[Editorial on front page of 7/26/01 Rio Linda Elverta News]

"...The NEWS has refused to print a letter from Mary Harris who is a proponent of the Water Board recall because I considered it a political advertisement and because it contained slanderous inflammatory comments. Why would I want to publish a letter to the editor that assassinates my character and then go to the expense out of my own pocket to have it distributed to my readers telling them what a nasty person I am. Would you??"

Here's the cover letter that Don Flesch, the Rio Linda Elverta News Editor/Publisher, received from Mary Harris, asking Don, the Editor, to publish her letter as a "Letter of the Week" and to publish it "without editing or modification".  Note that the letter itself was on two additional pages (that are repeated immediately below) and did not contain an original signature, as if it was authored by someone for Harris. When Don called Harris to tell her that he would not publish the letter for the reasons detailed above, Harris replied that she would then send it to the Sacramento Bee. One must wonder if Harris also admonished the Bee that her letter should not be edited or modified. Has anyone seen Harris' letter in the Bee?

I ask that this be put in our local Newspaper, but the owner called me today and said "NO". I hope you don't mind me putting it here.
 

Rio Linda/Elverta Water Board Director Jay O’Brien’s conclusions on his web site said… "Perhaps what Rush Limbaugh implies about Rio Linda is true, there are a lot of stupid people here"

My name is Mary Harris and the time has come for me to set the record straight. I don’t know about anyone else, but I am offended with Mr. Jay O’Brien’s comments about Rio Linda. Talk about disrespect! Does this sound like someone we want in office to look out for our best interest? We voted for this guy, and now we see what he thinks about our community. I am also offended that Mr. O’Brien, Jerry Wickham, Mel Griffin and Don Flesch from the Rio Linda News appear to have launched an all-smear campaign against the proponents who served a recall notice to three board members. Mr. O’Brien opened his own web site, criticizing errors on the recall notices. He says that "Perhaps what Rush Limbaugh implies about Rio Linda is true, there are a lot of stupid people here…" He says he can’t get over being served a recall notice, and wonders why he was included. Imagine that! Doesn’t Mr. O’Brien understand he brought this on himself? He was vindictive right from the start, when the yellow signs went up.

Now here is where Jerry Wickham comes in. Mr. Wickham came to my salon and informed me that a 100% increase was going to happen. He explained the increase was needed to cover a 5 million dollar dry pipeline debt and blamed Mel Griffin and others saying he (Wickham) was the only one who voted against this debt. I wrote a letter to the editor of the Rio Linda News informing people and advising them to sign their protest letters and to send them back to the water district. People started calling me, saying that this increase would devastate them financially and pledging their support. I was determined to work even harder to get the word out. Mr. Wickham offered to supply the plywood and metal stands if I wanted to put signs out. (He later demanded their return via certified letter.) I called a sign maker and paid almost $500.00 out of my own pocket to have six 4’x 4’ yellow signs made. The people trusted and supported me in my effort. I was amazed at the outpouring of community interest and I am determined to stand up for what the community wants: water at a fair price.

At the next meeting, Mr. O’Brien proposed a 65% increase. After much debate from the citizens and input from the General Manager (who suggested a 40% across the board increase would generate enough funds to pay the district bills), Mr. O’Brien reconsidered and ultimately proposed a 50% across the board increase. Everyone went home thinking our water rate increase would be 50% across the board. We were not prepared for what Mr. Wickham had in mind as he presented his revenue increase proposal at the next board meeting. He labeled this "Alternative 2" calling this his "Conservation Rate". This would impose almost a 200% increase for all the larger users, including parks & schools. Why punish our Park and Recreation District, our schools, and the people who have acreage? These people did not ask for a special reduced rate. They expected the same increase as all other ratepayers, but not a 200% increase as proposed by Mr. Wickham. With out any consideration of what was agreed upon at the previous meeting, the board adopted the "Conservation Rate". Could this water district be trying to squeeze its water supply through conservation so it can make big bucks from supplying water for the new Florida Power & Light plant they plan to serve?

