[Letter to the News,
published 6/14/01 in the Rio Linda Elverta News]
5/26/01 email "Response to
Jay" from Nelson
5/29/01 email "Response to
'LIAR' thread, recall attempt" from O'Brien (40 items)
6/08/01 email "response to
Jay's and Jerry's misinformation" from Nelson (Who cares anyway?)
6/14/01 RL News from Nelson
(includes editors notes)
6/21/01 RL News response to
Nelson from Griffin, O'Brien, Wickham
6/29/01 email "Board Member
and Newspaper Owner Behavior"
7/05/01 RL News
response to Nelson from O'Brien on personal attack, Grant Reorganization
7/13/01 email response to
Nelson's 6/29/01 email, link to Postmaster correspondence
7/19/01 RL News Editor's note
to Nelson
7/26/01 RL News from Nelson
Grant Reorganization: Is
Nelson involved?
click here to see
Subject: [RL] Response to
Jay
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 2:49 PM PDT
From: Oneputt800@aol.com
To: riolinda@vrx.net
Jay, There is no need to turn this into personal attacks of one another. Many of your constituents are not happy with the fact that after lengthy debates and a compromise deal worked out between the board and the ratepayers was not followed through properly. We shook hands that night and then low and behold you board members turned on us. From what I gathered it was greed on the Districts part when the Power Plant come in to play. Someone at the board meeting used extort. Oh yea, that was the lawyer that you guys hired for 61 thousand dollars. The new 1 dollar per 100 cubic feet. For fun, have Mike run those numbers on the power plants usage and post them on this net. Do you think for one minute that they are going to pay anywhere near that amount? When you ran for office you wrote on your voter information that you would reduce the "STAB" charge and prevent future rate increases. I can post that page if you would like. Not only did you not keep this promise, you proposed a 100% increase that the ratepayers defeated under prop 218. You made a 50% across the board rate increase motion, shook our hands and then let others slip Mikes proposal in illegally that raised revenue 50%. The Districts own recap now shows it at 54% but who cares about even a 4% issue. Our rates are projected to be 154%. We had a deal and for not keeping your end of the deal you are being recalled. Other folks have there own reasons but that is mine. You are the one who interpreted the video for the rest of the board. Shame on them for not watching it themselves, but shame on you for your interpretation. We have been to enough board meetings to know the laws on motions. A motion is a motion and not the previous 20 minutes of discussion leading up to the motion. You board members knew that we could not afford a lawyer to fight this so a recall is the answer. The proponents are not the problem as you suggest, we are your constituents and we trusted you. No need to attack me or my family because we are not candidates for this board. My passion is at the High School where I can make a positive change in today's youth. If you choose to continue on this approach you will leave me no choice but to come forward with all of the information that has been pouring into me about the Water District and it's operations. You talk to the folks and ask them if they want this info to come out into open? As for me serving you. I was asked to facilitate the process because I had just gone through the process with the school board and I have the documents on my computer. You board members have lost touch with your community and starting serving your own personal needs. Have you forgotten that this is partly a rural town with homes in the middle of large fields? Is it fair to call us water wasters when we chose to place green grass around the perimeter of our houses to prevent total disaster from a fire? Is it too much to ask to be allowed to have the kids play on green grass at school and in the parks? I guess in the end it was. Let's try to get though this process with some dignity and professionalism. Darrell
>From the Rio Linda mailing list
Mr. Nelson,
Thank you for responding for your wife in this matter. You did not address the issue of Mrs. Nelson asserting that I am a liar, however. This entire "liar" correspondence thread may be reviewed at http://obri.net/recall/liar.html .
I will attempt to reply to your one paragraph message quoted below.
Thank you for raising all these issues, and thank you for answering some questions I didn't ask; I believe it is appropriate for everyone to view the opposing viewpoints and logic, if there is any, on the subjects you identified. As you have covered many items in your single paragraph, I will number my replies to attempt to interject some clarity.
I will repeat your 593 word run on intact. My numbered replies then follow, interspersed with your statements.
Jay O'Brien
Further information: http://obri.net/recall
Subject: [RL] Response to Jay
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 17:49:39 EDT
From: Oneputt800@aol.com
To: riolinda@vrx.net
Jay, There is no need to turn this into personal
attacks of one another. Many of your constituents are not happy with
the fact that after lengthy debates and a compromise deal worked out
between the board and the ratepayers was not followed through properly.
We shook hands that night and then low and behold you board members
turned on us. From what I gathered it was greed on the Districts part
when the Power Plant come in to play. Someone at the board meeting used
extort. Oh yea, that was the lawyer that you guys hired for 61 thousand
dollars. The new 1 dollar per 100 cubic feet. For fun, have Mike run
those numbers on the power plants usage and post them on this net. Do
you think for one minute that they are going to pay anywhere near that
amount? When you ran for office you wrote on your voter information
that you would reduce the "STAB" charge and prevent future rate
increases. I can post that page if you would like. Not only did you not
keep this promise, you proposed a 100% increase that the ratepayers
defeated under prop 218. You made a 50% across the board rate increase
motion, shook our hands and then let others slip Mikes proposal in
illegally that raised revenue 50%. The Districts own recap now shows it
at 54% but who cares about even a 4% issue. Our rates are projected to
be 154%. We had a deal and for not keeping your end of the deal you are
being recalled. Other folks have there own reasons but that is mine.
