This is a review of the "grounds for recall" included in the  "NOTICE OF INTENT TO CIRCULATE RECALL PETITION" document prepared and served on Rio Linda/Elverta Community Water District (RLECWD) Director Jay O'Brien. A copy of the "grounds for recall" and my answer follow, both exactly as they will appear on each petition circulated. Each allegation is then addressed.

The errors present in the "grounds for recall" are not corrected, as they must appear on the petition. Click here for a discussion of the errors.
 

The grounds for my recall are to be stated on the petitions as follows:

With all due respect, the customers of the RLECWD are recalling Jay O'Brien for his betrayal of public trust. In 1998 Director O'Brien campaigned to keep water rates at a minimum. After election, he proposed a 100% rate increase. The customers followed the Districts Prop 218 guideline and defeated the proposed 100% across the board increase only to have a larger rate increase illegally passed and implemented. He is part of a dysfunctional board, which passed a rate increase that will approach 200% for our local schools, parks and agricultural customers, devastating their financial situation, leaving the community with dangerously dry fields and fire dangers. Director O'Brien will tell you he voted against alternative two knowing that there were enough votes to pass. He did not attempt to discuss Alternative 1, his 50% across the board increase. Director O'Brien indicated he would push for more increases this year despite customer concerns. The current General Manager indicated a 40% across the board increase would generate enough funds to pay District bills. Capital improvements can be paid from settlement of lawsuits, the FPL project and Elverta Village's revenue. For these reasons we are recalling Director O'Brien.

PLEASE DO NOT SIGN THIS PETITION

The person circulating this petition must allow you to read this statement.

Review http://obri.net first!

You are being asked to create a recall election costing RLECWD’s ratepayers thousands of dollars. This is wasteful.

Proponents claim I betrayed public trust, yet do not provide an example, as there is none.

Proponents incorrectly claim I campaigned in 1998 to minimize rates. My campaign about rates was my desire to eliminate the “STAB” charge, based on a proposed sale of our pipeline. The prior Board instead settled with Northridge before I took my Board seat.

Proponents state “after election” I proposed a 100% rate increase. The fact is that nearly two years after election I agreed with ALL Board members to propose the increase.

Proposition 218 does not apply. However, Proposition 218 procedures were followed and the proposed increase was shelved. As suggested by some of the recall proponents, I moved for a 50% increase. I voted against the increase that was ultimately passed by the Board.

I did not “push for more increases” and will not until the voter’s rate committee completes its work.

DO NOT BE DECEIVED.   The statements by the proponents are not factual.
 

"With all due respect, the customers of the RLECWD are recalling Jay O'Brien for his betrayal of public trust."

It is interesting to note that at least one of the ten proponents of my recall, Charlea R. Moore, is NOT a customer of the RLECWD at her residence. She resides in the district and has a private well.

The proponents do not provide any examples of me "betraying the public trust", because there are none. Rather, this is a personal vendetta against me in retaliation for publicly and successfully repudiating previous untruthful allegations made by recall proponents Moore and Mary Harris that I had "betrayed the public trust" and violated the Brown act. I am truthful and work to be credible. The proponents of my recall seem to have no concern for either truth or credibility. Please click here to review their previous allegations.  Be sure to review all of the referenced emails sent by Moore and Harris.

"In 1998 Director O'Brien campaigned to keep water rates at a minimum."

This is not a truthful statement. My campaign statement (click here to see my 1998 mailer) about rates was conditional on the sale of the pipeline to Arcade, and wished to eliminate the "STAB" charge and prevent rate increases related to the pipeline. My campaign statement was as follows:

Northridge sold us a bill of goods.  They have now raised the cost to $6 million! Our Water District is now in the process of suing Northridge. Once the suits were filed, Northridge, through LAFCO, even tried to silence us by taking over our Water District! Firm support and direction by the Water Board Directors is critical at this time.

