The message also stated that the author wished the knowledge of how to facilitate a referendum for the Water Board had been known, and concluded with the observation that the author's concentration was now to be on the Grant Reorganization.

Click here for references to referendum requirements.

Others may be interested in my answer, which follows, without revealing the author of the private message I received.

As far as the choice of use of citizen means for effecting changes, whether to use recall, referendum or initiative is up to the citizens who decide to take action. To summarize,

RECALL: An action to remove a bad elected person from office.
REFERENDUM: An action to reverse a bad decision made by electeds.
INITIATIVE: An action to impose a decision the electeds won't make.

No, a referendum would not be applicable in the High School Principal issue. That is because the action was administrative by the Superintendent and wasn't a direct action of the Board of Trustees. It is possible that an attorney could have crafted an initiative that would apply, but I don't know.

As I recall, the first meeting of the Grant Board I attended was the meeting where the Trustees were first served with recall notices. The die was cast at that time, and certainly removing four Trustees and replacing them with new ones that would support the Rio Linda High School Principal would work. Very expensive, very difficult, but it would work. If you recall, I attempted to strongly support that effort, by including "you must be recalled" in my statements to the Board of Trustees, and I even had Don Flesch print flyers at my expense and turn them over to Darrell Nelson for use by the Grant recall signature gatherers. Of course that was before I was served (a notice of recall) by Darrell, an action which now precludes me from doing anything to further support any action that could be detrimental to my own fight for life as a special district director.

Unfortunately, recalls by their very nature are personal. They are designed to allow the voters to remove thieves and other criminals from office. A recall by its very nature attacks individuals. Usually, I do not support recalls because they are personal in nature and lead to exactly what we are seeing now on the water board recalls. However, in the case of the recalls prepared for the Grant Trustees, I could support them because they appeared to have been carefully crafted to attack issues rather than individuals; the four recall notices are identical with the exception of the changes necessary to identify the person being recalled.

I am familiar with the referendum process, as I participated in gathering enough signatures to stop the takeover of our Fire District by American River. As the referendum was against the Rio Linda Fire District Board for it's action, American River was able to ignore us, saying in effect that we were taking action against a Board that no longer existed. I hired an attorney, the ex-Mayor of Davis, and we went to court at my expense. The Judge ruled in their favor. It was an experience I have not forgotten; another battle lost trying to do what is right.

As far as the "Water Board recall". It is NOT "a" recall. Each recall action stands on its own, and each individual is attacked separately. The words are different, and in fact one proponent (Charlea Moore, a signer of the recall notices) has publicly emphasized that fact. She made it very clear that each of us was being recalled for a different reason. That is why we, the three being recalled, have formed a family-like coalition; when one of us is attacked, we all are attacked. We will not be divided by the recall proponents.

We are now starting to get reports of stories being circulated by the proponents that take some actual fact, put a spin on it to put us individually (or collectively) in a bad light and then repeat the story to show that we are "bad people". This is slander, and unfortunately when and if we deal with it, it will put all of the recall proponents in a bad light and it will then reflect negatively upon the entire community. Unfortunately, it may also negatively impact your Grant effort. The recall proponents don't seem to understand that an action by one proponent is an action by all proponents.

I commend you for identifying your top priority (Grant Reorganization) and concentrating on it. At least you have the opportunity to select your mission; my mission was selected for me by recall proponents who, by virtue of their selection of the recall process, wish to denigrate Mel, Jerry and me. I would prefer to be doing something constructive with my time and money rather than defend myself against untruths. I had planned to be "in the trenches" working on the Grant District issues, but now, of course, that is NOT on my priority list.

Thank you for your message. I apologize for the long winded response, but your question about using a referendum on the Grant problem was a good one, one I really hadn't considered.

I hope you are successful with the Grant Reorganization; it has been needed for a long time. I really wish I could help.

Sincerely,
Jay O'Brien