You are the one who interpreted the video for the rest of the board.
Shame on them for not watching it themselves, but shame on you for your
interpretation. We have been to enough board meetings to know the laws
on motions. A motion is a motion and not the previous 20 minutes of
discussion leading up to the motion. You board members knew that we
could not afford a lawyer to fight this so a recall is the answer. The
proponents are not the problem as you suggest, we are your constituents
and we trusted you. No need to attack me or my family because we are
not candidates for this board. My passion is at the High School where I
can make a positive change in today's youth. If you choose to continue
on this approach you will leave me no choice but to come forward with
all of the information that has been pouring into me about the Water
District and it's operations. You talk to the folks and ask them if
they want this info to come out into open? As for me serving you. I was
asked to facilitate the process because I had just gone through the
process with the school board and I have the
documents on my computer. You board members
have lost touch with your community and starting serving your own
personal needs. Have you forgotten that this is partly a rural town
with homes in the middle of large fields? Is it fair to call us water
wasters when we chose to place green grass around the perimeter of our
houses to prevent total disaster from a fire? Is it too much to ask to
be allowed to have the kids play on green grass at school and in the
parks? I guess in the end it was. Let's try to get though this process
with some dignity and professionalism. Darrell
[For clarity, the responses below from Jay O'Brien
are numbered]
Jay, There is no need to turn this into personal attacks of one another.
1. I agree, so why are you and your wife mounting the
attacks? I was merely responding to your wife calling me a liar without
specific citations and using as an example the fact that you had
asserted, in the recall notice you served on me, that I was "violating
the public trust", also without providing any specific citations. The
"liar" correspondence thread that was initiated by your wife may be
viewed at http://obri.net/recall/liar.html.
Many of your constituents are not happy with the fact that after lengthy debates and a compromise deal worked out between the board and the ratepayers was not followed through properly.2. Exactly what was the "compromise deal" you cite as being "worked out"? Where is it documented, and when was it "worked out"? Who made the motion, who seconded it, and what were the votes? What are you identifying as "debates?"
We shook hands that night3. Sorry, but I don't remember shaking your hand "that night" or any other night at a RLECWD Board meeting. Which night do you reference? If I shook your hand it certainly was not to certify any "deal" made with you by the Board, as that would be recorded with a motion.
and then low and behold4. That's "lo and behold", not "low and behold".
you board members turned on us.5. Exactly how did I "turn on you"? Without an executed contract, how is that possible? You wanted 50% across the board, and that was my motion.You didn't want alternative 2, and I voted against it. Exactly what Board action taken by me are you identifying as "turning" on you?
From what I gathered it was greed on the Districts part when the Power Plant come in to play.6. As to greed, exactly how do you propose that we Directors could benefit from the Power Plant?
Someone at the board meeting used extort. Oh yea,7. The word is "yeah", not "yea". "Yea" is a voting response.
that was the lawyer that you guys hired for 61 thousand dollars. The new 1 dollar per 100 cubic feet. For fun, have Mike run those numbers on the power plants usage and post them on this net. Do you think for one minute that they are going to pay anywhere near that amount?8. I don't understand the connection between personal attacks, your attempt to recall me and the law firm hired to represent the District. You are off subject. I have not reached a conclusion about what FPL would or would not pay. That is exactly why the Water District hired the attorney.
When you ran for office you wrote on your voter information that you would reduce the "STAB" charge and prevent future rate increases.9. When I ran for office I stated that one of my top priorities was the Pipeline debt; I strongly supported the then potential sale of the $6M pipeline to Arcade, which if implemented, potentially would reduce the "STAB" fund and prevent future pipeline debt related rate increases. My campaign mailer is posted at http://obri.net/recall/1998Mailer.html and the shortened statement I provided to the League of Women Voters is still on line for review: http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/smartvoter/1998nov/ca/sac/vote/obrien_j/ . The smartvoter statement is clearly identified as part of my "Pipeline debt" priority. The sale did not come to fruition; instead, the Board, before I took office, settled with Northridge for $3M, which was not enough to pay off the debt and eliminate the STAB charge.
I can post that page if you would like.10. Please post the page you quote. I would like to see what it is you have that will, without taking it out of context, show any campaign "promise" I made about rates that was not related to the pipeline debt and the proposed sale of the pipeline that was preempted before I took office.
Not only did you not keep this promise,11. I don't recall any such "promise". Please provide facts. I stated my priorities, but I am not aware of any "promises" as applied to rate increases.
you proposed a 100% increase that the ratepayers defeated under prop 218.12. The entire Board proposed the increase, not only me. Proposition 218 does not apply. If it did, and Proposition 218 was followed to the letter, there were not enough legally VALID protests; however, as Proposition 218 was only being used as an example, the Board accepted the protests as if they had qualified. Nothing was "defeated". Review http://obri.net/rl/1022617.html for the committee report of the count. See also http://obri.net/rl/ratestory.html for my opposing view of the rate story up through the counting of the petitions.