The good news is that we are negotiating with Arcade Water District.  Arcade may buy our district's interest in the pipeline, which they could use to their advantage.  If we win the lawsuits and/or sell to Arcade, the present $5 rate stabilization (STAB) charge on water bills can be reduced or eliminated.  If we aren't successful, water rates could increase up to $120/yr to pay for the bad decision made in 1994. I support the ongoing negotiations with Arcade and I will work to make them successful.

Instead, the previous Board settled with Northridge, accepting a $3 Million check, which was not enough to pay off the debt and eliminate the STAB charge.

I also provided a shortened statement to the League of Women Voters on the subject (click here to see smartVoter profile) which, under the "Top Priorities" heading "Pipeline Debt", hoped for a $6M sale to Arcade, which could have reduced the pipeline related "STAB" charge and could have prevented future pipeline debt related rate increases.

In no case did I "campaign to keep water rates at a minimum", as I was not, at that time, knowledgeable of the components of "water rates" (other than the pipeline debt) and I did not make any commitments I did not understand.

"After election, he proposed a 100% rate increase."

This implies that immediately after my election, "I" individually proposed a 100% rate increase. The fact is that in August 2000, nearly two years after my election, ALL Board members agreed that a 100% increase was needed, and we agreed to follow the intent of Proposition 218. We notified the ratepayers, but unfortunately we ceased our public information effort and the ratepayers were not informed of the deliberations we had undertaken or the full reasons for the increase.

We ceased our public information effort because Director Blanchard publicly stated such would be "sabotage" to his re-election effort. Director Blanchard said, with reference to the initiation of monthly billing coincident with the proposed increase, "I think it's a good idea because I think that for the most part, that number, if it's consistent with what they are used to seeing, is going to be very palatable. And I think that the fact that we are doing it twice as often, is hardly going to be recognized by the average person out there". Note that Director Blanchard has NOT been served with an intent to recall, so his position, as he stated, is apparently ok with the recall proponents.

There were not enough VALID protests received to stop the increase using Proposition 218 guidelines, but we, as a Board, accepted the protests as adequate as if enough had been received. We then, working together as a Board of Directors, initiated a citizens rate committee and established interim rates that, when implemented, will provide income equal to only half of the original 100% proposal.

"The customers followed the Districts Prop 218 guideline and defeated the proposed 100% across the board increase only to have a larger rate increase illegally passed and implemented."

On the contrary, the customers, as led by recall proponents Mary Harris, Darrell Nelson and Charlea Moore, did NOT follow the guidelines. The notice of proposed increases included the requirements for the following on each protest:

(1) the customer's name and account number;
(2) street address or assessor's parcel number of the property receiving water service;
(3) statement of protest against the rate increase; and
(4) the customer's original signature (no photocopies.)
Only one protest per account will be accepted.

Harris, Nelson and Moore did not follow the guidelines as detailed in the notice. Most of the protests did not include the account number, as required, many protests were obtained from people who are not customers of RLECWD and many protests were received from different individuals on the same account. The Board of Directors, working together, agreed to allow a committee to attempt to fill in the missing data on the otherwise invalid petitions, and, ultimately, even though the number of petitions fell short of the required "majority of customers", the Board accepted the protests as if they met the guidelines.

I did not support the rate structure that was passed. However, as a rate structure that rewards conservation, it does shift some of the burden to the larger users, as suggested by the recall proponents. It was NOT passed illegally, and the proponents do not cite specifics of the alleged illegality. Why am I to be recalled, when I did not support the increase that was enacted?
 

The Board, over the past two years, has evaluated the financial needs of the District and how to get revenue to satisfy those needs, i.e. rate increases. The current rate setting activity is the result of this work. This has all been done in public, and we have worked together to involve the community. In recent months we have received public input and established the rate committee. We feel this is good leadership.

The Board is NOT "dysfunctional". In fact, the Board has bent over backwards to attempt to work with recall proponents Harris, Nelson, Moore and with others, only to be rebuffed by those whom we sought to provide input to our deliberations. Mr. Nelson accepted chairmanship of the Citizens rate committee, then was too busy to call a meeting. On March 26, 2001, the Board did not support Mr. Nelson's proposed rate plan that favored high volume users. Subsequently, Mr. Nelson resigned in a huff, reneging on his commitment to the community.