It has now been more than more than 7 months since the board received 2,457 signed protest letters against the 100% increase. Let us review what has happened since then:

1. The water board agreed not to impose the 100% rate increase.
2. RLECWD General Manager has retired and six applicants applied for that job. The position has still not been filled.
3. "Alternative 2" rate increase was adopted.
4. The board appointed a rate study committee to make recommendations to the board on a new rate structure plan however, in spite of the fact that they refuse to be bound or feel obligated to follow the committee’s recommendations. The board also mandated that their consultant Bob Reed participate on the committee at an undisclosed cost.
5. Recall notice was served to Directors Jay O’Brien, Jerry Wickham and Mel Griffin.
6. In June, general manager reports computer problem??? The board delays implementing the new rate increase, resulting in a loss of approximately $200.000 in much needed revenue.
7. Board members and others engaged in intimidation and harassment tactics against proponents and volunteers for the recall.
8. July 16, the board of Directors voted 3 to 2 to delay the rate increase until October! Strangely enough, the 3 Directors voting for the delay (until after the recall effort ends in September) are the same 3 Directors being recalled: Jay O’Brien, Jerry Wickham and Mel Griffin. Their delay will result in nearly half a million dollars more in lost revenue.
9. The board has wasted most of the year, spending more than it is receiving and further depleting our reserves. And the bleeding continues… Are these the directors you want running YOUR water district?

Sincerely,

Mary Harris
>From the Rio Linda mailing list

------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [RL] Review
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 10:39 AM PDT
From: cgamail@juno.com
To: riolinda@vrx.net

Hi Mary,  its a shame that our only local paper won't print both sides of what is clearly a political issue.

I wonder why there was a banner headline "Recall to cost $50,000"  but when the Water District voted to delay the rate increase there was NO banner headline "Rate Increase Delay cost Water District $400,000.00".

I think the News is being pretty onesided about this.  Wonder what the Fair Political Practices Commission would say???

Charlea
>From the Rio Linda mailing list

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [RL] review
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 6:09 PM PDT
From: Oneputt800@aol.com
To: riolinda@vrx.net

Great letter Mary and keep up the good work. It is truly tough to take on issues when you are not given equal press. The truth will eventually get to the ratepayers.

On another issue: Isn't Roger up for reelection this Nov? This is where your voice can be heard load and clear.

Darrell
>From the Rio Linda mailing list

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [RL] Review
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 7:34 PM PDT
From: "Mary Harris" <misscaddy@softcom.net>
To: "Rio Linda/Elverta" <riolinda@vrx.net>

Hi Charlea,

Between my usual Thursday activities and the telephone, it has been a busy busy day and I am tired... I did get a hold of the ACLU and told them what was is going on. They were very helpful and referred me to their legal department in San Francisco and to the CNPA. I also have a call into the FPPC and "hopefully" I hear from them Friday.

I'm disheartened with what is going on but determined to get the word out. Shame... seems to be the right word here... The News had published so many letters opposing the Recall, and it really hadn't occurred to me that they would refuse to publish the other side of this issue, but nonetheless, that is exactly what has happened.

I do understand Don is the owner of the Rio Linda News and that he has all the right in the world to deny me from putting any thing in his paper. However, he did not seem to have a problem with me putting the Recall Notice in for a one time publication and charging me $324.00.

I have my own business (Hair Salon) and as a business owner, I know the importance of treating people with respect. I may dislike someone, but that is no excuse for me to deny doing his or her hair. Jerry W. is a client and although we are on opposite ends, I have never turned him down as a client. to be continued...

Mary  MissCaddy@softcom.net
PS. Thanks Darrell
>From the Rio Linda mailing list

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [RL] Review
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 9:21 PM PDT
From: MARYETTA39@aol.com
To: riolinda@vrx.net

Mary this is a great letter and everyone in Rio Linda should thank you for all of your hard work.