You made a 50% across the board rate increase motion, shook our hands13. Wrong. I made a 65% motion at the March 5th board meeting, and Jerry's alternative 2 was added to the 65% motion. It was later modified to 50% and then it passed. There was NO handshake with you at that meeting, before or after alternative 2 was added to the motion.
and then let others slip Mikes proposal in14. I accept culpability for not understanding Jerry's second to my motion. I discussed that in detail in March. See http://obri.net/rl/March26.html for the full story. Mr. Nelson, you were sitting about five feet from me during the entire time the motion was under discussion. If something was "slipped in", then weren't you, also, duped? Nothing was purposefully "slipped in". You and I (and even Board President Doug Cater, for that matter) did not understand the motion that Jerry seconded and modified. It is all on the video tape. Jerry is right, even though I did not support his proposal.
illegally that raised revenue 50%.15. Please cite the statute that you claim was broken by the action you describe. "Illegally" is a strong accusation. Please back up your statement.
The Districts own recap now shows it at 54% but who cares about even a 4% issue. Our rates are projected to be 154%.16. Please remember I voted against the alternative that was selected by the Board, as I felt it went against our commitment to the rate committee, from which which you resigned after reneging on your duties as chair of that committee. I voted your way, yet your recall statement chides me for my vote!
16a. And on the subject of you, as chair, resigning from the rate committee: Perhaps you are upset that I complained about you not taking any action to call the first meeting, not even delegating that task to another committee member as any good manager would do? Perhaps you are upset that I complained about your statement to the Board that you had met privately with Bill Shepherd, another committee member, and prepared a rate structure for the committee to approve? Perhaps you are upset that I called attention to the potential of Brown Act violation by you if any other member of the committee had participated in that discussion, given that no committee meetings had taken place? Perhaps my calling attention to these facts is the reason you have a personal vendetta against me? By the way, the "mission statement" you claimed to not receive as chairman was read to you at the March 5 meeting. You are on camera on the video tape watching the screen while that was presented to all of us by the District's financial consultant, Bob Reed. Didn't you listen?
We had a deal and for not keeping your end of the deal you are being recalled.17. Again, please provide a copy of the "deal" you keep quoting. The one that I "didn't keep", and for not keeping it I'm being recalled. Please remember, the Board can't "make a deal" that isn't a motion and recorded.
other folks have there18. The word is "their", not "there".
own reasons but that is mine.19. I don't find your reason in the recall paper you served on me. Perhaps it would have been more correct to say that you are recalling two people because they voted for alternative 2, and you are recalling me because you don't like the way I part my hair? Given that you aren't attempting to recall the third Director, Doug Cater, who didn't "keep a deal" and voted against you, such a statement would be much more plausible. After all, you can recall someone just because you don't like them. Such a statement would make more sense than what you have placed in your notice to recall me.
You are the one who interpreted the video for the rest of the board.20. I interpreted the video for myself, and shared my findings.
Shame on them for not watching it themselves,21. How do you know who watched it and who didn't watch it?
but shame on you for your interpretation.22. Now, who is personalizing? I covered this in my March 26 memo. See item 14 above. Jerry, who seconded my motion, clearly included his alternative. I did not understand that at the time, but confirmed it by reviewing the video tape. Jerry was right, I was wrong.
We have been to enough board meetings to know the laws
23. I suggest that board meetings are not the right
place to learn laws. Law libraries or law schools are the places to
learn laws.
on motions.24. Please cite the code sections of the "laws on motions" to which you refer.
A motion is a motion and not the previous 20 minutes of discussion leading up to the motion.25. Here you are flat wrong. A motion was made and was under discussion. The motion was on the floor and all discussion until a vote is taken, until the motion is withdrawn, or until the motion is tabled, is part of the debate of the instant motion. The motion was made for 65%, and Jerry added his alternative when he seconded the motion. Twenty-four minutes later, Jerry asked me to change the 65% to 50%. I did so. Jerry's second was conditioned on his original modification. Unfortunately, I didn't understand the changes Jerry made when he seconded the original motion, and I needed to review the video tape later to see what had transpired.
You board members knew that we could not afford a lawyer to fight this so a recall is the answer.26. Interesting supposition on your part, that we Board members are in any way concerned about your financial status.
The proponents are not the problem as you suggest,27. Please be sure to read my web page. At least three of the proponents, including you, have a personal vendetta to satisfy. Please review http://obri.net/recall .
we are your constituents and we trusted you.28. Thank you.
No need to attack me or my family29. Where and when did I attack you or your family? I am the one being attacked, by you and your family. You are not being attacked by me. I am merely responding to your attacks.
because we are not candidates for this board.30. Does this mean that IF you were candidates, then you would be subject to attack? I don't understand the meaning of this phrase, sorry. What you may not understand is that by signing the recall notice, you are now a public figure, and in the context of the recall, you are subject to the same review and criticism as am I, as a public official.
