HomeMy WebLinkAbout09.08.26 Board Correspondence - FW_ Formal Complaint Regarding County Staff Conduct and the Vina GSA Public Process.ATTENTION: This message originated from outside Butte County. Please exercise judgment before opening
attachments, clicking on links, or replying..
From:Clerk of the Board
To:Clerk of the Board; Connelly, Bill; Cook, Holly; Cook, Robin; Dubose, Teri; Durfee, Peter; Jessee, Meegan;
Kimmelshue, Tod; Kitts, Melissa; Krater, Sharleen; Lee, Lewis; Pickett, Andy; Ritter, Tami; Stephens, Brad J.;
Sweeney, Kathleen; Teeter, Doug; Zepeda, Elizabeth
Cc:Loeser, Kamie; Cannon, Jamie
Subject:Board Correspondence - FW: Formal Complaint Regarding County Staff Conduct and the Vina GSA Public Process
Date:Thursday, September 10, 2026 8:20:10 AM
Attachments:image001.png
Please see Board Correspondence -
Lewis LeeAdministrative Technician - ConfidentialButte County Administration25 County Center Drive, Suite 200 • Oroville, CA 95965T: 530.552.3326www.buttecounty.ca.gov | lelee@buttecounty.ca.gov
From: Blake Ellis <blakenicoleellis@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 6:21 PM
To: Clerk of the Board <clerkoftheboard@buttecounty.ca.gov>
Cc: Pickett, Andy <APickett@buttecounty.ca.gov>
Subject: Formal Complaint Regarding County Staff Conduct and the Vina GSA Public Process
Dear Members of the Butte County Board of Supervisors,
I am submitting this email as a formal complaint and request for review regarding County staff
conduct during the Vina GSA process.
I have included a link to the recording of the August 12 Vina GSA Board meeting. At
approximately 33:00–47:00, County staff member Kamie Loeser delivered an approximately
13-minute prepared statement addressing substantive matters under consideration by the Board
and responding to concerns and requests raised by members of the public.
Process and Public Meeting Concerns
My concern is not that County staff participated in the meeting. Staff may appropriately
provide information and recommendations to a public body. My concern is whether this
prepared, substantive presentation was properly authorized, noticed, and consistent with
applicable requirements governing public meetings and public participation.
I respectfully request a written response identifying:
1. The specific agenda item under which the presentation was authorized;
2. Whether the presentation was prepared or authorized in advance and, if so, by
whom;
3. Who contributed to or approved its substantive content; and
4. The County's basis for concluding that the presentation was consistent with
applicable public-meeting requirements, including the Brown Act.
I am not asserting that a Brown Act violation occurred. I am requesting that the County
identify the legal and procedural basis for its conclusion that the presentation was properly
conducted.
Ethical and Public-Service Concerns
Separate from the procedural issue is the role County staff are expected to play in a public
decision-making process.
The presentation did not simply provide neutral factual information. It substantively responded
to and rebutted requests for stronger groundwater protections repeatedly raised by members of
the public. This raises a legitimate institutional question: when County staff participate in
a public decision-making process, what standards govern the distinction between
objective technical analysis and advocacy for a particular policy outcome?
I respectfully request that the County identify the policies, ethical standards, or professional
expectations governing staff impartiality and advocacy in this role.
This is not an allegation of corruption or personal misconduct. It is a request for the County to
clarify how it ensures that staff participating in decisions affecting a shared public resource are
acting on the basis of evidence and applicable legal standards rather than institutional loyalty
to a predetermined position.
Accuracy of Public Information
I also request that the County review the use of technical terminology presented to the public,
including the term “net gain.” I believe the term “net gain” has been used in a manner that
may be misleading or inconsistent with its commonly understood meaning. When terminology
is used to characterize the benefits or impacts of the GSP, the public deserves a clear
explanation of how those terms are being defined and applied. Please identify how this term is
defined, how it is being applied in the Vina GSA process, and the evidence supporting its use.
Requested Action
I respectfully request that the County:
1. Review the procedural and ethical concerns raised in this complaint;
2. Provide a written response to the questions above;
3. Clarify the standards governing substantive staff presentations and advocacy in the Vina
GSA process; and
4. Preserve this complaint and include it in the public record associated with the August 12
meeting.
I also request that the County review whether Kamie's prepared statement was properly
included in the official meeting record. If the County determines that it cannot be removed, I
request a written explanation of the legal or procedural basis for that determination and that
this formal objection be preserved with the record.
This complaint concerns the integrity and transparency of a public decision-making process.
The County should be able to clearly explain what authority governed the presentation,
who authorized it, what standards governed its content, and how the County
ensures that staff advocacy does not substitute for impartial, evidence-based
public service.
I respectfully request a written response. Because this complaint concerns the conduct of the
Director of the Butte County Department of Water and Resource Conservation, I respectfully
request that it be reviewed by an authority independent of the Department and that the
Director not be responsible for investigating or responding to the complaint against herself.
Sincerely,
Blake Ellis