Mary Nelson
>From the Rio Linda mailing list

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [RL] Rio Linda NEWS
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 10:20 PM PDT
From: Searay613@aol.com
To: riolinda@vrx.net

Hi Mary, I was very shocked at the information  you have in your letter.  I feel Don Flesch is being very unfair by not printing it in the next publication. Most of the stuff he has printed in the last few weeks are terribly boring and I  have had enough.. I will not be renewing my subsciption when it comes up. I am sorry I even subscribed to it now. Actually I am embarrassed. I was trying to support a local business in our town.  But this is not worth it. All that is printed lately is garbage.

Cathy
>From the Rio Linda mailing list

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [RL] Rio Linda NEWS
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 12:03 AM PDT
From: "Mary Harris" <misscaddy@softcom.net>
To: "Rio Linda/Elverta" <riolinda@vrx.net>

Cathy, Sorry I didn't respond sooner, but we have been very busy collecting Recall signatures. I know what you mean about our local newspaper, it doesn't seem fair that he not publish mine.  I thought all letters to the editor were to printed... But guess what???   Don Flesch called me today to inquire about the good old boy... money waster sign, that I moved. Do you think he is worried about it? Gee I wonder if they are out looking for it????

 It seems that our Mr. Darrell Nelson has become a pretty popular guy here in town. People are reading the newspaper and are not happy with what they are reading, but they really like what this guy Darrell Nelson has to say.

 Mary    MissCaddy@softcom.net
>From the Rio Linda mailing list

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [RL] Review
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 12:10 AM PDT
From: "Mary Harris" <misscaddy@softcom.net>
To: "Rio Linda/Elverta" <riolinda@vrx.net>

Hi Mary Nelson, Thank you for supporting what Iam trying to do. Its a shame we had to resort to a recall to get these board members to pay attention.These people knew we were serious, when we brought in all those protest letters, but they choose to ignore us. You just don't try to rectify 12 years of (alleged) poor management all at one time.

Take care

Mary
>From the Rio Linda mailing list

Hello to all,

On the subject of news articles that our local editor chooses to publish- I thought it very interesting that Don's "this--and that" column had a quote from SNAGMA regarding the metering of private wells. The quote indicated correctly that any private well used to irrigate less than 2 1/2 acres would not be "taxed" for pumping. What the quote didn't say was that any private well used to irrigate over 2 1/2 acres would be "metered" and there will be a charge for pumping - not a tax. I have a five acre parcel and a private well and septic system. I has over 1,000 feet of drip lines and a large front and back yard as well as horse pastures front and back. Am I "irrigating" more than 2 1/2 acres? I don't know but I do know that SNAGMA and our current water board has concured with the "metering" of private wells irrigating over 2 1/2 acres and I'm betting that includes me.

I wish that the Rio Linda News would print both sides of issues currently facing our communities and I wish that the Rio Linda News would print "all" the facts not just the ones that support the News' position.

Charlea

I think you owe the present Water Board Directors an apology when you accuse them of concurring with SNAGMA on the issue of metering private wells.

Our water district fought against the SNAGMA plan and its formation which incidentally is an agency of the County and the Cities. It was only through the efforts of the Rio Linda Water District that the 2 1/2 acre exemption was implemented. If you have a problem about SNAGMA don't blame it on our water district. You should contact your Supervisor Roger Dickinson.

Both sides of this issue were presented by The NEWS, but both sides are not presented in your message.

