MWD Board’s Effectiveness Questioned

During a year when actions by the giant Metropolitan Water District carry more weight than ever before, a management audit has raised questions about the board’s effectiveness, concluding that disputes over fundamental policy questions are hampering the directors’ ability to make decisions.

The audit, released Wednesday, also revealed a lack of agreement among board members on Metropolitan’s mission and suggested that the board strive for “self-discipline” on the part of all directors and institute a training program for newcomers to bring about improved performance.

“As individuals, you all . . . have a solid understanding of the district’s mission, goals and objectives,” Kevin Bacon, a member of the consulting team that conducted the study, told the directors during an MWD retreat at the Pala Mesa Resort in northern San Diego County. “But as a board, you do not have the sense of common purpose . . . that might be there.”

Prepared by Price Waterhouse, the $70,000 study was released during the second day of the retreat.

The audit was based on interviews with 21 directors and 16 senior staff members, questionnaires completed anonymously by most of the board and observations of MWD meetings during February and March.

While many of the report’s findings and recommendations relate to the arcane inner workings of the board, the overall conclusions are significant for their bearing on Metropolitan’s ability to cope with the lingering drought and remain a leader in shaping state water policy. They paint the picture of a board that is beset by contentiousness, a situation said to be “deteriorating.”

Board members, who spent the afternoon in workshops discussing the results, expressed a mixture of reactions to the report.

Some acknowledged that rancor over sensitive issues like growth has hindered the board’s ability to achieve consensus, and they praised the consultants for ferretting out the sources of disagreement.

“I think this is a healthy process,” said Christine Reed, who represents Santa Monica on the board. “We all mutter about these things to each other in the bathroom, but this gets the issues out on the table where we can do something about them.”

Others were less impressed: “Better relations? Better management of our time and spending? These (recommendations) are things my grandkids could tell me,” said Bill Hill, the MWD delegate from the Chino Basin Municipal Water District. “It’s pretty basic stuff.”

Still others complained about the process used to gather the findings. February and March were abnormal months, they noted, a highly stressful time when the board was wrestling with the need to make unprecedented cuts in its deliveries to 27 member agencies. Was that the right time for scrutiny?

Los Angeles representative S. Dell Scott raised another point, arguing that it was inappropriate for the consultants to interview a list of 21 directors furnished by board officers. He argued that the consultants should have randomly selected the interviewees.

“I’m not so sure they got a good cross-section of views,” Scott said outside the meeting.

Bacon opened his discussion of the audit results by pointing out that the size of the MWD board makes efficiency a major challenge. Most boards of directors in the United States average 13 members; the Metropolitan board has almost four times that number--51.

“You’re 20% larger than the state Senate in California, and we know some of the problems they have in conducting business,” Bacon said.

Exacerbating the unwieldy size of the board, Bacon added, is a lack of procedural rules, which leads to meetings that are often long, emotional affairs, with directors engaging in monologues. The result, he said, is “confusion and a sense of unfairness.”

New directors, Bacon said, need an orientation program so they can quickly be integrated into the decision-making process. Hill, who joined the board less than a year ago, agreed with this conclusion, noting that after his appointment he was “taken to lunch and then shown to my seat.”

Perhaps the most important finding, several directors said, related to the board’s deep split over a handful of key issues. The consultants said these “unresolved policy questions” continually surface during board meetings, often bogging down debates and preventing progress.

Chief among the divisive subjects are the growth versus no-growth debate, the battle between agricultural and municipal water users, and the split between directors who favor water reclamation and other environment-friendly solutions and those who advocate new dams as a way to increase the water supply.

These unresolved issues, Bacon said, “muddy the waters and make it difficult for you to make progress. . . . As a board you need to think about how you’re going to address these things.”