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 Jerry Wickham. 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 RLECWD are recalling Jerry Wickham for his unprofessional, arrogant and extreme rudeness in dealing with the public regarding public debate of rate increases for our locally owned water district. Director Wickham campaigned on the promise that he was looking out for the ratepayers interest and for what the ratepayers wanted. Director Wickham supported the rate increase knowing that it violated the intent of prop 218 and the will of the ratepayer who defeated the 100% proposal 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 this community with dry fields and fire dangers. Director Wickham indicated he would push for more increases within the next 6 months. 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. Capital improvements can be paid for from the settlement of lawsuits, the FPL project and revenue from Elverta Village. For these reasons we are recalling Director Wickham

PLEASE DO NOT SIGN THIS PETITION. DON'T BE DECEIVED BY WATER WASTERS!

I am looking out for ratepayer interests. I promised this when reelected last November by the highest number of votes ever received by a Water Board member. Recall proponents admit we needed a rate increase but wanted most of you to pay for others high water usage. Proponents said in public meetings that low and average volume water users should pay the same increase as water wasters! They told us to adopt a 50% across-the-board rate increase. Instead, the Board adopted my rate plan to generate the needed revenue increase; under my plan most District customers will see an annual increase of less than 50% while the water wasters would see higher increases. We included "water budget" provisions for legitimate extremely high volume users who conform to accepted conservation practices (particularly schools, parks, industry, agriculture, gardeners). That wasn't good enough for proponents.

Please know that election laws do not protect me or you from deception. I believe it would be unfair for most of our customers to pay for the few water wasters. Tell them to quit wasting water! Don't support this recall!
 
 

"With all due respect, The customers of RLECWD are recalling Jerry Wickham for his unprofessional, arrogant and extreme rudeness in dealing with the public regarding public debate of rate increases for our locally owned water district."

The proponents appear to be referring to the March 26, 2001 Board meeting where Darrell Nelson and Mary Harris were argumentative and arrogant in their presentation to the Board. This can be reviewed on the video tape.

"Director Wickham campaigned on the promise that he was looking out for the ratepayers interest and for what the ratepayers wanted."
 

Since 1994, I have fought for a fair rate increase that will benefit the lower volume user. I'm proud to announce that on March 26, 2001, the Board passed a conservation/lifeline rate that will directly benefit 78% of our customers.

"Director Wickham supported the rate increase knowing that it violated the intent of prop 218 and the will of the ratepayer who defeated the 100% proposal only to have a larger rate increase illegally passed and implemented."
 

This is an unsubstantiated accusation. The water District is not compelled to follow Proposition 218. We applied the intent of Proposition 218 so as to get community input.

"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 this community with dry fields and fire dangers."

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.

"Director Wickham indicated he would push for more increases within the next 6 months."
 

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 any period of time.

"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."
 

A 40% across the board what? How could ten signers of the recall notice served on me all miss the important word "increase"?  Did they actually read what they were handed to sign, or were they coerced to sign without reading the legal document to which they attested?

Please don't add to their error by circulating or signing a flawed and error-filled recall petition.

I will answer their statement as if it read "40% across the board increase":

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 for from the settlement of lawsuits, the FPL project and revenue from Elverta Village."
 

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 these reasons we are recalling Director Wickham"
 

The rate structure I proposed that was implemented benefits 78% of the water users. The proponents' proposal benefits only the 22% who are the highest users of water. Do the proponents of this recall claim to represent the majority of the ratepayers? Do they represent you?