While on the subject of water, community meetings revealed that community members agreed that the district needed to increase the water rates. So they did and then they were accused of being the "bad guys" and some people were all upset because they raised the rates. Then, because of all the allegations and defamation and attacks on their character, the increase was delayed. Then, once again they became the villains because they delayed the increase. Pretty confusing to me. It's the damned if you do, and damned if you don't scenario. Then we have a citizen's rate committee who are studying different rate structures. Sounds good to me, except that one of the committee members is a leader of the effort to recall 3 board members. Now how do you expect them to cooperate with the "enemy". Then on top of that, the "rumor" is that the person heading the recall wants to run for the board. Of course I don't print "rumors" so I'll have to wait to hear it as they say, "from the horses mouth".

Darn, I almost forgot to mention that newspapers don't print all letters they receive, particularly slanderous libelous ones. Also, I want to be fair to those that assassinate my character and give them credit for calling The NEWS, "our local newspaper" and calling the editor our local editor".

Well anyway, once again it's time to get to press, so, it's 30 for me and 73 to you.

Can anyone tell me what this is allout?  Since the owner of
riolinda@vrx.net doesn't respond?  I am new here and trying to figure
out what is going on.  Can someone shed some light on this??  ThanX

Barbara Weaver

Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 1:11 AM PDT
To: owner-riolinda@vrx.net
Subject: Fwd: check this out

Still wondering about the information contained in this letter.   Was
there a recall?   Did the Rio Linda newspaper refuse to print this
person opposing view?
What is the truth here?

Barbara Weaver

From: "Melody Stumpf" <sassy_frats@hotmail.com>
To: Poysnpn@webtv.net
Subject: check this out
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 18:56:47 -0700

I received this in the mail today, it is from the Committe for Responsible Affordable Water (CRAW).
    Dear Registerd Voter,
I am forced to send out this mailing at personal expense because the publisher of the Rio Linda News refused to print my letter to the Editor.

[CLICK HERE FOR THE MAILER ITSELF]

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [RL] Neighbor's Letter
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 1:01 PM PDT
From: "Jeff Culley" <jeffculley@home.com>
To: <riolinda@vrx.net>

The letter you are referring to etter is pretty much self explanitory.  This letter is just a small part of much dialogue that has taken place on this list over an effort to recall three members of the Water Board.  Anyone care to elaborate?  Hope this is helpful.

Welcome to our list!

Jeff
>From the Rio Linda mailing list

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [RL] Neighbor's Letter
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 13:26:19 -0700 (PDT)
From: POYSNPN@webtv.net
To: riolinda@vrx.net

Well, being about 5 days new to this list and a newcomer to RL, I don't have a clue...  So please feel free to elaborate.  I don't want to sign a recall list that is unwarranted, but on the other hand...if the people of Rio Linda are being deceived and extorted by exorbitant water prices... then I will walk the petition personally.

So far, the only response I have had is from the author of the posted letter,  Ms. Harris, and she is a very convincing proponent for recall. But I would like to hear the other side as well, as would any thinking individual.    Please let me hear some views...  that's what this mailing list is all about... Right?

ThanX
Barbara Weaver
>From the Rio Linda mailing list

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [RL] Neighbor's Letter
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 2:18 PM PDT
From: Jan O'Brien <k6hhd@att.net>

To: riolinda@vrx.net

Barbara,

Since you are new you missed the previous conversation on this matter. Rather then rehash it here please see http://www.obri.net for the other side of this issue. As the recall site is not currently up to date, be sure and check back in a few days for the latest. Then you can make up your own mind.

Jan
>From the Rio Linda mailing list

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [RL] Neighbor's Letter
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 7:43 PM PDT
From: CATatoole@aol.com
To: riolinda@vrx.net

Hi,

A suggestion: To learn more about the dialogue that has gone on, and about the community and its school districts, politics, etc., visit the web site below and take some time to visit each area. You sound like intelligent, independent thinking people.  I'm just trying to help enable you to view or hear all sides prior to making a decision.

http://jay.mbz.org/rl/

Cynthia Tatoole

>From the Rio Linda mailing list

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [RL] neighbors
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 8:42 PM PDT
From: Oneputt800@aol.com
To: riolinda@vrx.net

Rather than relying on web pages that can be misleading with only one side of the story I suggest attending the board meetings. Water board meets next Monday and the Grant school board meets in a few weeks. Both boards are having problems with public trust. Mary was just trying to tell the second side of the story and it is too bad that she had to spend her own money to do it. Mary is not even a large user but is fighting for more equitable rates. I thank her for that.

