mountainecho.com

Attorney Mark Atlas, who has done work for the CSD before, notably helping them with developing a personnel manual, gave approximately an hour’s presentation at their request, telling them essentially that SHASTA LAFCO had been wrong in a number of areas. He challenged Mickelson’s interpretation of what constituted a quorum was wrong. She had said a quorum of their board meant the majority of members sitting on the board rather than the number of members they are authorized to have on the board and he said it was just the opposite.
Mickelson responded to his charge in a later interview with Mountain Echo: “At the July 10 meeting, it was my opinion that a Brown Act violation could occur given the current make-up of the CSD Board. I will always advise that we should act in a way that meets the intention of the law. The law encourages public agencies to have discussions and make decisions in the public eye, with all stakeholders present. Whether or not my interpretation of the law is 100% exact given the limited number of CSD directors that were seated at the time is really a moot point. I will not ever participate in a meeting that even potentially infringes on the intent of the law. I have not inquired of legal counsel whether or not my interpretation was correct because I have not been, nor would I ask my Commission to authorize the spending of public funds to seek a legal opinion in this particular issue. I asked the District to remove one Director from the meeting, the District complied and we went on to have seemingly fruitful discussions.”