MCE Moves Toward Reducing 34-Member Board

At IJ editorial board candidate interviews and when chatting with candidates, it’s apparent to me that voters in Larkspur, Ross, Sausalito and Corte Madera are focused on one prominent issue each. The other five cities have multiple disputed topics.

MCE directors listen to a presentation during a board retreat in Concord, Calif., on Thursday, Oct. 16, 2025. The 34-member board consists of elected officials from Marin and three other counties. (Alan Dep/Marin Independent Journal)

The directors of MCE, the renewable energy provider for Marin and three other counties, have approved a template to restructure its governing board and committees.

The unanimous vote on Thursday starts a process of revising governing goals, principles, roles and lines of authority. But some Marin representatives on the 34-member board said the proposed two-year timeline is too long, and that it is a mistake not to consider consolidating the board before the makeover is completed.

“Can we speed up the process?” San Rafael Councilmember Maika Llorens Gulati said. “We are elected officials. We might not even be here.”

“I’d like to see this down to 12 months to get this done,” said Novato Mayor Pro Tem Kevin Jacobs, who suggested a 12-member board. “We need it done.”

Belvedere Mayor Sally Wilkinson said the board size is “the elephant in the room.”

“The survey showed that 70% of board members and 79% of management feel that we need a smaller board to be effective,” Wilkinson said. “So what I’m not clear about here is why would we pump that two years into the future.”

The proposal came from Leading Resources Inc., a consulting firm in Sacramento. Eric Douglas, a member of the firm, said the board’s “dysfunctions” have more to do with unclear responsibilities than its size.

“It is about the balance of board work and committee work, and the way to best leverage the efficiency of committees to help enhance the board work, all the while getting the board to step out of the operational details and focus on the big policy picture,” he said. “You’ve got to let that kind of settle in and see what that does.”

“Tonight, we’re not going to adopt any policies,” Marin County Supervisor Mary Sackett said. “But to just start moving forward on a process rather than waiting.”

MCE started in 2010 as Marin Clean Energy, the state’s first renewable energy agency. It grew from a local startup into an organization with an annual budget of about $800 million, more than 100 employees and about 1.8 million customers in Marin, Contra Costa, Napa and Solano counties. The board includes elected officials from the four counties.

The management has been beset by governance frictions since late 2024. In June, the board fired the founding chief executive officer, Dawn Weisz, without public explanation. That month, the Marin County Civil Grand Jury issued a report citing management protocol breaches, insufficient accountability and shortcomings in board oversight.

MCE plans to hire an executive recruiting firm with energy industry expertise to help find a new chief executive by early 2027.

Leading Resources Inc. made its preliminary recommendations Thursday during its first presentation to the board.

In July and August, the firm interviewed board members, management, staff, public-interest groups and other stakeholders. It also reviewed the grand jury report, which described a board split between directors who wanted to engage in fiscal oversight and strategic decisions, and directors who trusted management and did not want to second-guess its actions.

One-third of the board did not participate, Douglas said.

“The board does not have a shared understanding or vision of its role or how it governs,” he said.

Another consultant with the firm, Karin Bloomer, said, “The board lacks the coherent framework and process for identifying strategic goals for the organization and adopting the policies needed to advance them.”

Bill Slaton, also a consultant with the firm, said, “Management interviewees acknowledged the lack of board-level goals and performance metrics as well as external stakeholders who called for measurable priorities, clear evidence of results and stronger oversight of core business.”

The team did not identify what leadership style or decision-making patterns contributed to these issues, and did not discuss what role prior management played in them.

Instead, Douglas said the MCE board and committees needed a new “constitutional approach.”

Douglas rejected the concern expressed by 77% of board members who said a smaller board would be more effective.

“This is 38 jurisdictions coming together to deliver green energy to their consumers,” Douglas said. “I am opposed to the idea of saying let’s get rid of board members or let’s reduce the size of the board.”

Douglas said new governing rules and bylaws for MCE could be copied from organizations such as the Sacramento Municipal Utility District, which he called “kind of a gold standard here.”

“The beauty is we can ride on the shoulders of giants who’ve gone down this road before and use that to develop policies that are in MCE’s strategies,” he said.

The Sacramento district is overseen by a seven-member elected board. Slaton is a former member and president.

During the MCE board discussion, several directors — including some from outside Marin — suggested that the consultants develop a “parallel process” to consider options for consolidating the board.

“The people who disagreed and strongly disagreed — most of them seem to be concerned that their voters are being disintermediated by a smaller board,” Tiburon Councilmember Jack Ryan said. “There’s a director sitting across from me who represents the county of Napa and four Napa cities, so there’s already a clue here as to how boards can represent the voters.”

“I think it does deserve a little more analysis,” Lafayette Vice Mayor John McCormick said. “What that would mean — pros and cons — while we’re moving forward.”

Before the vote, Contra Costa County Supervisor Shanelle Scales-Preston, the board chair, said shrinking it “doesn’t mean that every area would get representation.”

“It actually would take representation away from those communities,” she said. “But I do agree. I think LRI just shared that they’re happy to do a little deeper dive and provide some background and analysts to analyze what we can do if we decide to shrink the board.”

Many directors also said reorganizing the board and committees should take two years.

“We’re not opposed to moving faster if we can,” Douglas said. “We want to underpromise and overdeliver.”