Darrell

>From the Rio Linda mailing list

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [RL] Neighbor's Letter
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 9:06 PM PDT
From: POYSNPN@webtv.net
To: riolinda@vrx.net

Okay....  I will keep an open mind and read everything.   Thank  you.

B Weaver
>From the Rio Linda mailing list

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [RL] Recall
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 9:43 PM PDT
From: POYSNPN@webtv.net
To: riolinda@vrx.net

Thank you All:

Your letters have been most helpful.

Recalls are ugly, but sometime a necessary evil.. I would never enter into one lightly.

It sounds like there is a real problem here in RL and one in which we all need to be pulling together on for a solution, rather than just throwing the baby out (or the politician) with the town water!

Scourging the rascal might make some folk feel better but it doesn't really solve the problem... does it?   Obviously, the people shouldn't be punished for the sins of the fathers, and neither should the little man pay the big man's fair share... so I think there is an equitable answer to all of this, but it is going to take unity... not division.

I still have a lot to read.

Thank you so much for your letters... I haven't received many responses to my inquiry thus far... but have been directed to some good dialogue. This letter is a reproduction (in part) of my answer to one individual that has been most helpful.

Thank you,
Barbara Weaver ;-)

>From the Rio Linda mailing list

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [RL] Harris' CRAW letter (was Neighbor's Letter)
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 9:45 PM PDT
From: Jay O'Brien <jayobrien@att.net>
To: Rio Linda Elverta Mailing List <riolinda@vrx.net>

Barbara,

I'm sorry if I don't respond immediately to messages sent to me at my owner-riolinda@vrx.net address. Your message above was sent at 1:11 AM today. For responses to issues, you should send your messages to riolinda@vrx.net, as you did at 12:13 PM. I'm not available all the time, even though I do pay the costs for this mailing list as a community service.

An earlier version of the letter you quoted was posted by Harris on July 25th. That version contained a libelous statement which the Rio Linda Elverta News publisher would not publish, given Harris' admonition that her letter should not be edited. Harris edited the version she mailed to your neighbor, removing the libel. The letter your neighbor received was NOT the letter that was rejected by the Rio Linda Elverta News.

I just finished updating the website on this issue, and it now includes both iterations of the Mary Harris CRAW letter and shows how she changed it. It also includes her signed request that the editor NOT edit her first letter. I suspect, but cannot speak for the publisher, that if the letter she edited and mailed to your neighbor had been submitted as a letter to the editor it would have been published.

The bottom line is that the letter that Harris mailed was NOT the letter that was rejected by the News. But she doesn't tell you that, just like she doesn't tell you that she is on the rate committee and just like she doesn't tell you that Jerry Wickham demanded the return of his sign stand only AFTER denying Harris permission to use the stand to attack him.

Details on these inconsistencies and others are included in our web page at http://obri.net .

As Jeff said, welcome to our on-line community. Please join in! But please don't expect ME to respond in less than 24 hours. I try, but it just isn't possible under all conditions.

Jay O'Brien
>From the Rio Linda mailing list

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [RL] Harris' CRAW letter (was Neighbor's Letter)
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 22:23:49 -0700 (PDT)
From: POYSNPN@webtv.net
To: riolinda@vrx.net

Thank you!
Barbara Weaver
>From the Rio Linda mailing list

Recall should be given up says rate study chairman
Water board awaits proposed rates & structure from Rate Study Committee

The Rio Linda/Elverta Community Water District (RLECWD) at its Monday, August 20 meeting was advised by Rate Study Committee Chairman, Joe Gluvers that they would present their proposed rate structure at the next water board meeting. Monday, September 24th.

