-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [RL] Jerry Wickham's flyers
Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 12:59 PM PDT
From: Jay O'Brien <jayobrien@att.net>
To: Rio Linda Elverta Mailing List <riolinda@vrx.net>

Jerry Wickham is well into delivering his flyer responding to the threatened recall to most of the voters in the district. Did you get a refrigerator magnet with your copy of his flyer?

See new link to Jerry's flyer (click here). Sorry, no link to the magnets.

Jay O'Brien
>From the Rio Linda mailing list

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [RL] RLECWD data
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 1:58 PM PDT
From: Jay O'Brien <jayobrien@att.net>
To: Rio Linda Elverta Mailing List <riolinda@vrx.net>

To put to rest what candidates for the office of RLECWD Director have actually written in their "voter information" statements, I have added the sample ballot statements made by all presently seated RLECWD Directors to our web page.

Please (click here).

Jay

>From the Rio Linda mailing list

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [RL] Letter of The Week
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 4:24 PM PDT
From: Jay O'Brien <jayobrien@att.net>
To: Rio Linda Elverta Mailing List <riolinda@vrx.net>

The "Letter of The Week" in today's Rio Linda Elverta News is a letter from Joe Sullivan, President of the Northridge Water District Board of Directors and Executive Director of the Sacramento County Taxpayers League.

The subject of Joe's letter is "Recall of Rio Linda/Elverta Water District Directors".  Joe refers to RLECWD General Manager Mike Phelan's statement which was published in the News on December 28,2000.

Today's letter and the December 28 article are posted on the web for your review.

Jay O'Brien
Director, Sacramento County Taxpayers League
Director, Rio Linda/Elverta Community Water District
>From the Rio Linda mailing list

RECALL THE WATER BOARD?

The same people who would recall Grant Trustees have turned their guns on three of your Water Board Directors.

Jerry Wickham, Mel Griffin and Jay O'Brien were served with recall notices by Darrell Nelson on May 14th. Darrell authored the notices, using the Grant notices as a template, as they were on his computer. The notices were published in the Rio Linda Elverta News on May 17th.

The recall notices served on the Grant Trustees had to be served twice, because they didn't do it right the first time. They learned; what Mr. Nelson served on us are legal documents. Legal, yes, but filled with errors. He left out words, he didn't finish sentences, he used incorrect words and he made many grammatical errors. If the ten people who signed the notices of recall actually reviewed what they signed, either they couldn't understand what they were signing or they signed the documents without reading them.

If you are asked to sign the petitions for our recall, please be sure to read the petitions completely and ask the signature gatherer to explain the many errors.

The recall notices allege we are "interested only in personal gain", guilty of "betrayal of public trust", and have demonstrated "unprofessional, arrogant and extreme rudeness in dealing with the public". The notices do not cite specifics and they do include many additional unsubstantiated allegations.

We three have had our differences in the past. We have been at odds on many issues, and have campaigned to remove each other from office or campaigned to prevent each other's election. However, this unfounded and error ridden attack has welded us into a coalition determined to bring truth out in the open. Where we were divided before, we are now united.

We have created a web site that examines the issues. We feel that you will not want to sign the petitions for recall after you review it. Visit our web page: http://obri.net/recall

A special recall election will cost your Water District $50,000. You will pay for the election in your water bill. That's $12.50 for each customer. Is recalling us worth $12.50 to you?

If you have any questions, please call us.

Jay O'Brien 991-2010
Jerry Wickham 991-7722
Mel Griffin 991-4315

>From the Rio Linda mailing list

[Letter to the News, published 5/31/01 in the Rio Linda Elverta News]

Mr. Wickman

I'm writing you in response to your May 24 letter in The NEWS in which you asked readers to "please do not sign the recall petition. Don't be deceived by water wasters!" First, I do not intend to sign the petition. But second and most importantly, I need you to explain what a "water waster" is.

Are water wasters those people who have a home on property other than a small lot size?

