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 Mel Griffin. 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 customer of RLECWD are recalling Mel Griffin. The district has been operating at a financial loss since 1995. Director Griffin has shown repeatedly that he is interested only in personal gain. He took no steps to implement reasonable rate increases knowing that the district was operating at a loss. He voted to spend 5 million dollars for a dry pipeline, consulting fees, attorney fees and huge salary increases for the District employees. Director Griffin supported the rate increase knowing that it violated the intent of Prop 218. A majority of ratepayers defeated the 100% proposal only to have a larger rate increase illegally passed and implemented. He is a 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 leaving the community with dry fields and fire danger. Director Griffin indicated he would push for more increases within the next 6 months. The current General Manager indicated that a 40%

PLEASE DO NOT SIGN THIS PETITION!

Please note that the proponents of this recall effort have made unsupported statements and unsubstantiated accusations. If, as alleged, the Water District is operating at a loss there is a need to raise rates. The increasing Water District costs require a rate increase. I have suggested rate increases in past years. The proponents are opposed to an equitable rate increase which will require them to pay for what they use. Where is the personal gain for a person who has worked for their community for over 25 years as President of the Chamber, Lions, CPAC, an Incorporation effort, Save the Fire Dist. Committee, a PTA and SITE Council, on the High School Booster Club, appeared before the Board of Supervisors, LAFCO, and the Planning Commission at personal cost and time, before being elected to the Water Board? Is it wrong to want to keep the community viable and strong? The Water District is not required to comply with Prop. 218 but chose to have community input. Is that dysfunctional or representative leadership? Employee salaries are on the low competitive scale. Expert consultants are few.

PLEASE DO NOT SIGN THIS PETITION!
 
 

"With all due respect, the customer of RLECWD are recalling Mel Griffin."

The proponents have not defined why they wish to recall me. They have only made unsubstantiated allegations and accusations.

That is not factual.  If, as alleged, the Water District is operating at a loss there is a need to raise rates.

What personal gain is there in serving your community other than satisfaction?

During my tenure on the Board, I have brought up the need for rate increases three times. There was not support on the Board to initiate a study, and we could not do rate increases without adequate information.

Yes, I made the motion for the pipeline in 1994. From the information we were given, it appeared to be the best decision at the time. Unfortunately, the advice we received was defective. Public agencies need professional legal advice, and the Water District is a public agency. Employee salaries are on the low competitive scale.

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.

This is an incorrect statement not supported by fact.

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 finical 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.

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.

This is an incomplete sentence to which I cannot respond. As this is such an obvious error, and as the conventional "For these reasons we are recalling Director..." was also omitted, I must wonder if the ten people who signed my recall notice actually read what they were signing. If they were coerced into signing without reading, they have signed under false pretenses.

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