After the committee presents their findings, it will be up to the water board to accept, reject or suggest some modifications.

According to Gluvers, the rate suggestion will be a structure that water users can live with while it will keep the district solvent. In other remarks, Gluvers suggested that all the problems that faced the water district would have been resolved without the threat of the recall of three of the Board Members, Griffin, Wickham and O'Brien. Recall proponent Mary Harris who serves on the Rate Study Committee disagreed with Gluvers and said that the recall was the reason people were ready to listen to the committee.

Gluvers said that the Board was willing to work with the Rate Committee right from the "get go". He said, "I wish you guys would all just give it up", referring to the recall. [click here for transcript]

This statement was made at the water board meeting by Director Jay O'Brien who was concerned about the effect that a recently mailed letter would have on the community and The NEWS. Following is the text of his statement. [click here for the letter]

Statement for the record by Jay O'Brien, Director, RLECWD, Made at the Board Meeting 8/20/01:

I was going to make a statement tonight detailing the blatant lies, slander and libel being leveled against me by those who would recall me. I was going to identify some of the attacks my family and I have received. I'll save that for another time, as an even more libelous issue has arisen to further divide this community, and it has developed from the recall proponents.

Our friend, community supporter, Chamber President, and Rio Linda Elverta News editor/owner/publisher Don Flesch has, in my opinion, been libeled by recall proponent and Water Rate Committee member Mary Harris. She published her libelous piece and mailed it to Registered Voters in our District last week. It purports to tell "the other side" of the issue.

On the outside, it says, "I am forced to send out this mailing at personal expense because the publisher of the Rio Linda News refused to print my letter to the editor."  Then, it includes her two-page letter. Her mailed letter is exactly the same as what she sent to the News, WITH ONE MAJOR EXCEPTION. Ms. Harris has now edited it to remove the slanderous statement that caused Don to reject her letter. By making the change, Harris admits Don Flesch was right. What Harris doesn't tell you is that when she submitted her original letter to the News, it was with a cover letter to Don asking that her letter to the editor not be edited or modified.

The letter she mailed is NOT the slanderous letter she asked to have published. Don did NOT reject the letter she mailed to thousands of people. He rejected a letter he could have edited to remove the offensive statement, but Harris wanted it printed without editing. He did the right thing, and now Harris is libeling him for being a responsible editor. Scans of all of Harris' letters, including the cover letter to the News, are on the http://obri.net web site.

Harris posted her original letter on the local mailing list on July 25, complete with her libelous statement. At our Water Board meeting five days later, I said, "This document that Mary Harris published on the Rio Linda Net is libelous. I won't go into details now but it's absolutely inappropriate." Harris obviously heard me, because she edited her libelous statement before she published it, apparently in an effort to protect herself from legal action. The current version of her letter, as untruthful and misleading as it is, after the editing, is not now libelous in itself. However, her statement on the outside of her mailing fits the definition of libel to a T.

The definition of libel in my dictionary includes this text: "A written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression; A statement or representation published without just cause and tending to expose another to public contempt; and the act, or crime, of publishing such a libel." In my opinion, by claiming in her publication that the News refused to print her letter, fraudulently implying that the mailed letter was the one rejected by the News, Harris meets all of these criteria. Her statement appears to be intentionally misleading to the public.

The unfortunate thing here is that Don Flesch, who is a staunch supporter of this community, is being libeled in a forum selected by Harris in a way that he could lose business. Harris has twisted still another story to hurt someone. And in this case it isn't just the Water Board Directors she is trying to throw out of office. She is hurting Rio Linda.

I am incensed by Harris' libel of Don Flesch and the Rio Linda Elverta News. By publishing this misrepresentation, she shows flagrant disregard for the Rio Linda Elverta community, using our Water District as an excuse. Rush Limbaugh may well be right.

That's all I have to say, and it is on the record.