My passion is at the High School where I can make a positive change in today's youth.31. A noble desire. You are to be commended for your passion. Students can certainly benefit from adequate education, especially in the areas of spelling, sentence structure and english composition.
If you choose to continue on this approach you will leave me no choice but to come forward with all of the information that has been pouring into me about the Water District and it's operations.32. That is clearly a threat and an attempt to intimidate a public official. However, I wish you would carry it out. I am very tired of your innuendoes and threats like the above. If there are problems, please get them out in the open so they can be addressed.
You talk to the folks and ask them if they want this info to come out into open?33. Without specifics, I don't know who to talk to or what to ask "them". If there are problems, it is my job as a Board member to see that they are mitigated. If there is a problem that should be addressed, and if you know about it and you do nothing except attempt to intimidate and make threats, you are indeed part of the problem, whatever it is.
As for me serving you. I was asked to facilitate the process because I had just gone through the process with the school board and I have the documents on my computer.34. Aha! I wondered who authored the documents and whether or not a computer was involved in any way. Thank you for clearing that up.
You board members have lost touch with your community and starting35. That's "started", not "starting".
serving your own personal needs.36. Please provide a specific citation of how I am serving my own personal needs. This is a serious accusation. Indeed you are impugning my personal values and standards, and I demand facts, not additional innuendoes.
Have you forgotten that this is partly a rural town with homes in the middle of large fields?37. No.
Is it fair to call us water wasters when we chose to place green grass around the perimeter of our houses to prevent total disaster from a fire?38. When were you called water wasters? I certainly didn't make that statement. If it was made by someone else, don't blame me for it. Are you are a water waster? I don't know.
Is it too much to ask to be allowed to have the kids play on green grass at school and in the parks? I guess in the end it was.39. I don't understand your apparent conclusion that the grass won't be green at school and in the parks. Please provide facts, not suppositions.
Let's try to get though this process with some dignity and professionalism.40. I agree. But you really need to fix your computer. It made a lot of mistakes.
40a. Thank you for responding for your wife. You did not address the issue I raised with her, however. Your wife still owes me an apology for calling me a liar. See http://obri.net/recall/liar.html . I am offended by her statement.
/end/
>From the Rio Linda mailing list
Jay, please get the facts before you throw my name
on the net or the newspaper. You act like your the
only smart guy in this whole damn town. Got news for you, your not. We were not all born writers like
yourself but we manage to get by somehow. We are all very busy and
don't have endless hours to proofread and check every word and every
punctuation mark. Who cares anyway?
You wrote
that the same people who would recall the Grant Trustees have turned
their guns on three of the Water Board Directors. They are not all the same people.
You wrote
that I authored the recall notices. Wrong again! I told you that I was the facilitator. I did not mention that I typed anything. I didn't even
make the copies. Please be careful when using peoples names in this
manner. You mentioned that
the school board had to be served twice. You are correct with this one
except that I was not involved with the first one. I felt sorry for
Caron and helped her with the forms. She asked me and that is how I got
involved. She served the School Board.
You
mentioned that I served you with documents filled with errors. I
believe that the author left the end off of Mel's. There may also be
some other punctuation and incorrect wording but that's OK. Ratepayers
will get the message soon enough. Again I am not the author.
You wrote
50k for the election. I will verify this next week when I pick up
the petitions to begin circulating.
Is it worth $12.50 for me to recall you?
Hell yes, you raised my rate 154% this
time. Who knows how much next time?
There are other things being said and I
will get to those responses when the time is right.
As for Jerry's misinformation.
Jerry is spreading
misinformation in the form of a sheet
of paper that states: "The board passed a conservation/lifeline
rate that will directly benefit 78% of our customers" I have in my possession a 5 year
analysis issued by the Water District or their consultant that
shows that most of the money comes from the customers with 5/8" meters.
I know from previous data that 22% of the
customers are 1" and larger. The 5/8" meter users are socked as
well as the big users just not at the 154% rate. You folks should know
that of the $569,538 new revenue generated by this lifeline and
conservation method that $339,788 comes from customers with 5/8"
meters. You
can do the math.
Also for Jerry, you should be happy to
know that I am killing off some 6000 square feet of lawn. I am
shrinking the greenbelt around my house. We live in the middle of a
field and I can only hope the fire season does not get us. Of course
this is my decision to cut back and not yours but the 154% increase
helped me to decide.
To all board members, the rate increase that you passed
on to the ratepayers is not a fair one considering that we live in a
partly rural area with farmlands and customers who were forced onto the
system when McClellan got caught polluting the water. I am not one of
the folks but you really stuck it to them. And what about the Parks,
Elverta and Rio Linda Schools Districts? Last week I asked for someone
to do the math on the power plant usage at $1.00 per 100 cubic feet and
nobody responded. Please post those numbers on the net for everyone to
see what you guys were thinking when you changed from a 50% across the
board to this new scheme that hits the higher users. You smaller
customers should know that your free baseline has been lowered to 900 from 1800. I will
never tell anyone to sign or not sign the recall petition like the
board members have done. Once you see the data or see your bill in 2
months you will decide for yourself. You should also know that new
increases are being looked at by this same board. They made it clear
that 145% across the board was needed and they won't stop until they
get there. The only thing that has changed is that they dropped the
across the board part. One could only hope that the rates do not go up
at the ratio of the last rate increase.
