It has historically been extremely difficult to have the park district furnish answers to questions. For the purposes of the information contained within this website, the only manner information has at all been forthcoming has been to invoke the The California Public Records Act (GOVT.CODE Sections 6250-6276.48), which is designed to give the public access to information in possession of public agencies.
As it happens, in the case of MPRPD, when this right was finally invoked in order to obtain information the public has a right to know and which had not earlier been forthcoming, the agency then demanded a fee of $45 per hour of staff time in order to provide such information. This was perhaps not surprising for an agency that is in the business of putting up roadblocks to transparency, but what they are still not aware of is that access to such information is purposely free (Section 6253). As addressed by the legislature, costs are limited to the direct cost of duplication, typically $.10-25/page. Any charges for searching or reviewing are not allowed. In their zeal to discourage the public’s right to know, why do they feel it’s appropriate to construct such roadblocks? Could it be that they felt it might dampen the public’s resolve to find out what is really happening with this district?
While the board has been virtually unresponsive, the very few comments board members have made offer a mixed message regarding their attitude regarding the public, as well as their knowledge about district operations: “Responsibility flows in two directions, take some of it yourselves” Stated by board member John Dalessio after hearing a series of speakers criticize the park district actions at December 6, 2010 board meeting. Is the appropriate way to take accountability for your decisions as a public servant to blame your constituents?
“This is making mountains out of molehills”, Board member John Dalessio commented to the Carmel Pine Cone December 10, 2010. How out of touch must one be to feel that a $437,000 salary in addition to full benefits is a molehill?
“No, it’s a big concern of mine”, Board Chairman Michael Adamson, when asked by the Carmel Pine Cone December 10, 2010 if he’s confident that the agency can meet its pension obligations 20 years from now. (It is not surprising that he may feel this way, since he must surely be aware that the board hasn’t bothered to fund much of the retirement benefits liabilities).
Within days of the December 6, 2010 board meeting, Mr. Adamson reported he had received well over 2 dozen emails. When asked if he had replied to these concerns, he stated he had no intent to do so. Isn’t this the job of a public representative, to listen to and acknowledge the suggestions and input of taxpayers? What possible basis would he have to refuse to answer constituent’s questions?
“They were very supportive of Mr. Donofrio and very cognizant of their responsibility to taxpayers” District Attorney Anne McGowan referring to the board, Monterey County Herald December 5, 2010. As evidenced by the generosity of handing out taxpayer monies, there is no quarrel that they were indeed supportive of Mr. Donofrio, but the latter part of her comment couldn’t be further from the truth. If anything, they showed a blatant disregard for the interests of taxpayers.
Despite the fact that board members have been so extraordinarily generous to Donofrio, they don’t feel above reserving some monies for themselves. 80% of board members receive a stipend for attending meetings. While legal, many boards do not offer such a perk, which each board member must request. It is felt by many taxpayers that if the board wishes to grant excessively high salary and benefits to one individual, they should consider the cupboard dry for themselves, and decline any corresponding benefits to themselves. Not so. For calendar 2010 board members were paid as follows:
Mary Dainton:
$1,800
Ben Post:
$600
Jennifer Fellguth:
$1,000
Michael Adamson:
$1,300
Our position is that if you choose to do public service work, take the high road and do not also request compensation for doing so. (Of note is that Boardmember Delessio did not accept the board stipend). Of the hundreds of non-profit organizations on the Monterey Peninsula, not one pays their board members, and their work is no less important.
While this board has been falling over themselves to inappropriately pay extraordinary salary and benefits to one individual, what has life been like for the rest of the world?
As of January 2011, according to the U.S. Census Bureau the unemployment rate in Monterey County is approximately 10%. In a recent article in the Wall Street Journal, it was stated that when full time employees who were forced to work part time and job seekers who had simply given up were included in the statistic, the figure rose to 17%. Equally significant is that of all county residents, over 17% are living under the poverty level.
There are dozens of foreclosures taking place every week in our county involving hardworking people who haven’t the advantage of an opportunity to feather their nest with taxpayers monies. If you don’t believe that, look in the legal section of any local newspaper.
