The four notices served on the GJUHSD Trustees were published in the April 19, 2001 issue of the Rio Linda Elverta News. As the four notices are identical except for the names of the Trustees, a text copy of the notice served on Trustee Vernon is provided as an example. Click to review a text copy of the notice served on Mr. Vernon, or click for a direct scan of all four GJUHSD notices.

The three notices served on the RLECWD Directors were published in the May 17, 2001 issue of the Rio Linda Elverta News.
As the notices served on the RLECWD Directors are different, all are included here for reference:
 
 

The GJUHSD District office is in the City of Sacramento, so the reference in the first paragraph "... in Sacramento, California..." is appropriate for the GJUHSD notices. However, when that phrase is applied to the RLECWD Directors, it is not fully correct. The correct phrase is "... in Sacramento County, California...", as the RLECWD is NOT in the City of Sacramento.

Following instructions on filing answers to these notices with the Registrar of Voters, the last paragraph of the recall notices incorrectly copy Elections Code section 11023(c), which reads "The answer shall be signed and shall be accompanied by the printed name and business or residence address of the officer sought to be recalled." The word "address" was omitted, in error, from the four GJUHSD notices and that error was carried forward to all three RLECWD notices. The notices all incorrectly read "The answer shall be signed and shall be accompanied by the printed name and business or residence of the officer sought to be recalled." This literally states that we should send our business or residence to the registrar of voters!
 
 

Mel Griffin: The notice served on Director Griffin contains four additional careless errors.

The first sentence of the grounds for recall is as follows, "With all due respect, the customer of RLECWD are recalling Mel Griffin." Note that there is only one customer, not "customers". The other two notices use the word "customers".

The eighth sentence reads, "He is part of a dysfunctional board, which passed a rate increase which will approach 200% for our local schools, parks and agricultural customers devastating their finical situation..." The word "finical" means "finicky". The other two notices used the word "financial", which is no doubt the intended word.

The last sentence reads, "The current General Manager indicated that a 40%". Note that there are no words after "40%"; it is an incomplete sentence! There is also no period at the end of that "sentence". The same phrase is used in the other notices; in the O'Brien notice it was used in a complete sentence, and a word was omitted in the Wickham notice (see below).

Jerry Wickham: The notice served on Director Wickham contains six additional careless errors.

The fourth word of the first sentence is incorrectly capitalized, to wit: "With all due respect, The customers of RLECWD are recalling..." The other two notices correctly do not capitalize this word in this phrase.

The third sentence includes "and the will of the ratepayer who defeated..." In Jerry's case, unlike Mel's, there are apparently many customers (first sentence) but alas, only one ratepayer. Mel's notice, however, speaks to "ratepayers".

The fourth sentence reads, "he is part of a dysfunctional board..."; the first word of the sentence, "he", is not capitalized.

The sixth sentence reads as follows: "It was made clear by the current General manager that a 40% across the board would generate enough funds for the District to pay its bills.

The sixth sentence includes "...current General manager..."; the word "manager" should be capitalized, as it is in the other two notices.

The sixth sentence includes "...40% across the board would generate..."; the word "increase" is omitted between "board" and "would". This sentence, as written, is incomplete and makes no sense. The phrase is used in the other notices; only the O'Brien notice includes a complete and correctly formed sentence.

The last sentence does not have a closing period.

Jay O'Brien:  The notice I received was more correct. I found only one additional error.

The fourth sentence includes, "followed the Districts Prop 218 guideline..."; the word should be "District's", including the possessive apostrophe.

Note that the document preparer finally got the sentence right which speaks to the 40% increase. One out of three is good enough?

After all, if the signers couldn't see the patently obvious grammatical errors, how can they be expected to understand the allegations included in the documents they signed? Do you think they read the documents before they signed them? And they are asking others to carry the error ridden petitions and gather signatures?

In deference to the intelligence of the signers of the notices, perhaps they were only given the Jay O'Brien notice to read, and led to believe that the others were the same, as was the case when the same recall proponents prepared and circulated their notices to recall the Grant Board. As the three errors present in the Jay O'Brien notice were minor and easily overlooked, perhaps the signers signed all three after reading only the O'Brien notice. If that is the case, the subsequent notices were signed under false pretenses.