Taxpayer Group Charges Panel Violated Open-Meetings Law : Camarillo: They ask district attorney to investigate allegations against parks district related to documentation and bidding.

A Ventura County taxpayers group has asked the district attorney’s office to investigate an alleged open-meetings law violation by Pleasant Valley Recreation and Parks District officials.

A lack of adequate documentation of board actions and a possible deviation from accepted governmental contract bidding practices was found during a review of the district’s books, according to officials of the Ventura County Alliance of Taxpayers.

“Based on our review, we’re very concerned about how the district is handling its books,” said H. Jere Robings, president of the alliance. “We felt that what we saw definitely warranted a review by the district attorney’s office.”

Robings said the taxpayers group became involved in the issue after local citizens complained that the district was being too secretive in handling its financial documents. The complaints follow a year of controversy in the district over the closure of Freedom Pool at Camarillo Airport and other cutbacks.

In a letter to district board members, Robings said that his review of financial records and district correspondence suggested that the board may have violated the Ralph M. Brown Act--as the open-meetings law is officially known--when the board, while in closed session, considered accepting as complete a contractor’s work on the district’s Pleasant Valley swimming pool facility.

Robings also said that he believes the transcript of the board’s meeting failed to reflect enough background information supporting how or why a certain contractor was selected for work in three different construction jobs for the district.

At Robings’ request, the Ventura County district attorney’s office has agreed to investigate the allegations. Deputy Dist. Atty. Donald Coleman said Monday he would not comment on the matter, pending his completion of a review of district correspondence and financial documents.

However, Eldred Lokker, the district’s general manager, defended the board’s actions, saying that Robings’ review of the documents was skewed and that all of the district’s actions were legal.

“Jere can conclude what he wants, but I can tell you that everything we have done is both proper and legal,” Lokker said. “We make tape recordings of the meetings. We are not trying to hide anything. We follow the law.”

In his letter to the district’s board of directors, Robings said that during a Nov. 4, 1992, meeting, no mention in prior board meeting transcripts was found for a $29,923 repair of the roof at the Camarillo Community Center. Available transcripts also did not reflect which contractors were invited to bid on the job and no description of the work or mention of high and low bids submitted could be found.

Likewise, in the board’s transcript of its May 1, 1992, meeting, a $36,772 contract for play equipment was approved, but no mention as to the need of the equipment, where it would be used or details about submitted bids could be located, Robings said.

Lokker explained that for more than 20 years, the district has kept “action minutes” of the board’s deliberations and not full accounts listing all comments and details in its business matters.

Lokker also defended his Sept. 9 letter to an Oxnard construction company, in which he stated that the board would approve the builder’s contract while in closed session at a later date.

“Because there was the possibility of litigation between us, I told the contractor in the letter that we would consider the matter while in closed session,” Lokker said Monday. “There was nothing illegal about it, and it didn’t violate the Brown Act.”

Robings, however, disagreed.

“I am not an attorney, but if this hasn’t violated the open-meeting law, I will surprised,” Robings said.

While awaiting the district attorney’s review of the matter, Lokker said he would not recommend to the board that it make any changes to the way it records meeting transcripts.

However, district board member William Marsden conceded that the district should consider taking complete transcripts of its proceedings.

“Perhaps it would be better to take full (transcripts) so as to prevent any confusion in the future,” Marsden said.