There are thousands of small business owners in Monterey County who couldn’t tell you how it feels to have a plush retirement account, because they don’t have one. Those very businesses have been spending every single day in this economy fighting to keep their head above water, to find ways to pay their rent and to keep the lights on. They spend sleepless nights worrying whether they will be able to provide for their families, and are weary for the effort. They range from our hairdressers to family restaurants, printing shops and myriad others. They carry similiar responsibility as the manager of this park district and have not worked any less hard in their efforts, but that’s where the similiarity ends. The moment they stop working, their income ends. Unlike Donofrio, they don’t receive $500,000. when they are 85. Indeed, over the balance of their lifetime they will be lucky to receive 8% of what the board has awarded him.
There are countless retirees in our area barely earning a livable wage from their retirement accounts. For employees retiring today who are dependent on social security, there is very real concern of whether their lives will outlast available monies. Thanks to the board there is no such concern for Donofrio. His salary and benefits will increase for as long as he is alive.
How is it that the board can choose to open the public vault for a favorite employee, and when asked, not provide plausible reasons why they have done so? Is it that a board of directors can be so detached, or is it done out of pure disdain for the public? If this were a private company the public wouldn’t care about what salary the board wanted to pay their GM, but this is not a private company; The monies that were given to Donofrio by the board come straight out of the pockets of the very people who have been the most impacted by the economic downturn. Don’t you think you owe them an explanation?
At its December 6th 2010 meeting the park district board and General Manager were asked for 4 items, and a response was requested within 2 weeks.
Among them was a request that the board, in light of numerous questionable decisions made in favor of Donofrio was to allow a committee comprised of taxpayers of the board’s choosing to provide input and suggestions to the selection process of a new General Manager. Whereas most public bodies would have taken the public up on such an innocuous suggestion, particular given the furor of the debacle regarding the last hire, not only did the board not agree to such a basic suggestion, they completely ignored the question.
A review of the board minutes of the past several years have shown a history of repeated disregard for public comment, particularly if it was accompanied by any criticism of the board’s actions. Through the years many excellent suggestions have been made during the public comment period, including having the staff provide confidential input on the performance of management, and to include more substantive information on the MPRPD website. Virtually all have been ignored by the board, but almost all such suggestions have been adopted by agencies who care about hearing from their constituents.
For instance, on a regular basis Monterey Peninsula College sends out a questionnaire to people who interact with the president. They are asked to anonymously rate everything from competency, to knowledge of product to strengths as a manager. Can we imagine how powerful a tool this could be to assess a manager? Yet the MPRPD board would have none of it. In essence, aren’t they telling us, why ask the public, since we wouldn’t be taking action anyway?
Unlike the City of Monterey and countless other communities who have implemented best practices policies, to determine the salary and benefits package of Joseph Donofrio you must be both patient and diligent, and a good detective.
Whereas most agencies’ budgets will provide a line item for the General Managers salary, the park district does not. In order to determine the actual salary for Donofrio one must review the entire General Fund Statement before finding the answer. His salary had been without explanation spread across 4 different budget categories: General & Accounting, Maintenance and Operations, Education and Outreach, and Planning and Conservation. Is it truly necessary for any constituent to have to play a game of 3 card Monty in order to find such basic data? Is this related to other barriers the board has put up to constrict information?
The board continues to insist most information the public has asked for is on their website, yet this is not so, evidenced by many taxpayers who have tried to access information. Perhaps they should visit the website of the city of Monterey, where one is able to immediately determine all of the staff salaries and benefits. It is clearly laid out on an easy to read matrix. It is easily found at http://www.monterey.org/hr/salarybenes.html. MPRPD, isn’t it time you did the same?
Much has been said about the outrageous salary and compensation package given to Donofrio by this present board. Not addressed have been the associated costs of those decisions to the district taxpayers, which continue to escalate.
In the months preceding the retirement of Donofrio, CalPers reportedly challenged several aspects of his retirement package, presumably for being overly generous. The MPRPD board felt compelled to defend his benefits, but to do so they would be forced to expend monies on attorney’s fees to provide such defense. Did they choose to spend more of our money after the first bad decision? Yes, of course. How much? We don’t know, as the board has refused to divulge that information, even when asked via a public records request under the California Public Record’s Act.
