Included:
Rio Linda News Editorial 7/26/01
Cover letter from Harris to Rio Linda News
Letter as sent to the News, page 1 and page 2
Harris' email with slanderous statement
CRAW committee "created"
Page 2 as mailed by Harris; slander edited out
Harris' mailer, with libel of Rio Linda News
Rio Linda News Editorial 8/23/01
RLECWD Director Jay O'Brien's statement at 8/20 Board meeting
Transcript of Harris and others comments at 8/20 Board meeting

Mary Harris, of Mary's Hair Salon, 1020 Q Street, Rio Linda, sent a letter to Don Flesch, Editor/Publisher of the Rio Linda News, on July 23, 2001. Don didn't publish it. Mary then posted the letter as email on the Rio Linda Elverta email list on July 25.  Don referred to Harris' letter in his July 26 column. Harris then edited the letter and sent it to the Rio Linda/Elverta Registered Voters who received it on August 16, 2001. This is the story of that letter.

[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 a scan of the cover letter that Don Flesch, the Rio Linda Elverta News Editor/Publisher, received from Mary Harris, asking Flesch, 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 Flesch 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?

Here's a scan of page one of the two page letter Harris sent to Don Flesch at the News:

 
Here's a scan of page two of the two page letter Harris sent to Don Flesch at the News:
(The slanderous item is item 7 below)
Note this is NOT signed.

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

Harris then edited her letter and created a "CRAW Committee" which paid for the mailing to "Rio Linda/Elverta Registered Voters." The mailing was received on August 16, 2001. The committee is perhaps only a committee of one, Mary Harris, as the mailing states "I am forced to send out this mailing at personal expense..."

The first page of the mailing is EXACTLY the same as the first page of what she sent to Don Flesch for publication. The second page, however, is edited to remove the slanderous statement she included in her original letter, sent with the "without editing" admonition to Don Flesch, the Editor.

The second page changes item 7, the item that is slanderous in the letter as sent to the News, and in the letter as she published it on the mailing list. It originally, untruthfully, said "Board members and others engaged in intimidation and harassment tactics against proponents and volunteers for the recall." Harris changed her letter to add three words at the beginning of item 7, to read "It's alleged that Board members and others engaged in intimidation and harassment tactics against proponents and volunteers for the recall."  This change nullifies the statement that News Editor Flesch refused to print.

Here's a scan of the second page, after Harris' edit:
Note this one is signed.

Harris' mailing was a "foldover", which included the statement below on the outer part of the mailer. Note that she libels Don Flesch, the publisher of the Rio Linda News with her implication that Flesch did not print the letter sent out as her mailing.

This is not true. The letter that was submitted to Flesch, with Harris' "without editing" admonition, was slanderous, and Flesch didn't print it. Harris edited the slander out of the letter she mailed to Registered Voters. Flesch did not reject the letter Harris mailed.

Harris' statement below is a textbook example of libel, should Don Flesch wish to pursue redress. Flesch did not refuse to print the letter Harris mailed out at her expense.

---

[Editorial on front page of 8/23/01 Rio Linda Elverta News]

I really didn't want to have to respond to the mailed misinformation that Mary Harris says that she was forced to send at personal expense because she says The NEWS refused to print her letter to the editor. First off, she implies she is paying for the mailed letter, and then if you read the last paragraph on the back, it says that "The Committee for Responsible Affordable Water is paying for this latter: (CRAW). Does that mean that Harris is a committee of one? Which one do I believe - she paid for it or the CRAW committee paid for it? Next, but certainly not the least important is the fact that her mailed letter implies that it is the same letter The NEWS refused to print. Such is not the case.

Trust me, the letters are different. The letter she sent to The NEWS was libelous and slanderous and I did refuse to print it on those grounds as a "letter to the editor". Also, Harris was told by me that the letter was libelous and slanderous, that I wouldn't print it, but, that she could run it as a paid political ad. Harris fails to mention that she has stated that she intends to run for the water board which interprets to me that her letter aside from being libelous and, slanderous, was a  political advertisement and that it should be run as a "paid political ad". When O'Brien, Wickham, Griffin, Cater, or Blanchard announced themselves as candidates for the water board, The NEWS told them there is a charge for political advertising. Any letters that came in response to the recall from either Griffin; O'Brien or Wickham were not political in nature because they were not candidates for the water board. They were only defending themselves against being recalled to make room for the wannabe's.