Darrell
>From the Rio Linda mailing list
[Letter to the News,
published 6/14/01 in the Rio Linda Elverta News]
Letter to the editor:
Don, please print my reply in your newspaper so that I am given the opportunity to clear my name with the readers of this newspaper. Misinformation: Jay, please get the facts before you throw my name on the net or the Newspaper. You wrote that the same people who would recall the Grant Trustees have turned their guns on three of the Water Board Directors. It is a documented fact that they are not all the same people. You wrote that I authored the recall notices. I told you that I was the facilitator and never did I mention that I typed anything. I didn't even make a single copy of the documents. Please be careful when using my name in this manner. You mentioned that the School Board had to be served twice. You are correct with this one except that I was not involved with the first one. I felt sorry for Caron and helped her with the recall forms. She asked me for help and that is how I got involved. She is the person who served the School Board. You mentioned that I served you with documents filled with errors. I believe that the author left the end off of Mel's notice. There may also be some other punctuation and incorrect wording but that's OK. Again I am not the author. You are telling ratepayers that your consultant Bob Reed worked on other water rate studies. This is true but what you have failed to mention is the fact that you did not use any of his rate structures. After paying him all of the money you and the board did not use his expertise. As for Jerry's misinformation being circulated. Jerry is spreading misinformation in the form of a sheet of paper that states: "The board passed a conservation/lifeline rate that will directly benefit 78% of our customers" I have in my possession a 5 year analysis issued by the Water District or their consultant that shows that most of the money comes from the customers with 5/8" meters. I know from previous data that 22% of the customers are 1" and larger. The 5/8" meter users are socked as well as the big users just not at the 154% rate. Ratepayers should know that of the $569,538 new revenue generated by this lifeline and conservation method that $339,788 comes from customers with 5/8" meters. To all board members, the rate increase that you passed on to the ratepayers is not a fair one considering that Rio Linda is a partly rural area with farmlands and customers who were forced onto the system when McClellan got caught polluting the water. And what about the Parks, Elverta and Rio Linda Schools Districts? Last week I asked for someone to do the math on the power plant usage at $1.00 per 100 cubic feet and nobody responded. Please print those numbers in this newspaper for everyone to see what you guys were thinking when you changed from a 50% across the board to this new scheme that hits the higher users. You smaller customers should know that your free baseline hasc been lowered to 900 from 1800 cubic feet. I will never tell anyone to sign or not sign the recall petition like the board members have done. Once you see the data or see your bill in 2 months you can decide for yourself. You should also be aware that new increases are being looked at by this same board. They made it clear that 145% across the board was needed and they won't stop until they get there. The only thing that has changed is that they dropped the across the board part. One could only hope that the rates do not go up at the same ratio of the last rate increase. I was asked to get involved in this recall in the middle of several things going on in our community and have put countless hours into our High School where I feel we have a wonderful opportunity to improve our children's education. I am asking Jay to stop attacking me in public because it appears to be causing damage to the volunteer base working on the Grant High School District Reorganization Project. He has my phone number.
As to the reference that O'Brien is attacking you in public and is causing damage to the Grant District reorganization, you must realize that you and those trying to recall the Water Board Directors have created a situation because of timing and the selection of the Water Board Members you are trying to recall is illogical. If for any reason the reorganization should fail, you cannot blame it on Mr. O'Brien. He didn't instigate the problem.
As for the misinformation you attribute to Gerald Wickham, he didn't state how much who paid. He stated that the rate will benefit 78% of the Water District's customers.
If you disagree with any of
the Editor note, I will be glad to discuss it with you either in person
or by phone. You do know the number.]
|
|
Don,
Please print this response to Mr. Nelson. As you can see, we opted to not respond to the multiple subjects in his run on. We chose to reply to only the two new issues he has raised. I count 23 different subjects in his one paragraph!
Jay
Mr. Nelson,
Thank you for responding to our letter, titled "RECALL THE WATER BOARD", published in the June 7 Rio Linda Elverta News.
Your letter, published in the June 14 News, raises two new issues that were not addressed in our letter or that have not been addressed in detail on our web site. Please visit http://obri.net/recall for a repeat of the previously addressed items.
You assert that we did not use any recommendations from our rate consultant Bob Reed. That is flat wrong. Mr. Reed worked long and hard with our Board before you and your associates became involved with the rate structure. We rely heavily on his expertise and experience and we value his input to our deliberations, as we will value the input from the Citizen's Rate Committee he is presently advising.
Most importantly, however, you ask us to "stop attacking (you) in public because it appears to be causing damage to the volunteer base working on the Grant High School District Reorganization project." Mr. Nelson, you and the nine other signers of the recall notice chose to personalize this matter, not us. We object to you setting us up as the "cause" for the failure of the Grant project, should it fail.
You have objected to the "154%" increase you may see. But rather than embark on a referendum to force us to reconsider the rate issue, you chose to attack us individually. A referendum would have addressed the issue to which you object. Instead you facilitated a recall that attacks personalities and individuals.