Hypothetically, let's say that I'm a homeowner that lives on two acres. If I use more than what a person would for a small lot size, then am I a water waster? Even though I water (using timers) late at night during off-peak hours and limiting the amount watered so that there is no run off, would I still be considered a water waster? (And, conversely, if I live on a small lot but flood my yard every day am I not a waster?.) Yet the person on the small lot size would still in fact probably pay less than the homeowner on the two acres who is just trying to keep the trees and grass alive.

Suppose there are seven people living in a large home, which requires more water for cooking, cleaning, hygiene. Would they be considered water wasters because they would be using more than those who have two people living in a home?

I can't figure out whether you would consider me a water waster or not. And if I do fit in that classification, what should I do to fix it. Would you tell me to let the trees and grass die? Don't grow a garden? Maybe your response would be if you can't afford the water than sell your property.

Is it because large property owners are the minority that you don't seem to care about the additional burden that you are putting on them? Rather look after the majority of the rate payers, and let's let the others pay the price? That's what you're doing by raising the incremental rates like you are doing,

What truly is fair? Surely, you can explain to those of us who live on the West side of McClellan (who was forced to hook up to the water district) why such a drastic increase in the incremental is needed? You say that you represent the people of Rio Linda. Well am I not one of those people? I voted for you to represent me and protect my interests too. I'm so confused why you did what you did. I thought you cared about all of us. I feel betrayed when you keep insinuating that I'm a water waster.

I guess there is nothing more to say except please consider not only those on small lots but also those of us who have large acreage when making your decisions in the future. We aren't wasting water. We can't afford to be. The incremental rates currently in place have already seen to that. With the additional raise in those rates, you have created a hardship that some may not be able to overcome. I don't think that was your intent, but that's the reality.

Ruby Shepherd

[Reply Letter to the News, published 6/7/01 in the Rio Linda Elverta News]

Regarding water wasters

Dear Ms. Shepherd:

I feel really bad that you thought I was calling you and your parents "water wasters." I don't think that you are. I thought you would be in the group of our customers who would benefit from our "water budget" billing. I thought it would keep your annual water cost increase below the 50% increase my opponents want. I am including with this letter a copy of the "water budget" rule in case you didn't know about it. See District Policy Manual Section 4.31.214 below. / It is supposed to help people on large lots. I really thought you and your parents would benefit. Please let me know if it doesn't work out for you because I did not intend a severe hardship to result for anybody.

Many customers in your area have told me about what they remember they were told when getting on the District water. That program occurred about 15 years ago. You say that Mr. Adams told people that he didn't see rate increases "in the very near future." The others didn't tell me that he talked only about the "very near future." I thought he had lied to people. But maybe he didn't. It's not easy to tell what the length of time was between when he first talked to people about that project and the time when the usage increase was approved.

I do know that the $5.76 increase you mention was approved 6 years ago in 1994. I opposed the pipeline that caused that rate increase. I feel bad that I didn't get other Board members to agree. I did the best I could do on that issue.

Since that time I wanted a rate structure that makes everyone pay their "fair share." What is "fair?" Now money is needed for new wells because the District can't meet demand with the wells we have and our wells are old. Everyone has to pay something. Because we got money back on the pipeline, the $5.76 will now go to the new wells. Everyone is paying that 1994 rate increase. But we need more to pay the debt. To balance the last increase, I thought this new one should come from use, but in a "fair" way. It seemed "fair" to keep the 1994 flat rate increase which impacts more heavily on those who do not use much water, if we put in a "fair" increase on usage which impacts more heavily on those who do use a lot of water. The adopted rates do allow large properties with larger meters to use more water before the higher rate steps apply than those with smaller meters. And the water budget system will make all water use exempt from the higher two steps for everyone under a water budget who does not waste water.

I believe that you and your family are good examples for water conservation and will be exempt from the higher two steps once a water budget is applied. Please let me know if it turns out that I am wrong about this.

Thank you for not signing the petition and for taking the time to write to me.