The proponents of recall rely on scare tactics, threatening fires and financial ruin. The facts are otherwise. Those large users who implement conservation programs and water budgets will not see the increases identified by the proponents. The proponents would prefer that ALL users subsidize the small number of customers who use large amounts of water.

What is curious here is that I was in the minority of this issue, actually supporting the rate structure promulgated by the recall proponents. And my vote was with them because of the integrity I felt we needed to show to the community.

"Director O'Brien will tell you he voted against alternative two knowing that there were enough votes to pass."

Of course I "voted against alternative two knowing that there were enough votes to pass". What would the proponents have me do, change my vote to go along with the majority even if I disagree? And, especially, since I was voting in a manner supported by the recall proponents? This allegation makes no sense at all. A motion was made during the March 26, 2001 Board meeting by another Director to enact alternative 2, which I did not support. I voted against it, as I felt it was not what we had committed to the ratepayers. I stated such when I cast my dissenting vote. I was in the minority and alternative 2 passed. I "voted your way". How is that "wrong?"  Recall proponent Darrell Nelson asserts I raised his rate 154%; his statement is not factual.

I prepared a report on March 28, 2001, to my constituents about my vote. I posted my report on the web, and I announced it on the Rio Linda Elverta Mailing List and in the Rio Linda Elverta News. The report also describes the rate setting process and the Board's problems, some of them with those who now propose my recall.

My report refers to an ad hoc petition counting committee member who falsely accused me of "violating the public trust". I chose to not identify that committee member in my report. That committee member was Mary Harris, one who would now recall me.

My report refers to the Committee Chair of the rate committee who did not do his job and who appeared to violate the Brown Act. I chose to not identify that committee member in my report. That committee member was Darrell Nelson, one who would now recall me.

Please click here to read my report and the announcement of my report.

"He did not attempt to discuss Alternative 1, his 50% across the board increase."

This allegation also makes no sense. I voted against alternative 2, yet it passed. I stated my reason for voting against alternative 2. Once Alternative 2 passed, by a 3 to 2 vote, with Director Blanchard joining me in the minority, what would the proponents of this recall have had me do?

This is a completely untruthful statement. I have expressed support for the citizens rate committee and stated that I would first hear their recommendation before taking any position. I have not conditioned my position to "this year" or any other year.

"The current General Manager indicated a 40% across the board increase would generate enough funds to pay District bills."

That is a true statement, conditioned on nothing unexpected happening, such as the failure of a well. It does not cover the capital expenses for additional wells and does not cover costs of pipeline relocations necessary when the County decides to perform road work (the widening of Elkhorn cost the District a half-million dollars, not reimbursed by anyone). It does not pay back the costs of the Elkhorn widening project, restoring the needed contingency reserve. How does this statement relate to recalling me from my Board position?

"Capital improvements can be paid from settlement of lawsuits, the FPL project and Elverta Village's revenue."

This is only a partially true statement. If the District wins the outstanding lawsuit against Boyle Engineering, that money will help to offset the pipeline debt which must be repaid in the future; in the meantime, if received, after paying legal expenses, it can be used to cover some necessary capital improvements. The FPL project will pay for capital improvements necessary to serve FPL, not the eastern part of the District where improvements are necessary. The Elverta Specific Plan development will pay for it's own requirements, not for improvements necessary for the remainder of the District. How does this statement relate to recalling me from my Board position?

For what reasons? The only reasons I can find for being recalled are insubstantial allegations directed at me personally and not connected with any actual votes I have cast or not cast as a Director. I pride myself on my honesty, truthfulness and credibility, something that seems lacking from those who prepared the statement of intent to recall me.

Please do not sign or circulate a recall petition. The statements by the proponents are not factual; if you sign you will be aiding a personal vendetta that will cost everyone, including the Water District, time and money.