A review of the financials for 2010 may provide at least a partial answer. We find there was $21,157 paid to the district’s regular attorney, plus other miscellaneous legal expenses, a fee in line with previous annual expenses. However, a more detailed reviewed of the years expense register shows an additional fee, paid to the district’s employment attorney of $36,545.43. For what purpose did the board pay their employment attorney $36,000? How much of that amount went into providing a legal defense for such an excessively high salary? Isn’t having to pay the salary and benefits package not sufficiently offensive? Why should taxpayers also be required to shoulder his defense costs. Isn’t this just adding insult to injury? And why is the district silent on these issue? Why are they refusing to divulge this salary to the public? It certainly couldn’t be client attorney privilege, since even with the agency as the client the agency has the election to waive secrecy in attorney-client discussions (Code Sections 6254(k), 6254.25, 6276.04). Since this is the case, and since they are working for us, the taxpayer, why do they insist on keeping such matters in the dark?
Here’s an idea. If the board felt so generous to award these benefits to this employee, why shouldn’t the costs to defend them be personally borne by the board who awarded them? The public never had an opportunity to offer input on the bighearted salary and benefits program (and if they had they would have been summarily rejected), yet now they have to pay someone to defend them? Are we missing the logic here?
Donofrio is gone, but the taxpayers obligations to him are not. There will be a dollar cost of this board’s actions. There is of course the direct ongoing costs of the excessive benefits he will receive for as long as he is alive, but there are indirect consequences for which the taxpayers will also remain responsible.
This agency is tasked with, among other things, purchasing land. If you were aware that the district had all this money to give away to an employee, and the district asked to purchase your property, don’t you suppose you might be inclined to hold out for a better price? Who will pay this increased cost? The taxpayer.
Similiarly, if as a property owner we were inclined to gift our property to the public via the district, would we do so with an agency that has demonstrated such irresponsible financial decision making? What guarantees would we have that one day the agency wouldn’t need to sell our property to cover their expenses, including for employee retirement?
What about the next time the district goes to the dealer to purchase a new truck, isn’t it possible to assume that the dealer wouldn’t be as anxious to offer the best price to an agency who is so flush that they can pay their GM more money than the Governor of California? What other negative consequences lie ahead for the district that will have to be borne by the taxpayers?
How could a board have been so in step during Donofrio’s 12 year tenure so as to continually heap benefits on one individual? Why didn’t any board members take a stand against this ongoing salary fiasco? A review of how its members came to serve on this board might provide some answers.
Although a publicly elected board, in reviewing the history and tenure of the current board members, we find an unusual trend; The majority of the board has never run a contested election. Rather, what has instead happened is that an existing board member has stepped down mid-term, giving the board the opportunity to appoint a new member who (just coincidentally) has immediately fallen into lockstep with the board’s decisions.
With the majority of other public agencies, when a mid term opening has come up, announcements are made to the public with the intent of publicizing the opening, encouraging any interested parties to step up. With this district board no such announcements are made, no community forums are held, no survey is sent out to district taxpayers asking their input or suggestions, no public call for interested parties to step up. Nothing. Whether by coincidence or design, the board has simply selected the next board member based on their own personal criteria. This trend is unhealthy at best, and dangerous at worst. If a board has an agenda that they wish to be carried out, such an approach provides every opportunity to do so.
What has this approach brought about for taxpayers in this district? The worst possible result. It has set up a culture that allowed for no fresh perspectives, no difference of opinion. It perpetuates the status quo at the expense of taxpayers.
Why was there no single person on this board which questioned the out of control salary and benefits, particularly after it reached such extraordinary heights? Why didn’t the elected ward representative ask their constituents for input? Why did no one on the board have the courage to stand up and say enough is enough? If they didn’t think it was excessive, shame on them, they certainly weren’t doing their job of properly representing taxpayers. If they knew it was wrong and chose to do nothing about it, shame on us for not taking action to throw out that individual. If they did feel it might have been excessive, why didn’t any member of the board suggest, at the minimum, that it would be appropriate to freeze this salary, instead of heaping on yet additional annual increases, retroactive benefits and unwarranted bonuses? Did they not realize this could be done? Did they also forget that his contract allowed them to release him without cause?
They not only did nothing, at every turn they expanded the damage by continuing to heap on more benefits. This board’s actions have served the interests of Donofrio at the expense of the taxpayers. Should the public share some of the responsibility for this culture to have taken shape? Without question, yes. Shame on us for not realizing what has been happening for years, and not encouraging fiscally responsible members of the public to run for office. As it turns out, part of the reason this never happened was that the district took pains to shelter much of the damaging information regarding its decisions, even from its most senior employees.
