Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Governance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents demand transparency on general manager pay; emails allege former director lived abroad
Summary
Public commenters at the July 14 Rossmore meeting urged the board to review recent general manager pay increases and asked for a performance evaluation tied to the raises; two emailed statements claimed former director Mary Ann Rimney sold her Rossmore home and relocated to Italy and urged a legal audit of her votes and stipends.
Two residents used the public forum to press the board for greater transparency on staffing costs and to call for an investigation into a former directors residency status.
Resident Konya Vivanti told the board she reviewed the district's financial allocations and highlighted a sharp upward trajectory in administrative salaries and benefits. "Since FY23‑24, there's been a $95,668 increase in administrative salaries," she said, and she estimated more than $244,000 in total salary and benefit increases since FY23‑24. Vivanti asked the board to explain what performance metrics or milestones justified raises to the general manager and when a formal performance evaluation would take place.
Separately staff read two emailed statements into the record. A letter from Laura Tanner alleged that Mary Ann Rimney sold her Rossmore home (recorded April 17, 2026) and argued that under cited California code the seat would automatically have become vacant; a second, longer emailed statement from Cheryl B. Katz insisted Rimney relocated to Italy and demanded a legal audit of votes, clawback of stipends paid after the alleged vacancy date and public disclosure of a timeline to fill the vacancy.
GM Sharon Landers had provided a written response that was read into the record: she said Rimney had informed the board she intended to resign in August but later notified the board she was resigning effective immediately; Landers also wrote that the sale of a property alone does not, by itself, determine residency and that property ownership is not the sole test of inhabitancy.
Board members acknowledged the seriousness of the emails and counsel confirmed the district would review legal obligations. Landers said she had already reviewed votes for the relevant months and found that votes in which former Director Rimney participated were not the deciding votes on actions identified in the public submissions.
Ending: Directors asked staff and counsel to follow up; Landers and counsel said they would investigate the residency claim and report back to the board.