You have established the rules, choosing to gather 6021 signatures to recall us rather than gather the 497 signatures that would have been necessary for a referendum. A referendum petition would have forced the Board to rescind its action or call an election, avoiding the $50,000 cost of a special recall election. Instead, you and your nine other signers chose the personal attack of a recall, forcing a $50,000 expense on your Water District should you obtain enough signatures.
A recall is intended to give the voters an opportunity to rid themselves of officials they have elected who are thieves and other criminals. You imply that we are such by your action, yet you provide no facts. A referendum, had you chosen that option, would have addressed the issues without drawing a personal "line in the sand". A referendum is for "bad decisions"; a recall is for "bad people." Your decision to label us as "bad people" has divided this community.
Mr. Nelson, you and your nine associates chose to mount a personal attack rather than debate the issue. You chose the expensive and divisive course of action. You chose the rules, and all ten of the signers of the recall notice are now players in your personal attack on us.
Further, your recall makes no sense. You use the rate increase as your reason, yet you would recall one Board member who voted your way.
Regarding the Grant Reorganization issue, we support the reorganization and wish the effort success. However, we cannot, and will not, lay down and let you walk all over us in its name.
Remember, you wrote the rules. You have divided the community. You have cost us time, effort and money. You have personalized the issue. You can stop this madness at any time.
Mel Griffin
Jay O'Brien
Jerry Wickham
To all,
I am disturbed by the alleged actions by Mr. Wickham, Mr. O'Brien and Mr. Flesh.
The Water Board Members and local newspaper owner seem to be so consumed by this recall that they have lost their common decency. There is no reason to act like you have been including today in front of the Post Office. It is my understanding that Mr. O'Brien and Mr. Flesh were intimidating and harassing a volunteer who was trying to collect signatures for the recall and reorganization efforts. The persons partner had stepped away to get more petitions during the attack. The volunteer lives in Elverta and it was assumed to be within the District. This is not the case and the signatures that she got for the recall have been tossed. The ones for the reorg are still valid. It gets confusing but any registered voter may gather signatures for the reorg but only voters within the RLECWD may circulate the water board recall petitions. You do not have to be in the District or a registered voter to help. Jay apparently had a camera and Don apparently had a tape recorder that he was shoving in her face. It is my understanding that there were verbal attacks as well. There are witnesses to the harassment that are willing to come forward in the event that the volunteer files formal charges. The volunteer was so shaken after she was harassed, first by Mr. Flesh and then by Mr. O'Brien and then by Mr. Flesh again that she had to go to the fire dept. for medical assistance. You may play your games on this web site and in the local newspaper but you may not be allowed to treat our citizens in this manner. I want the public to know what is going on. I will also be calling both gentlemen tomorrow regarding this issue. Mr. Wickham and his threatening demand letter to Mary Harris is unacceptable as well. I hope that it will be posted somewhere so that everyone can see what type of person he is. All for a 5 dollar bracket that she did not have the tools or the help to remove from the sign that was attached to it when he wanted it. She received help from a community member and returned his bracket in a timely manner. No big deal for most of us. Your behavior towards 2 outstanding community members cannot be tolerated any longer. These folks are working to better our schools and community as well as other issues and I will personally defend each and every one of them. These are folks who are just trying to help out and there is absolutely no reason to attack them. It is time for this behavior to end. We are still a fine community and I'm sure that we will all get through these difficult issues. In closing gentlemen, please try to conduct yourselves in a more professional manner.
Thank you,
Darrell
>From the Rio Linda mailing list
(Note: The name of Rio Linda Elverta News Editor Don Flesch is misspelled each time it is mentioned in the above message. The message is posted here exactly as it was sent by Mr. Nelson.)
Scroll down to the July 13
response to this letter, or click here to jump
to that response.
Rio Linda Elverta News:
Mr. Darrell Nelson asserts in his letter in the June 14th Rio Linda Elverta News that I am "causing damage to the volunteer base working on the Grant High School District Reorganization Project." (Click here to scroll up to that letter)
This is my response. First, some facts.
Nelson admits to facilitating both the Grant recall and the Water District recall. Nelson admits to the linkage between the two as the documents are on his computer.
A core group of four people signed all of the Grant and Water recall notices. They are Aldena Hensley, Darrell R. Nelson, Charlea R. Moore, and Mary Harris.
On June 14th, Nelson wrote in the Rio Linda Elverta News, "I am asking Jay to stop attacking me in public because it appears to be causing damage to the volunteer base working on the Grant High School District Reorganization Project..."
The Editor's response to Nelson's request was "...As to the reference that O'Brien is attacking you in public and is causing damage to the Grant District reorganization, you must realize that you and those trying to recall the Water Board Directors have created a situation because of timing and the selection of the Water Board Members you are trying to recall is illogical. If for any reason the reorganization should fail, you cannot blame it on Mr. O'Brien. He didn't instigate the problem..."
Now, my conclusions and statement.