Sincerely,

Jerry Wickham
 
 

4.31.214 Water Budget Implementation.

A. The water service fees (rates) established in Section 4.31.210 hereinabove are intended to create an economic incentive to achieve the Constitutional objective of preventing water waste. It is recognized that those rates when applied uniformly to all consumers in a class may inadvertently impair achievement of the coequal Constitutional objective of putting water resources "to beneficial use to the fullest extent." Water in larger volumes may reasonably be used (1) for irrigation purposes by persons engaged in educational or organized recreational activities, or by persons engaged in agricultural activities, or by persons in a manner which improve the aesthetic value of property, or (2) for other purposes by persons engaged in economic enterprises. In such cases, the economic impacts of the rate structure are counter productive to the objective of the Constitution and such impacts may be mitigated pursuant to "B." hereinbelow.

B. Notwithstanding Section 4.31.210 hereinabove, a consumer may request and the District may provide a water budget agreement prepared in a manner consistent with the standards referenced in Section 4.31.030 hereinabove. The consumer shall continue to be subject to the five-tiered usage rate structure provided in Section 4.31.030 appropriate for the meter size, except that the third tier rate shall be applied beginning as provided in Section 4.31.030 through the maximum allowed by the water budget and tier five applying to all water use in excess of the water budget. Any proposed water budget agreement developed pursuant hereto shall be approved by resolution of the Board prior to implementing said agreement and may be revoked by the Board should the consumer regularly use water in excess of said budget. Approval shall be based upon an evaluation of the beneficial use involved, the efficiency of methods of use of the water, and the consumer's adherence to best management practices.

C. Notwithstanding all other provisions of this Title, the Board may repeal this Section at any time.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [RL] Re:  Recall the Water Board
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 10:58 AM PDT
From: cgamail@juno.com
To: riolinda@vrx.net

The recall notices allege we are "interested only in personal gain", guilty of "betrayal of public trust", and have demonstrated "unprofessional, arrogant and extreme rudeness in dealing with the public". The notices do not cite specifics and they do include many additional unsubstantiated allegations.

Knowing you interest in making sure everything that appears under your signature is accurate, I'm sure you'll appreciate my calling your attention to this error.

Charlea
>From the Rio Linda mailing list

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [RL] Re:  Recall the Water Board
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 12:04 PM PDT
From: Searay613@aol.com
To: riolinda@vrx.net

Charlea,  I am glad that at least one of you that signed the recall notice is finally responding to Jay's arrogant perfectionism. It's too bad that he is not concentrating on what he is done for the community instead of bashing others. Hope others will respond with their thoughts as well.

Cathy Hood
>From the Rio Linda mailing list

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [RL] response to Jay's and Jerry's misinformation
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 9:44 PM PDT
From: Oneputt800@aol.com
To: riolinda@vrx.net

Jay, please get the facts before you throw my name on the net or the newspaper. You act like your the only smart guy in this whole damn town. Got news for you, your not. We were not all born writers like yourself but we manage to get by somehow. We are all very busy and don't have endless hours to proofread and check every word and every punctuation mark. Who cares anyway?
   You wrote that the same people who would recall the Grant Trustees have turned their guns on three of the Water Board Directors. They are not all the same people.
   You wrote that I authored the recall notices. Wrong again! I told you that I was the facilitator. I did not mention that I typed anything. I didn't even make the copies. Please be careful when using peoples names in this manner.  You mentioned that the school board had to be served twice. You are correct with this one except that I was not involved with the first one. I felt sorry for Caron and helped her with the forms. She asked me and that is how I got involved. She served the School Board.
   You mentioned that I served you with documents filled with errors. I believe that the author left the end off of Mel's. There may also be some other punctuation and incorrect wording but that's OK. Ratepayers will get the message soon enough. Again I am not the author.
   You wrote 50k for the election. I will verify this next week when I pick up the petitions to begin circulating.
   Is it worth $12.50 for me to recall you? Hell yes, you raised my rate 154% this time. Who knows how much next time?
   There are other things being said and I will get to those responses when the time is right.
As for Jerry's misinformation.
   Jerry is spreading misinformation in the form of a sheet of paper that states: "The board passed a conservation/lifeline rate that will directly benefit 78% of our customers" I have in my possession a 5 year analysis issued by the Water District or their consultant that shows that most of the money comes from the customers with 5/8" meters. I know from previous data that 22% of the customers are 1" and larger. The 5/8" meter users are socked as well as the big users just not at the 154% rate. You folks should know that of the $569,538 new revenue generated by this lifeline and conservation method that $339,788 comes from customers with 5/8" meters. You can do the math.
   Also for Jerry, you should be happy to know that I am killing off some 6000 square feet of lawn. I am shrinking the greenbelt around my house. We live in the middle of a field and I can only hope the fire season does not get us. Of course this is my decision to cut back and not yours but the 154% increase helped me to decide.
To all board members, the rate increase that you passed on to the ratepayers is not a fair one considering that we live in a partly rural area with farmlands and customers who were forced onto the system when McClellan got caught polluting the water. I am not one of the folks but you really stuck it to them. And what about the Parks, Elverta and Rio Linda Schools Districts? Last week I asked for someone to do the math on the power plant usage at $1.00 per 100 cubic feet and nobody responded. Please post those numbers on the net for everyone to see what you guys were thinking when you changed from a 50% across the board to this new scheme that hits the higher users. You smaller customers should know that your free baseline has been lowered to 900 from 1800. I will never tell anyone to sign or not sign the recall petition like the board members have done. Once you see the data or see your bill in 2 months you will decide for yourself. You should also know that new increases are being looked at by this same board. They made it clear that 145% across the board was needed and they won't stop until they get there. The only thing that has changed is that they dropped the across the board part. One could only hope that the rates do not go up at the ratio of the last rate increase.