Another fact that Harris fails to mention is that she serves on the Rate Study Committee that was appointed by the current water board members and that she has the opportunity to suggest rates and rate structure. Fortunately or unfortunately, I don't have that privilege. If I did, I would opt for- I'll pay for what water I use and you pay for what water you use.

Another little fact that Harris kind of skips over in her mailed out letter is that The NEWS did in fact publish one of her letters to the editor in November 2000. That one wasn't libelous or slandering. (Re-read your letter where she says that The NEWS printed her letter and she started getting phone calls). Whether I agreed or disagreed with what Harris said in her letter-back in November, it was published as a letter to the editor. Does that appear to you to be a smear campaign as Harris says in her letter?

Harris harps about Alternative 2 that was approved by the water board but never implemented to give the rate study committee time to study the rates and structure needed to keep the water district solvent. I had the water district figure out what my water bill would have been under my present water use had Alternative 2 been implemented. My cost increase calculated out to a 16% increase. I would challenge Harris to ask the water district to calculate her water bill out under the then proposed Alternative 2 and I'd even publish the results, and at no charge, but it is now really not material as the Rate Study Committee has come up with their plan. It will be submitted to the water board at their next regular meeting.

Since Harris' letter was mailed, I have received only one phone call from a lady who shall remain nameless and addressless who says because of Harris' letter she will never read The NEWS again. She says she has supported The NEWS for 25 years. First I'd like to enlighten her to the fact that The NEWS has only been published for less than 19 years. The front page of every issue has the year The NEWS was established and the volume no. (19) and the number of issues in that volume number. Last week was no. 33. The lady also claims her support for the paper. I'm sorry to tell you that I cant find you in the paid subscription file. You must pick it up "free" at one of the local stores. Also, in all due respect, if you really read the paper (The NEWS), you would have read several weeks back why I didn't publish the letter that Harris implies is the one you just received. Ironically, Harris' letter to The NEWS that I refused to run as a letter to the editor was prefaced with this statement, "I would really appreciate it if you would print it, without editing or modification". What is ironic about that statement is the fact that the letter Harris mailed out was indeed edited by herself or her committee to remove the libel and slander.

I would also like to say again that if you want to chastise The NEWS, that is okay. But don't libel and slander an individual, meaning the editor, meaning me. And if you think I have to, or that I am going to print something that is libelous or slanderous about myself and then add insult to injury by paying for it at my personal expense you are.... You know the rest of the saying.

I guess I would be in the same category if my motive was to have everyone have their water rates hiked. Personally I wish mine was lower, and, I even wish yours was too. But like I said, I'll pay for what I use and hope that you do the same. (Not you pay for what I use, but you pay for what you use). There has to be some humor here somewhere! Well anyway, once again it's time to get to press, so, it's 30 for me and 73 to you.

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.

Nelson: About defamation and libel and all that good stuff. And I’ve responded to a few of them. But I’ve had things printed that I did not want printed; snatched off the email and put in the paper; I’ve been called ignorant, a liar, rude, and other sorts by Mr. O’Brien there, one of the Board of Directors, totally uncalled for,

Harris (interrupting): Unprofessional

Nelson: In print everybody’s read it, everybody’s called me, what is going on, and I’m just trying to work for the community, I’m involved with all kinds of activities at the school, he sends out deflammatory  [sic] remarks about how I can’t spell, how I can’t punctuate, how hopefully I’m not helping kids in English, just to name a few, it goes on and on you’ve done it and I just think that’s horse shit as well.

Harris (interrupting): I was also

Nelson: So if we want to play games, we can play games.

Harris: I was also said that I attacked somebody here, or accosted somebody and I did get an apology after I made it known that I had an appointment that day. There’s a lot more. The last meeting I was called a liar five times. I have been, have gotten a letter from the President of the Board and was given to Joe, it wanting to kick me off again the last meeting they wanted to kick me off the committee. I got a phone call from Jerry, his phone number was on my message minder. I called him back to see what he wanted and he called me a liar, he didn’t call.

Board President Cater: Just to clarify one thing, I didn’t write a letter to you. I wrote a letter saying check with the community members making sure they could work with the Board with this recall.

Harris: Ok, well it was from you.

