☆ Opinion: SCV Open Space Authority appt process systemically, intentionally excludes outsiders
Did you know that in May, Santa Clara Valley OSA was seeking a new board member to appoint? Well, neither did Ted Stroll, former Assembly candidate and seasoned OSA volunteer—and he scrutinizes the agency's dubious practices (which yielded just one applicant) in this Opp Now exclusive. He also recalls being the sole applicant to OSA's Citizens Advisory Committee in '22, and how their strange pivot—after praising Stroll's qualifications—might reveal "aspects of a private club."
What’s the point of public elections for public agency boards if the boards select their own replacements with minimal notice to the public and no one contests those chosen in the next election?
Over many years, this risks groupthink and insularity, the formation of a private club.
A case in point is two recent appointments to the board of the Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority (OSA).
As its name specifies, OSA manages rural preserves within Santa Clara County for ecological preservation and recreation. It has seven members on its governing board. These are elected positions, divided geographically within the county.
Sometimes, OSA board members aren’t elected to the board by appearing on the ballot in a contested election. They are appointed by the incumbents. If no one runs against them in later elections, the appointee will not appear on the ballot.
I’ve been an OSA volunteer trail patroller for about 15 years and as such have interacted with hundreds of visitors; know every inch of the trails in all of the preserves; spotted a wildfire while on patrol, which allowed it to be suppressed quickly; have initiated or helped with search-and-rescue operations; have dealt with medical emergencies; have translated and interpreted from Spanish; and have donated equipment to OSA. I’d guess I’ve put in about a thousand hours of volunteer work. I also have a law degree, including knowledge of state and federal environmental laws, notably the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, and real property law that can be useful in land acquisitions.
Earlier this year, an incumbent board member advised the agency that he would be stepping down. A new board member was appointed without a meaningful public process. Had the public been made widely aware of the open board position, I would have applied.
It seems to me that the agency already knew whom it wanted and did barely more than the required legal minimum to publicize the opening. The board minutes recite: “On Tuesday, May 06, 2025, staff posted a Notice of Vacancy and application on the Authority’s website, along with a ... flyer at the Authority’s Administrative Office, [the] Mayfair Community Center, and the Santa Clara County Administrative Building. On May 09, the Authority issued a press release announcing the changes to the Board of Directors ... and the call for applications through the due date of May 15, 2025.”
So it was a mere six days from the press release (I have no idea who received it, let alone whether any media outlet published it) to the application deadline. As far as I know, nothing was posted on social media, though OSA maintains an active Facebook page and I follow it. Perhaps an avid follower of the agency’s website updates might have taken notice, but it’s unlikely that any such person exists.
Unsurprisingly, only one person applied. She was approved after being endorsed by the incumbent board member.
The person the board appointed, as assessed by what she described in her application, has little if any apparent experience with acquiring or preserving public lands. Her application is heavy with references to “equitable access,” “environmental justice,” “underserved communities,” “historically excluded communities,” an “equity-centered perspective grounded ... in lived experience,” an “equity lens,” “educational equity,” “systemic inequities,” “under-resourced communities,” “historically underserved neighborhoods,” “racial equity,” and “equity impact.”
There’s nothing wrong with being a community activist with strong views about fairness for minority groups. But a challenger might argue to voters that it relates at best tangentially, if at all, to some major issues that OSA faces. One of them is the need to open to the public scenic OSA lands that have long been closed to access and are unvisited. On the other hand, the incumbent might argue to voters that OSA should embrace her emphasis on “equity.” The point is that the voters should decide.
The policy issue here is that California land-management districts attract little attention. It’s all too easy for board members to resign before their terms end, allowing their colleagues, perhaps with senior agency staff expressing a preference, to pick a replacement. Thereafter, depending on timing (see California Government Code section 1780), the newcomers may remain unopposed in future elections, and voters will never see their names on a ballot (see California Elections Code section 10515[a][1]).
I’ve seen this with the East Bay Regional Park District, which acquires and manages open space in Alameda and Contra Costa counties, where I was also a trail patrol volunteer for many years. I put in more than 2,500 hours there. But at least when EBRPD has a board vacancy, it announces it adequately, and I’ve seen multiple people apply to be appointed and be given an opportunity to speak at a board meeting.
I believe an incident in 2022 shows the risk that the OSA board may have aspects of a private club.
In that year, I applied to be a member of the agency’s Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC). These CAC seats are filled by board members.
At a three-member OSA board committee hearing, I was the only applicant to show up. The committee members liked my presentation and recommended to the full board that I be chosen. One of them mentioned that they have trouble generating interest in the CAC.
At a full board meeting, however, a board member complained of the dearth of applicants. The matter was postponed.
I emailed that board member to ask if I could answer any concerns. He did not reply.
I figured: OSA is going to look around to find someone else lest I, who was challenging the State Assembly incumbent, be selected. Events bore out a likelihood that that happened.
A new applicant appeared and was unanimously appointed. It will never be known exactly what transpired; but I filed a California Public Records Act request, and this internal email from a board member stated:
“I’m of the opinion that it is probably best to postpone the appointment. I have concerns about Ted Stroll after finding out he is running against Assemblymember Ash Kalra [D-San Jose]. So I question his motive for being appointed to the CAC at this point in time. That leaves us one candidate so perhaps it would be best to continue our recruitment efforts.”
My sole motive was that I care about OSA, to which I have long been loyal. I can’t fathom what other motive I might be thought to have. If this board member had contacted me to allay whatever suspicions she had, I could have tried to allay them.
But I might not have succeeded no matter what I said. People who live and breathe politics may find it difficult to conceive that someone like me wouldn’t have some ulterior political motive. But I didn’t, and no one asked me.
Little-noticed special districts like OSA risk turning into a closed circle in which incumbents resign before the end of their term, the board members know whom they want as a replacement, that person stays without appearing on any later election ballot, and the process repeats over years and decades.
OSA is a well-run agency in terms of staff management of its lands, which range from the picturesque Rancho Cañada del Oro, with its fine spring wildflowers, to Coyote Valley, whose four-mile loop trail winds through appealing meadows up to expansive views of the Santa Clara Valley and beyond. It deserves a board whose members have convinced the public, by appearing on the ballot in contested elections, that they are the best candidates for preserving those lands and affording public access to them.
What’s needed to remedy this situation is a revision of state law governing vacancies on the boards of California special districts. When incumbents quit before their term expires, either call a special election or leave the seat vacant until the next election. And either way, publicize the vacancy extensively.
Follow Opportunity Now on Twitter @svopportunity
We prize letters from our thoughtful readers. Typed on a Smith Corona. Written in longhand on fine stationery. Scribbled on a napkin. Hey, even composed on email. Feel free to send your comments to us at opportunitynowsv@gmail.com or (snail mail) 1590 Calaveras Ave., SJ, CA 95126. Remember to be thoughtful and polite. We will post letters on an irregular basis on the main Opp Now site.