Darrell
>From the Rio Linda mailing list

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [RL] Re:  Recall the Water Board
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 9:56 PM PDT
From: RQuack4131@aol.com
To: riolinda@vrx.net

Dear Citizens of Rio Linda.  I am here to tell you that Jay Obrien is a fine, upstanding, hard working, community minded citizen who has volunteered thousands of hours to improving Rio Linda.  His character is above reproach.  I deeply resent those who would tear down one of the few people who will DO anything to help.

Jay does not need, nor did he ask for any money for all the time he has donated.  He simply wants to make a positive difference.  We need to stick together and I suggest you turn your interests to those who mean to do us harm, the Grant School Board.

Divide and Conquer..so they say.  United we can move mountains.  Please stop the cheap shots at Jay, and work with him side by side.  You'll see...as I have.  This man is a real community treasure.

Your Friend,
Chris Q
>From the Rio Linda mailing list

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [RL] Re:  Recall the Water Board
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 11:29 PM PDT
From: CATatoole@aol.com
To: riolinda@vrx.net

Truer words have not been spoken on this site regarding Jay O'Brien, and I heartily agree with you Chris.  I thank you for putting the truth down into print, as I have had a difficult time in knowing what to write.

Those of you who are having a difficult time with your water rates and the debate regarding the same, please try to remember that the Water Board and the Grant Board are different people and don't confuse the two.  The members of the water board do seem to care about their constituents and what they think, and INVITE their input, and listen to them.....unlike the Grant Board.

Try to keep the two separate from each other.

Cynthia Tatoole
>From the Rio Linda mailing list

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [RL] Re: Recall the Water Board
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 11:40 PM PDT
From: "Erwin Hayer" <eeh625@hotmail.com>
To: riolinda@vrx.net

I have to agree with Chris and Cynthia.  Jay and Jan have been a major help to me on the flooding issues and I have a lot of respect for both of them.

Erwin Hayer
>From the Rio Linda mailing list

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [RL] Re:  Recall the Water Board
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 9:46 AM PDT
From: SNelson840@aol.com
To: riolinda@vrx.net

Chris,

You are entitled to your opinion.  But, I'm paying the rate increase, your not!  It is easier for you to tell every one what a great, hard working, honest,  man Jay is, but I'm seeing and paying a price for Jay and the Whole Water Board.  No one is taking cheap shots at Jay that he has not provoked on his self.  Have a nice day!

