specifically address financial conflict of interest and other conflicts related to married individuals holding two separate positions where by one may cause benefit to the other, I can only assume you would believe as I do that David Piepho’s further participation on LAFCO is not in the best interests of the Special Districts Association. 
  
When LAFCO was established in 1963 by the State Legislature the intent was to insert a check and balance into the issue of urban sprawl and other related matters of growth and jurisdiction. The 7 seats on each LAFCO with Special District representation were divided very specifically with the Special Districts receiving two seats, not one and the Board of Supervisors receiving two seats, not three. One could easily argue that in this county, at the present time, the Board of Supervisors does have an absolute LAFCO advantage not intended by the State Legislature. 
  
In researching this situation one informative source was the Institute for Local Government and their material on Public Service Ethics. I found the following quote to be quite appropriate to this situation. “In short, playing fast and loose with ethics law compliance issues is indeed like rolling the dice. At some point, the odds catch up with you”. 
  
Thank you for carefully considering this important matter. I encourage you to send a representative to the voting meeting on April 21, 2008 and to do what is right for the citizens and Special Districts you represent. 
  
Jeff Barber 
Discovery Bay, CA 
925 337-1872