Rate Committee Chairman Joe Gluvers: That we did. When you brought your recall action, there was a little discussion that there wouldn’t be a conflict of interest. I had talked to Doug and I had asked Doug what do we do? He said well, I’ll give you a letter, and which he did, and at the meeting at your house I brought that letter out and I said we need to discuss this is there going to be a conflict of interest here between are you going to be able to work for the board and against the board pretty much at the same time. I didn’t say those exact same words, but that’s what we were talking about. So at that meeting I pulled all the other members of the committee that were there aside, you were there, you listened to me ask each of the committee members if this recall action was going to interfere with our ability to do a job, and they all concluded that no, we think we can work, and you said that we’ll keep this separate, and I have to admit during our meetings we have not discussed recall.

Cater: The intent of the letter was not to remove you off the board. That could have been done without a letter. The intent was to make sure that the other volunteers that were on the committee felt comfortable that the time and effort they were spending

Gluvers: Wouldn’t be wasted because we had one member on our panel that was obviously against three quarters of the board. We discussed it, the majority ruled, and we went with it. I have to admit, we have been effective; we have not let politics enter. Those particular politics have not entered into a single meeting at all. I don’t know what else to say. I do not favor the recall. Mary Harris knows that. Darrell knows that. I do not favor the recall. I will not sign a petition. I think it’s the wrong action. I have to grit my teeth not to get into that Rio Linda net and type a big letter. That would involve me in something that I said “hey you can’t be involved in this and be in the rate committee”. And so if Mary Harris has in fact omitted the fact that she is on the rate committee with her other publications maybe that’s exactly what she’s trying to do. And I’m not sticking up for Mary Harris. I do not stick up for Mary Harris. But I do stick up for what is right. And Mary Harris has been right in the fact that she has not allowed the rate committee work to interfere with her recall work, or vice versa. And so, what is is and what was was, and I wish you guys would all just give it up.

Harris: For the record, a recall is not what any of us wanted to do. It was the bashing that we took from Board members, certain Board members, that drove us to where we felt like gee, we’ve gotta do something. When a majority of the people said that 100% is too much,

Gluvers: But they were willing to work with us right along. Right from the get go they were willing. Jay stood here when we were all counting those letters Jay was working right here with us every night until we had all those thousands of letters counted and he was working with us every night figuring out how we could count this one and how we could count that one and …

Harris: Oh, I’m not talking about that part of it  (laughter) but remember when 65 took place when that was presented and we went on to the next phase.

Gluvers: I was hot too.

Harris: You were mad, everybody was. We felt that we weren’t being listened to…

Gluvers: Even that got resolved.

Harris: And when alternative two was adopted

Gluvers: Even that was resolved.

Harris: It affected…

Gluvers: Even that was resolved without a recall. Even the 65% was resolved without a recall, the 50 percent across the board has been resolved without a recall, the plan two has been resolved without a recall, everything has been resolved without a recall and because the recall isn’t here yet.  And yet we have every hope in this world that we can take and put a rate together that will work for this whole entire community and we have done all of this without a recall.

Harris: You don’t think that the recall had anything to do with this?

Gluvers: No. I really don’t.

Harris: They weren’t listening to the committee when we were all in here. That’s the reason that everybody got mad. Everybody got mad when alternative two came out. And it was the recall was acted and then people were ready to listen to the committee. That’s my take on it, that’s my opinion, for whatever it’s worth.

Gluvers: That’s the most I’ve said about recall.

O’Brien: I’d like to comment. Darrell brought something up…Mr. Nelson, is Trend West Resorts a reputable company?

Nelson: (Indicated) yes

O’Brien: My wife received a telephone solicitation from Trend West Resorts at 6:59 PM on July 12, 2001. Trend West Resorts is at 1792 Tribute Road in Sacramento. The fast talker told my wife we were eligible for a free four-day vacation at four different locations, and a free dinner at one of four restaurants. And if you believe this, I'll sell you the Brooklyn Bridge. The caller told my wife we were recommended by Darrell and Sandy Nelson, and asked if Sandy had mentioned this to us!  I understand that Director Wickham also received the same solicitation.

Nelson: Absolutely.

Harris: And I also received the same one.

Nelson: We got paid for including your numbers. That’s a legitimate company. We bought a time-share. And we got a bonus for listing our friends.

O’Brien: Don’t list me again.

Nelson: Are you threatening me?

O’Brien: I merely made a statement.

Nelson: Are you asking me? It would be better if you asked me.

O’Brien: Don’t list me again.

Nelson: Don’t threaten me.

Harris: But do we see the attitude? That’s what we have to deal with. That attitude.
(referring to O'Brien's statement to Nelson)