Sandy
>From the Rio Linda mailing list

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [RL] Re:  Recall the Water Board
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 1:59 PM PDT
From: RQuack4131@aol.com
To: riolinda@vrx.net

Dear Sandy,

    You are right that I have a right to my opinion, but my opinions are not created without sound fact to back them up.  You are paying higher rates now for water, but did you check your electricity bill?  Are you trying to recall Gray Davis? Or the legislators who have for 12 years stopped the development additional power resources?  In fact, most of you seem to be skeptical now of the FPL plant which will add power in our region.  How much success have we had on the Auburn Dam we so critically need for power, water and flood control?

    Most of California's infrastructure has been neglected for a long time..roads, schools, water resources and power plants.  Why?  Because our legislators have not been rewarded for courageous future planning.  They get rewarded for short term spending, pork barrel projects and push the hard problems down the road when they will no longer be in office.  Our children and their children will be paying for our huge bond indebtedness California has assumed because today's taxpayers refused to pay as you go, and refused to develop the resources needed for future generations.

    The obstructionist environmental movement has used "endangered" bugs and snakes to preclude roads, schools, hospitals, power plants and homes from development.  Heaven help a politician who tries to apply common sense to fill the need for our future.

    Now the chickens are home to roost and fingers are pointing every which way to find villains.  Jay has only been on the board for one term.  He did not create this problem.  He is merely trying to address a tough situation with a sound, but unpopular plan for the future.  He deserves our respect for running for office and trying his best to do what's right to the best of his abilities.

    Incidentally, I still own the boat shop and lake.  My whole investment value is dependent on water.

    My opinion for what it's worth.
Sincerely,

Chris Q
>From the Rio Linda mailing list

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [RL] Re:  Recall the Water Board
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 8:01 PM PDT
From: Eyelash6@cs.com
To: riolinda@vrx.net

Chris,

It's a shame you are so many miles away. California needs you!

Patti

>From the Rio Linda mailing list

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [RL] Special Election Cost
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 11:03 AM PDT
From: Jay O'Brien <jayobrien@att.net>
To: Rio Linda Elverta Mailing List <riolinda@vrx.net>

A special election to recall RLECWD directors will cost $50,000. That is $12.50 for each customer.

Jay

>From the Rio Linda mailing list

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [RL] Special Election Cost
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 4:41 PM PDT
From: Eyelash6@cs.com
To: riolinda@vrx.net

Jay,

If $12.50 will protect "us ratepayers," it's worth $12.50. Who should I make the check out to?

Since you voted against this increase, I feel the people of Rio Linda need to focus their recall efforts on those that voted FOR this increase. It's easy to get caught up in the "spin."

Patti

>From the Rio Linda mailing list
 

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [RL] $50,000 to Recall the Water Board?
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 7:24 PM PDT
From: MARYETTA39@aol.com
To: riolinda@vrx.net

Jay I had rather pay $ 12.50 a one time payment than to have you all get up there and vote on issues that you all don't think through. Its a shame you sold your pay rate committee down the river. If you all would have went for the across the board raise of 50 %  on basic rate every one would have shared the expenses and we could already be drilling a new well that was so deserved. Get over being recalled and get on with your life and be happy, stop trying to find blame on other people and don't make statements you can't back up.

One of those 25 % rate hike payees.

Mary Nelson

>From the Rio Linda mailing list

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [RL] Community unity
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 4:54 PM PDT
From: "Allan M. Friedman" <allanm@cfilc.org>
To: riolinda@vrx.net

While the accusations and exchanges that have come across this listserv have been amusing in a Peyton Place sort of way, they are, I believe, divisive and counter productive.   We can't expect to change anything when emotions rule above reason in the debate.  The ill will that has been expressed in recent messages only serves to marginalize the voices of opposition, working against the stated goals of changing policies.

It is far more effective to come to the table with mutual respect for the good will and intent of all participants.  The way to effect change is to present persuasive arguments in a cogent fashion and support them with provable facts.  While there is a place for anecdotal evidence, decisions are usually made on the basis of facts.  Perceptions of what the outcomes may be are far less persuasive than hard numbers that can be verified.

We need to bring the focus of our discussions back into this whelm. Little can be accomplished by arguing about who said what or questioning the motivations of individuals.

This is why I am opposed to the water board recall efforts.  I believe a recall is unwarranted and ultimately works against resolution of the district's financial difficulties.

