Lone holdout on Modesto water investigation says what it will take to get her vote
Modesto Irrigation Director Janice Keating’s vote is the only thing standing in the way of her colleague being investigated further, and she needs some reassurance before she’s willing to give it.
On Feb. 17, Keating abstained on a vote to further investigate MID Director Larry Byrd, who’s alleged to have misused or stolen hundreds of thousands to millions of gallons of water from the district to irrigate part of a ranch he’s co-owned for over a decade.
The vote was the second time MID Board President Robert Frobose attempted to continue an investigation that has not yet answered questions from board members and the public.
Keating’s holdout and the board’s failure to continue the investigation frustrated Frobose, who said he’s just trying to learn the scope of the alleged theft amid accusations he launched the investigation as part of a “personal vendetta” and “witch hunt.”
“What we have here is a potential serious theft of water… Do I need to pick up the phone and make a sheriff’s report right here in front of everybody?” Frobose said.
An initial scientific investigation by an engineering firm was completed in December but failed to concretely prove Byrd stole or misused MID water. It did, however, determine that some of his previous statements defending himself were impossible.
The three-hour meeting where that investigation’s findings were presented was contentious. It ended with a tie vote, with Keating and Byrd himself voting against it.
Byrd’s ability to participate in a vote on whether to investigate his own alleged actions is now being looked into by the Fair Political Practices Commission, at the behest of State Sen. Marie Alvarado-Gil.
The board of directors would have continued the investigation into Byrd if Keating voted yes, either in December or last week. Her reasons for holding out have varied, but she denies doing it in defense of Byrd.
Last week, Keating said she voted against furthering Byrd’s investigation because of the way she’d been treated since she joined the board. She said she’s been, “spit on, threatened and belittled.”
“As the first and only woman to have ever served on this board in its 137-year history, I wasn’t sure what to expect,” said Keating at MID’s Feb. 17 meeting. “What I did not expect was disrespect, dismissal and abuse.”
Keating also didn’t want to engage in what she considered to be another “farmer vs. farmer” vendetta. She defended any insinuation that she is obstructing attempts of further investigation to defend Byrd.
Her abstention “certainly would not be because I hold him in any special regard,” Keating said. “I’m not here to protect Larry, I’m not here to protect anyone. (Byrd) has been just as crappy to me as everybody else, honestly.”
However, Keating told The Modesto Bee on Tuesday that the reasoning behind her votes is more nuanced than what she said at the dais.
What will it take to get Keating’s vote for the investigation to continue?
The data and science-heavy report produced by 4Creeks, the engineering firm hired by MID to investigate the allegations against Byrd, found that his out-of-district almond trees could not have been irrigated with groundwater, as he still insists . The firm could not, however, determine if he had enough paid-for MID water on his in-district trees to irrigate them.
“That was the big gaping hole in the whole report,” Keating said.
She said she’ll vote yes to continue an investigation if there are “specific details about what that entails and who will be conducting it.” If it is again 4Creeks, Keating said, she has several questions.
“4Creeks did everything they could based on what we asked of them. If we had asked it in a different way, or given them different instructions, would the result have been different?” she said.
Keating also expressed interest in an agenda item directing staff to put together detailed options the board can take as next steps. She’d also like to know how much each option would cost.
But MID attorney Frank Splendorio and MID General Manager Jimi Netniss are walking on eggshells. The December meeting and the recent FPPC investigation have shaken the two into being very careful, Keating said.
During MID’s December meeting, when the investigation report was presented, board members squabbled to put together a clear motion on how they should continue.
Staff did not help them, with Splendorio telling the board that he and Netniss were “done … in terms of taking further directions.”
Keating said she wants the board to put something on the agenda that’s detailed and more concrete. As an example, she cited the city of Modesto’s agenda item reports, which have thorough documentation of staff opinions, cost analysis and contract options.
“Everyone in the public knows. … Every person who got up made very, very detailed suggestions,” said Keating. “But what are we supposed to do? Sit there and, like, piece it together? Why wouldn’t that be presented to us here? … But I was being asked to make a decision about something that was as murky as a mud puddle.”
The agenda report on Feb. 17 did not have any specific details on how to proceed, either. Instead, it again asked the board to give staff direction. Keating said that with regard to publicly documenting details on how to proceed, “everybody wants to do it, but nobody wants to put their name on it.”
Frobose was intrigued by what Keating told The Bee, but again was frustrated she didn’t mention any of these things during the meeting Feb. 17.
“Normally, the questions and comments are done during board deliberation of an agenda item. … The comments she is making to The Bee now, I would encourage her to put into action in the boardroom, where they can have the opportunity to protect the ratepayers as I have constantly done,” Frobose said in a statement.
He added that MID can recover whatever costs are incurred by continued investigation through “proper legal channels,” if one of Keating’s concerns is money.
Byrd recuses
Amid an FPPC investigation into his last vote, Byrd recused himself on Feb. 17 but noted he had “no material financial interest in the outcome of the vote” and that he could “legally vote on this item.”
“Nevertheless, in light of the political attacks against me, and the impact these attacks have on MID, I feel it is best for the district that I recuse myself from voting on this item,” he said.
Byrd also denied he received approval from MID’s counsel to vote on his own investigation, as The Bee previously reported. MID did tell The Bee that Byrd was allowed to vote “because he has the right to defend himself on matters of self-governance.”
When asked on Tuesday if there was any discussion or advice given to Byrd from MID’s legal counsel about his ability to participate in the December vote, MID spokesperson Melissa Williams did not answer and said only Byrd could discuss “any of the legal advice he was given and whom it came from.”
Byrd in turn sent a statement to The Bee saying he consulted his own legal counsel ahead of his vote in December.