Nelson facilitated both recall efforts and signed all seven of the petitions. Nelson decided to facilitate a RECALL that attacks individuals, rather than a REFERENDUM that would address an issue. As a signer and facilitator of the recall petitions, Nelson has now entered politics. As such, Nelson's credibility and leadership is now subject to public review, exactly the review that Nelson and his nine other signers wish us three Directors to undergo.
Nelson facilitated the commonality between the Grant Project and the RLECWD recalls. The three Directors being recalled did not cause this commonality.
Nelson now asserts that the commonality he facilitated "appears to be causing damage" to the Grant Project. Nelson now wants me to stop responding to his personal attacks! Remember, Nelson personally served three Water District Directors with the recall notices, which are "personal attacks" by their very nature. Recall notices that allege we are individually "interested only in personal gain", guilty of "betrayal of public trust", and have demonstrated "unprofessional, arrogant and extreme rudeness in dealing with the public". Nelson and his nine others do not respond when asked to provide specific citations backing these allegations. The notices include many additional unsubstantiated allegations.
The notice Nelson served on me is the most devastating personal attack I have ever received from anyone. It is not possible for me to "Get over being recalled and get on with your life and be happy", as suggested by Nelson's mother in public email. Nelson's wife tells me, also in public email, to not take her assertion that the entire Water Board are liars "so personal". These ARE personal attacks. I am not going to stop fighting for honesty, truthfulness and credibility. Nelson, his family, and his nine other signers have attacked my most valuable possessions, my word and my good name. I cannot "get over" community members claiming I am unfit to hold public office.
I've lived in Rio Linda for over 42 years, and I'm proud of my record as a good, upstanding, law abiding citizen. I received the "Citizen of the Year" award from the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors and from the Rio Linda News for my efforts in establishing the Sheriff's Annex. I have been actively involved in many efforts that benefit the community. And now Nelson wants ME to lay down and let HIM walk all over me in the name of HIS Grant Reorganization project?
Nelson should have considered this potential collateral damage before he added the RLECWD recall to the list of his many projects. It was immediately obvious to me that Nelson's action in serving us three RLECWD Directors would negatively impact his Grant Reorganization Project. Nelson's action has hurt his Grant Project, not our reaction.
Nelson and his nine associates wrote the rules, and unless they publicly and permanently abandon their recall effort, we Water District Directors are obliged to continue to review their actions and respond, and we cannot participate in Nelson's Grant Reorganization Project.
Nelson and his followers have made their bed. They must now lie in it. If what they have chosen as their path of action hurts their Grant project, they must answer to their failure, and they may not lay the blame on Water District Directors they have chosen to recall.
Jay O'Brien
Dear Mr. Nelson,
I have delayed this response to provide you and your volunteer from Sutter County time to file the "formal charges" as you threatened in your letter of June 29. As I have heard nothing from a private attorney or from the District Attorney, I will respond at this time.
You have identified yourself as the "facilitator" of the recall of Jerry Wickham, Mel Griffin and me. This letter is to you in that role, as you have identified yourself as the facilitator.
You have made several incriminating statements in your letter sent June 29. You have disclosed your facilitation of violations of Federal and State laws and regulations. As Recall Facilitator, thus holding the ultimate responsibility for your petition circulators, you have placed your volunteer workers in jeopardy by encouraging them to break the law. You have attempted to personally avoid culpability by delegating the illegal activities to others.
First you confirm that your volunteers were "in front of the Post Office", and "trying to collect signatures for the recall and reorganization efforts." You have encouraged your volunteer workers to violate federal law, as detailed in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 39, Volume 1, Section 232.1, which prohibits such activities.
With your statement, "trying to collect signatures for the recall and reorganization efforts", you have also confirmed that the efforts to obtain signatures for the Grant Reorganization petitions and for the Water District recalls are irreparably commingled.
Then you confirm that you have used petition circulators who do not reside in the district. You are thus exposing your volunteer workers to prosecution under California Elections Code Division 11, Chapter 1, Article 3, Section 11045, which prohibits the use of such circulators.
Also you confirm that you and your circulators "tossed" the petitions circulated by Ms. Bianchi, who lives in Sutter County. By admitting the "tossing" of the petitions, you have lost all accountability and have tainted all of your petitions, especially those which may be signed by Mary Harris, the person that Ms. Bianchi stated would be the affiant, perjuriously affirming she had witnessed the signing of the petitions by registered voters. This procedure, encouraged by you as Recall Facilitator, causes your volunteers to violate California Elections Code Division 0.5, Chapter 2, Section 104 (b)(1), constituting "perjury under the laws of the State of California", by the person signing as "circulator". See California Elections Code Division 0.5, Chapter 2, Section 104 (c).
You say "I will personally defend each and every one of them." That's really on point, as you are the "Facilitator" who has led your volunteer base into performing illegal acts. They may need all the help, and the deep pockets, that they can get.
As the Facilitator, the leader, you have the responsibility to know the law. Besides being easily available on line, you received a Recall Handbook from the Registrar of Voters explaining the California statutes. The Postal Regulations are conspicuously posted in the outer Post Office lobby. Your leadership, Mr. Nelson, has placed your volunteer workers at risk.