The recall process, like impeachment, is an extreme measure that should be reserved as a remedy for extreme misuse use of office or gross mismanagement.  And while some might argue that the handling of the rate increase warrants it, I don't believe that the board's actions on this issue rise to the level of malfeasance to justify a recall.

Elections are held often enough to change decision-makers if the community determines a change is needed.  Scheduling special elections is expensive and wasteful.  Given the financial difficulties the district has experienced, we don't need to be diverting what to me is a significant sum of money, into a political/legal battle.  That is $50,000 that would be better spent providing service to the customers of the district.

This is not to say that I support the decisions that the water board has made.  Rather, I believe we need to put aside the ranker and ill will and work on changing policy, not policy makers.

Opponents of the board's decision on the rate structure need to regroup, revise their proposal and present them, with some constructive alternatives in a manner that will persuade the board to change the policy.  If they can not do that, then they need to bide their time until the next scheduled election, using that time to build an even stronger case based on what occurs as a result of the board's actions, and present that to the voters.

Decisions, whether by the water board, school board, or other public entity are made in a political climate.  The decision-makers appointed and elected to those bodies deserve respect for their willingness to serve and their good intent in doing so.  They may not always have good intent but unless proven otherwise, they deserve the benefit of the doubt on this.

Its only when both parties come to the table with respect for each other that they are open to hearing what the each other has to say and find ways to compromise.  That's how solutions to problems are are found and good policy is made.

Allan M. Friedman
Information Technology Manager
California Foundation for Independent Living Centers, Inc.

>From the Rio Linda mailing list

[Rio Linda Elverta News Headline and Editorial published 6/14/01]

Recall of Water Board Members could carry $50,000 price tag

Click here for Editorial by Don Flesch

[Letter to the News, published 6/14/01 in the Rio Linda Elverta News]

Letter to the editor:

Don, please print my reply in your newspaper so that I am given the opportunity to clear my name with the readers of this newspaper. Misinformation: Jay, please get the facts before you throw my name on the net or the Newspaper. You wrote that the same people who would recall the Grant Trustees have turned their guns on three of the Water Board Directors. It is a documented fact that they are not all the same people. You wrote that I authored the recall notices. I told you that I was the facilitator and never did I mention that I typed anything. I didn't even make a single copy of the documents. Please be careful when using my name in this manner. You mentioned that the School Board had to be served twice. You are correct with this one except that I was not involved with the first one. I felt sorry for Caron and helped her with the recall forms. She asked me for help and that is how I got involved. She is the person who served the School Board. You mentioned that I served you with documents filled with errors. I believe that the author left the end off of Mel's notice. There may also be some other punctuation and incorrect wording but that's OK. Again I am not the author. You are telling ratepayers that your consultant Bob Reed worked on other water rate studies. This is true but what you have failed to mention is the fact that you did not use any of his rate structures. After paying him all of the money you and the board did not use his expertise. As for Jerry's misinformation being circulated. Jerry is spreading misinformation in the form of a sheet of paper that states: "The board passed a conservation/lifeline rate that will directly benefit 78% of our customers" I have in my possession a 5 year analysis issued by the Water District or their consultant that shows that most of the money comes from the customers with 5/8" meters. I know from previous data that 22% of the customers are 1" and larger. The 5/8" meter users are socked as well as the big users just not at the 154% rate. Ratepayers should know that of the $569,538 new revenue generated by this lifeline and conservation method that $339,788 comes from customers with 5/8" meters. To all board members, the rate increase that you passed on to the ratepayers is not a fair one considering that Rio Linda is a partly rural area with farmlands and customers who were forced onto the system when McClellan got caught polluting the water. And what about the Parks, Elverta and Rio Linda Schools Districts? Last week I asked for someone to do the math on the power plant usage at $1.00 per 100 cubic feet and nobody responded. Please print those numbers in this newspaper for everyone to see what you guys were thinking when you changed from a 50% across the board to this new scheme that hits the higher users. You smaller customers should know that your free baseline hasc been lowered to 900 from 1800 cubic feet. I will never tell anyone to sign or not sign the recall petition like the board members have done. Once you see the data or see your bill in 2 months you can decide for yourself. You should also be aware that new increases are being looked at by this same board. They made it clear that 145% across the board was needed and they won't stop until they get there. The only thing that has changed is that they dropped the across the board part. One could only hope that the rates do not go up at the same ratio of the last rate increase. I was asked to get involved in this recall in the middle of several things going on in our community and have put countless hours into our High School where I feel we have a wonderful opportunity to improve our children's education. I am asking Jay to stop attacking me in public because it appears to be causing damage to the volunteer base working on the Grant High School District Reorganization Project. He has my phone number.