Case in point: The actual Donofrio contract.
Until it was requested under the Public Records Act, the only person who had ever seen the contract aside from the board (and of course Donofrio), was the attorney for the district, who was asked to be the custodian of the document. Even the Finance and Administrative Services Manager had never seen the contract. This doesn’t suggest that the contract was hidden from the public, since the existence of the contract was required to be disclosed, only that great pains were taken to keep its profile as low as possible.
We believe it is time action is finally taken to rid the public of the board which has allowed these actions to take place.
– Representatives, particularly when publicly elected, serve the public, and every action they take should be done in the best interest of the public. They should actively and continually seek input from those they serve, and make the most informed decision possible. The public is due transparency, defendable decisions based on sound judgment, and certainly not actions that take place outside of the public’s view or without their input.
– We should we assert our right to expect a reasonably well run board who show respect for their employees and the public,after all, they get their money directly from us, the taxpayer. Of the total amount of their annual revenue, fully 52% is received directly from tax assessments on property. This amount is going up each year and at present is equal to $3,925,730, against total revenue received by the district of $7,558,609.
– The board sees fit to heap obscenely high salary and benefits on a favored employee, while refusing to fund future required retirement benefits. By doing so they placed the well being of one individual over the park’s district’s entire financial security. This not only dishonors the taxpayer, but also every other employee of the district who is not awarded this favoritism. Additionally, decisions that the board has made such as paying the general manager a salary 146% above the next highest employee, has served to only alienate the staff toward the district board. As a parent, what would be the ongoing consequences of such favoring one sibling over another?
– This board has consistently refused to adhere to best practices as it relates to fiscal transparency, and openness with and to the public. Taxpayers are owed this, at the minimum.
– The board is the antithesis of what we expect to find in a public body. They are insensitive to appeals and requests from the public. Instead of reaching out to the public to understand their concerns, they shut them out. This board should engage the public instead of hiding behind their attorney at the first moment of controversy. Instead of effecting a news blackout and refusal to respond to constituent’s concerns, the board should encourage public input. Whatever happened to the notion of periodic neighborhood forums to share with the public what the board is doing, and why they are taking the actions they are? At present, when members of the public speak at board meetings they are often greeted with pure disdain. One gets the sense that if it were not for the mandatory public comment period that they would just as soon not hear from the public.
– The district board has done a terrible job of overseeing the actions of its general manager. There have been several high profile incidents involving employees that point to a pattern of legitimate concerns. The board has the responsibly to monitor the environment between staff and administration, and feedback from its valued employees has never been solicited. Isn’t it time to get to know your district employees to see how they are actually doing?
– The present board has been in place a very long time, with some board members having served 12 years. This should not be happening. The board should encourage diversity and new and capable members to run for office. When a board member quits mid term, they have the obligation to reach out to the public and develop a process whereby community members are invited to express their interest in serving on the board. Instead, when this has happened the board has quickly made a selection of someone, who by design or happenstance, falls immediately into step with everything the board is doing. This is unhealthy and sends the wrong message to taxpayers.
– The present board is broken. It has developed a culture that has repeatedly proven itself to be counter to the best interests of the taxpayers it has been designed to serve. The public can no longer afford its extravagance, flawed decisions and instances of deleriction of duty. It’s for this reason we feel the entire board, with the exception of it newest member, must resign. It has has lost the public’s trust.
– The bad judgments of this board do not end with the exit of Donofrio. His benefits package will, for as long as he lives, cut a wide swath through the district’s financials which our grandkids will still be paying. The board must be held accountable, and more importantly, not be allowed the opportunity to continue to make such devastating mistakes at our benefit. There is no reason to believe that the poor past decisions which have been made will not continue.
– At a minimum, this board or the new members who step into their positions owe the public a meeting with the outgoing manager to attempt to recoup some of the extreme benefits he has been given. If Donofrio has any conscience he should welcome the opportunity to finally do right by the public. If the board doesn’t attempt to do so, it is further evidence of indifference to their responsibilities and a further slap in the face to taxpayers.
– This board has acted irresponsibly in too many ways. In the process, its credibility has been lost, and this agency has been repeatedly held up to ridicule and public embarrasment. Constituents feel their representatives have completely let them down with their actions. Worse yet, this board underestimates the public’s resolve to effect necessary change.
fleecing park taxpayers 