You say "...gentlemen, please try to conduct yourselves in a more professional manner." As Facilitator, you need to heed your own advice. You are jeopardizing your petition circulators, who "are folks who are just trying to help out". I am well aware that there is no law requiring you or your volunteers to be truthful when soliciting signatures for the recall, and that's a good thing for you. However, can't you and your followers obey the law, be polite, and exhibit at least a modicum of ethics?
Now, to the Post Office incident on June 29. Your allegations are patently false. I was harassed by your workers, not the reverse. My June 30 letter to the Postmaster covers the incident in detail. I received a response from the Postal Service on July 12, 2001. See http://obri.net/recall/postmaster.html for the text of my letter and the details of the response I received from the US Postal Service.
In conclusion, I want to comment on your statement that we seem to "be so consumed by this recall". Mr. Nelson, it was you and your nine co-signers of the recall notices who started this recall, not us who you would recall. It is us Water Board Directors who are under attack by you; please don't try to turn that around. You have caused this, not us. You can turn it off, thus avoiding an idiotic expense of $50,000 for the election, caused only by your ignorance of the timing issues that could have placed the issue on a regularly scheduled election, had you bothered to investigate. It was caused by your decision to recall members of the Board, rather than use a referendum to change a decision. It is YOU that have caused this problem, Mr. Nelson, not those you would recall. Us "consumed"? If so, only because of your ridiculous action to serve the recall.
Jay O'Brien
PS. I don't understand your third sentence, in your letter of June 29, "There is no reason to act
like you have been including today in front of the Post Office." Mr.
Nelson, I don't know how to "act like I have been including today". If
I did understand how to "include today", please be assured that I
certainly would not do it in front of the Post Office.
(Editor's note to Darrell Nelson. First I would like to enlighten you to the fact that a member of your family implied (or benefit of the doubt- repeated a rumor) that Mr. O'Brien is the real owner of The NEWS and in the above message you posted on the community net you refer to Mr. Flesh as the owner. It shows a great lack of communication even within your family circle.
Next I want to challenge you on the word you used that I apparently had a tape recorder shoved in Bianchi's face. In order for you to say "apparently", you would have to have been there. So, I would advise you to change the word to "allegedly". You also make the same charge about O'Brien with a camera.
Next you state that you intend to call O'Brien and myself like you are some big hero. To date, you haven't called and further my advice to you is not to call me concerning your rumors, allegations, suppositions, or apparentlys when you don't know what you are talking about.
Next, I checked with the Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District legal department regarding "walk-ins" on June 29, 2001. I was informed that they had no record of a "walk-in" within the time frame and if medical assistance was needed by a "walk-in", it would have been documented. Whether or not Bianchi went to the fire department for medical assistance actually has nothing to do with my actions that you and she are trying to use to discredit myself and The Rio Linda/Elverta News. As an editor and/or reporter, it is within the scope of my profession to ask questions. It was in Bianchi's interest that I asked her about a report that she was harassed at the post office and, that is on the tape that incidentally, has on it her permission to record our conversation.
As for my name being misspelled, I could care less. My advice though to you is for you to get my name out of your limited vocabulary. Now you can say I insulted you but, to the contrary you are the insulting person when you insult my integrity. And I will remind you, I don't take it lightly nor do I condone innuendoes and ignorant rumors such as who the owner and publisher of The NEWS is. The staff box runs every week in The NEWS stating who the owner and publisher is and has for 19 years. I'm sorry someone doesn't understand what owner and publisher means. It would seem that you might be able to explain it to them.
Finally, If you think that this is just about you heading the recall you are sadly mistaken. Being in disagreement is one thing, but, this is about assailing my good name and integrity through out-and-out lies. Hopefully, you get the message.)
Dear Mr. O'Brien,
Let's stick to the facts. I have never instructed a volunteer to break the law. It is true that I facilitated both recalls to the point of approval by the County of Sacramento Registrar of Voters and that is where my involvement ended. Both efforts were handed off to volunteers who could dedicate the necessary time for the recalls to be successful. As of this writing, I have not circulated the recall petitions because it is very time consuming and I have remained loyal to the Grant Reorganization effort that I am a volunteer for. There are no regulations that state petitions may not be circulated together. The registered voters can determine whether or not to sign a petition.
As for your implication that I am idiotic, ridiculous, ignorant, unethical and rude, well, all I can say is, let the people decide.
The three board members who are up for recall, just voted not to implement any rate increase until October of this year. Estimated loss of revenue of $400 thousand versus $50 thousand for the recall election. I have never stated that a rate increase was not warranted. I have argued for a more equitable rate increase to be implemented within a reasonable timeframe. The current boards ineffectiveness to govern RLECWD is directly responsible for yet another year that this water district will operate in the red, depleting the construction reserves further ($400k), without actually constructing the necessary wells that we have read so much about.
I apologize to the community members of Rio Linda and Elverta who have witnessed Mr. O'Brien's and myself battle in this newspaper over the past few months. I have made the decision to no longer respond to Jay's attacks and I will be focusing on issues related to our local school system.
Sincerely,
Darrell Nelson