    As to the reference that O'Brien is attacking you in public and is causing damage to the Grant District reorganization, you must realize that you and those trying to recall the Water Board Directors have created a situation because of timing and the selection of the Water Board Members you are trying to recall is illogical. If for any reason the reorganization should fail, you cannot blame it on Mr. O'Brien. He didn't instigate the problem.

    As for the misinformation you attribute to Gerald Wickham, he didn't state how much who paid. He stated that the rate will benefit 78% of the Water District's customers.

    If you disagree with any of the Editor note, I will be glad to discuss it with you either in person or by phone. You do know the number.]
 
 

The links in the above message are to previously presented references

[Reply Letter published 6/21/01 in the Rio Linda Elverta News]

Don,

Please print this response to Mr. Nelson. As you can see, we opted to not respond to the multiple subjects in his run on. We chose to reply to only the two new issues he has raised. I count 23 different subjects in his one paragraph!

Jay
 

Mr. Nelson,

Thank you for responding to our letter, titled "RECALL THE WATER BOARD", published in the June 7 Rio Linda Elverta News.

Your letter, published in the June 14 News,  raises two new issues that were not addressed in our letter or that have not been addressed in detail on our web site. Please visit http://obri.net/recall for a repeat of the previously addressed items.

You assert that we did not use any recommendations from our rate consultant Bob Reed. That is flat wrong. Mr. Reed worked long and hard with our Board before you and your associates became involved with the rate structure. We rely heavily on his expertise and experience and we value his input to our deliberations, as we will value the input from the Citizen's Rate Committee he is presently advising.

Most importantly, however, you ask us to "stop attacking (you) in public because it appears to be causing damage to the volunteer base working on the Grant High School District Reorganization project." Mr. Nelson, you and the nine other signers of the recall notice chose to personalize this matter, not us. We object to you setting us up as the "cause" for the failure of the Grant project, should it fail.

You have objected to the "154%" increase you may see. But rather than embark on a referendum to force us to reconsider the rate issue, you chose to attack us individually. A referendum would have addressed the issue to which you object. Instead you facilitated a recall that attacks personalities and individuals.

You have established the rules, choosing to gather 6021 signatures to recall us rather than gather the 497 signatures that would have been necessary for a referendum. A referendum petition would have forced the Board to rescind its action or call an election, avoiding the $50,000 cost of a special recall election. Instead, you and your nine other signers chose the personal attack of a recall, forcing a $50,000 expense on your Water District should you obtain enough signatures.

A recall is intended to give the voters an opportunity to rid themselves of officials they have elected who are thieves and other criminals. You imply that we are such by your action, yet you provide no facts. A referendum, had you chosen that option, would have addressed the issues without drawing a personal "line in the sand". A referendum is for "bad decisions"; a recall is for "bad people." Your decision to label us as "bad people" has divided this community.

Mr. Nelson, you and your nine associates chose to mount a personal attack rather than debate the issue. You chose the expensive and divisive course of action. You chose the rules, and all ten of the signers of the recall notice are now players in your personal attack on us.

Further, your recall makes no sense. You use the rate increase as your reason, yet you would recall one Board member who voted your way.

Regarding the Grant Reorganization issue, we support the reorganization and wish the effort success. However, we cannot, and will not, lay down and let you walk all over us in its name.

Remember, you wrote the rules. You have divided the community. You have cost us time, effort and money. You have personalized the issue. You can stop this madness at any time.

Mel Griffin
Jay O'Brien
Jerry Wickham