Authorize the Chair to execute the proposed amendment to the PRISM joint powers agreement; and appoint Stacy Leasure, Risk Manager, as the County's alternate PRISM Board member. (No general fund impact) (Pogledich)

The changes described below are reflected in three attachments: the final proposed Joint Powers Agreement Amendment (Att. A); a redline showing the proposed edits to the existing Joint Powers Agreement (Att. B); and a summary of the edits prepared by PRISM (Att. C). A full PRISM membership list as of March 18, 2026 is included as Attachment D.

 

PRISM was formed by and for the California counties in 1979 by the California State Association of Counties (CSAC).  Today, 54 out of the 58 counties in California participate in one or more of the PRISM programs.  In 2001, PRISM expanded its offerings to other California public agencies.  At this point, over 70% of the cities in California participate in one or more of the PRISM programs. In addition, a variety of special districts, school districts, and JPAs also participate in PRISM Programs.  PRISM is recognized as the largest public entity property and casualty pool in the United States. 

 

After 25 years of having public entity members participate in PRISM, the members of PRISM have proposed to update the composition of the Board of Directors to recognize the partnership that the counties have with the public entity members.  At present, the PRISM Board of Directors is composed of 54 county members (all county members have a voting position on the Board of Directors) and 7 public entity voting spots for a total of 61 voting members.  There are also 3 alternates for the public entity votes, but they only stand in place of the 7 voting spots and not in addition to.  The proposal is to add 10 additional voting public entity board seats so that the total number of public entity voting seats will be 17 (with 3 additional alternates) instead of 7 (with 3 additional alternates).  This results in a total of 71 voting Board of Directors seats.  Under this proposal, the counties will have a total of 76% of the total voting Board of Director seats. 

 

In addition, the PRISM members have also proposed to update the composition of the Executive Committee which oversees the day-to-day activities of the organization.  Currently, the executive Committee has 11 members, and the proposal is to increase the number to 13 with an additional 2 alternates.  The Executive Committee members are elected by the Board of Directors.  The other changes that are proposed are updates to the Agreement that reflect the current operations of the organization and remove the word insurance from the document since the organization is a pool, not insurance. 

 

These proposed changes were discussed with PRISM’s Executive Committee and various Committee Chairs at a strategic planning retreat in November 2022.  The discussion largely centered around the idea that public entities have been members of the organization since 2001, have participated in governance of the organization by serving on PRISM Committees, and approximately ½ of the contributions made to PRISM each year are from the public entity members while the other ½ is from counties.  It was felt by the group that the organization should reconsider the size and function of the Board of Directors, including what it delegates to others and whether to eliminate the distinction between counties and public entity members in the governance process.  The composition of the Executive Committee was also discussed. 

 

Thereafter, the Executive Committee tasked the Governance Sub-Committee with reviewing the JPA Agreement and proposing amendments to reflect its desire to expand governance opportunities for the public entity members and participation on the Executive Committee.  The Governance Sub-Committee did so and those proposed changes were then reviewed by the Executive Committee and the Board of Directors. PRISM has also made some other amendments to the Agreement to “clean up” the document to coincide with current practices and the future vision of the organization and to remove the word “insurance” from the Agreement since the JPA is a risk sharing pool that provides excess coverage for members and risk-sharing pools are not “insurance” under the law.