The head of the region’s water utility has been stripped of the
power to hire top employees following a controversial appointment
early this month that swamped the agency with charges of
cronyism.
San Jose – The head of the region’s water utility has been stripped of the power to hire top employees following a controversial appointment early this month that swamped the agency with charges of cronyism.
During a four-hour meeting Monday morning at district headquarters on Almaden Road, six members of the Santa Clara Valley Water District board of directors called for sweeping changes to restrict the powers of Chief Executive Officer Stan Williams, the top manager at an agency that provides flood protection and water service to 15 cities and 1.8 million residents.
The changes, which the board expects to formally approve Aug. 14, include a policy mandating competitive hiring for all of the 30-plus “unclassified” management positions at the agency. In addition, the board of directors plan to personally oversee the agency’s chief financial officer, legal counsel and board clerk (who currently report to Williams), and will adopt a “revolving door” policy banning the district’s seven board members from taking jobs with the agency for a year after leaving office.
The decisions come in response to weeks of public outcry over the hiring of former board director Greg Zlotnick, whom Williams handpicked for a $184,000 a year job as special counsel dealing with issues related to climate change and the San Francisco Bay Delta, where the district gets half of its water.
Williams’ failure to alert the board about the appointment or hold a competitive hiring process for the position prompted water board director Joe Judge to say on Monday that his “faith has been shaken” in the CEO’s leadership.
“What I’m effectively doing, I’m stripping the general manager of his ability to use his judgment as to what makes sense in an unclassified hire,” Judge said. “That’s the problem that set this whole thing off. He has his complete judgment, complete control with regard to unclassified hires. I’m saying no. We should have an advise and consent function if he wants to hire somebody, like Greg, off the board.”
In addition to publicly apologizing to the board at the end of the meeting, Williams admitted twice that he erred in failing to hold a competitive hiring process before filling the job given to Zlotnick, an attorney who has spent a decade as the board’s political pointman. Williams’ handling of the matter ran counter to a recommendation of the district’s legal counsel, who pointed out the possibility of negative public reaction.
“The way the decision was made appears to not have been correct at this time,” Williams said. “At the time, it felt like the right thing to do, but it certainly brought attention to the fact that we might need to revise some of our board policies.”
A survey of 15 public agencies conducted by the water district, which has a $364-million budget, found that only the San Diego County Water Authority has a revolving door policy. In Santa Clara County, a charter amendment bars supervisors from working for the county for one year after leaving office. Members of the Valley Transportation Authority’s board of directors are banned from accepting jobs at the agency for two years after leaving the governing body.
Douglas Graham, a Palo Alto resident who helped get Zlotnick elected to the district in 1996, said he gave Williams and Zlotnick “the benefit of the doubt” about the need for the new position. He also said he understands that current district policies give the CEO power to appoint without a competitive process.
“However, out there in the world it’s not being seen as okay,” Graham said. “I think people have a vague feeling that it’s illegal, and they have a stronger feeling that it’s wrong.”
Zlotnick’s total compensation package, which includes $450 monthly car allowance, will now costs taxpayers $236,000 a year. As a district board member, Zlotnick earned $236 per meeting, with the capacity to earn up to $28,320 annually. He also racked up tens of thousands of dollars in expenses in the course of lobbying on behalf of the district and traveling to conferences across the country. In 2003, those costs amounted to $44,614 – nearly half the expense budget for the seven-member board. Zlotnick could not be reached late Monday for comment. In an interview a week ago, he declined to comment on the fallout from his appointment.
“I’ll leave that to Stan,” he said. “I would say I’d put it this way — I think there was a recognition of a need and I was very qualified to do the job. With respect to this water district, I’d challenge anyone to find a better qualified candidate.”
And while board members agree that Zlotnick may be the best candidate for the position, board Chairman Tony Estremera called for a study of other managerial positions inside and outside the agency to determine if Zlotnick’s $184,000 salary is “justified.” He pointed out that Zlotnick, unlike most other non-unionized “unclassified” employees, is not responsible for managing any departmental budgets or employees. Williams said he chose the salary based on a handful of similar positions recently created at other water districts.
While calling for a competitive hiring process, board members chose to leave the CEO discretion on whether to search outside the agency for talent. Estremera and water board director Larry Wilson pointed out that they could question the hiring process on a case by case basis to determine if it was truly competitive, or if outside applicants should be considered.
Following the Monday meeting, Williams said the changes proposed by the board are “entirely appropriate” in light of the public outcry over Zlotnick’s appointment.
As for any loss of faith by board members in his abilities, he said, “If I have a board member who feels that way, it’s my job to win him back over.”
