Legal Council Posting Untrue Statements On Local Water Districts Website

[allanb]

In California, we have a small water district comprised of approximately 4200 residential homes. I am involved with a local grassroots political watchdog group who keep an eye on our local elected officials. The legal council of the Water District on her own accord and without being asked by any of the 5 Board Of Directors recommended that the district be re-districted with each of the 5 Board Of Directors being elected by and representing the interests of their own district. She told them it would be best for them to do that so they comply with the California Voters Act of 2021, which became law with the intent to protect marginalized voters, such as minorities, etc. from being dis-enfranchised.
We have about 2% minorities etc. throughout the entire Water District boundaries and they are spread evenly throughout as there are zero condos or townhomes in the district. In other words there is no way you could draw a redistricting map for 5 districts that would change anything. An analogy would be, we need to put a 100 foot dam in the pacific ocean somewhere when of course there is no need for a dam in the pacific ocean in the first place.
2 years ago the California Supreme Court ruled that any lawsuit against a district for (marginalizing) a minorities voting power would have to "prove" dilution of the minorities voting power. To hire a demographer would cost about $36K and the legal council would charge between $30-$40k for her services. On November 15th of this year the board voted on the re-districting and it failed by a 2 to 2 vote as one Board member was absent. However, 2 days prior to the vote the legal council had already drawn up a 3 page announcement and calendar of activities that the public could expect over the next 6 months. It included this statement "The Water District is asking for your help as we undertake the District’s first ever districting process!" She then instructed staff to post it to the website 2 days before the actual vote without the Board Of Directors approval.
My questions are can she legally bring up "supposed Issues" to the Board Of Directors especially when she benefits from it financially? Can she bill for her services of writing up the 3 page "premature letter" for the website and can she instruct the staff to add something to the website that is not true? What remedies can or should we pursue in these regards. Thanks ahead of time for your thoughts. Al

 

[Zigner]

Setting aside the fact that the "can she" is proved by the "she did," if these things are not allowed by law, you will need to retain legal counsel.

 

[allanb]

Setting aside the fact that the "can she" is proved by the "she did," if these things are not allowed by law, you will need to retain legal counsel.

Thank you, "Can she legally" I think is different than just "Can she" not to be argumentative but, to my point, of course she can, but is her action legal as pertaining to her being a lawyer, was my intent of my statement.

 

[quincy]

In California, we have a small water district comprised of approximately 4200 residential homes. I am involved with a local grassroots political watchdog group who keep an eye on our local elected officials. The legal council of the Water District on her own accord and without being asked by any of the 5 Board Of Directors recommended that the district be re-districted with each of the 5 Board Of Directors being elected by and representing the interests of their own district. She told them it would be best for them to do that so they comply with the California Voters Act of 2021, which became law with the intent to protect marginalized voters, such as minorities, etc. from being dis-enfranchised.
We have about 2% minorities etc. throughout the entire Water District boundaries and they are spread evenly throughout as there are zero condos or townhomes in the district. In other words there is no way you could draw a redistricting map for 5 districts that would change anything. An analogy would be, we need to put a 100 foot dam in the pacific ocean somewhere when of course there is no need for a dam in the pacific ocean in the first place.
2 years ago the California Supreme Court ruled that any lawsuit against a district for (marginalizing) a minorities voting power would have to "prove" dilution of the minorities voting power. To hire a demographer would cost about $36K and the legal council would charge between $30-$40k for her services. On November 15th of this year the board voted on the re-districting and it failed by a 2 to 2 vote as one Board member was absent. However, 2 days prior to the vote the legal council had already drawn up a 3 page announcement and calendar of activities that the public could expect over the next 6 months. It included this statement "The Water District is asking for your help as we undertake the District’s first ever districting process!" She then instructed staff to post it to the website 2 days before the actual vote without the Board Of Directors approval.
My questions are can she legally bring up "supposed Issues" to the Board Of Directors especially when she benefits from it financially? Can she bill for her services of writing up the 3 page "premature letter" for the website and can she instruct the staff to add something to the website that is not true? What remedies can or should we pursue in these regards. Thanks ahead of time for your thoughts. Al

First, are you sure of your facts? You do not want to risk slandering the legal counsel for the water district by spreading untruths.

Have you spoken directly to the water district’s counsel to express your concerns about the website addition and her possible improper billing for (what you see as) unnecessary services?

 

[allanb]

First, are you sure of your facts? You do not want to risk slandering the legal counsel for the water district by spreading untruths.

Have you spoken directly to the water district’s counsel to express your concerns about the website addition and her possible improper billing for (what you see as) unnecessary services?

Yes sir, I am sure of the facts, we had a "community chat" with 2 of the board members and the GM last night and they confirmed everything that I asked them. The Water District has a General Meeting next Wednesday, but per their policy, I can have 3 minutes to talk and they don't "have to" respond to me, but can. They never respond. Only at "Community Chats" held quarterly do they interact with us. I can speak to her directly but she won't respond. To me she is and always has been a loose cannon since I first knew of her. I am leaning towards pressuring the board somehow into firing her and obtaining another legal Council. IMHO opinion she seems to own them. One of the Directors is a successful businessman and the other 4 are Civil Engineers. I feel she is representing the best interests of herself and her law firm and not those of the ratepayers.

 

[Taxing Matters]

My questions are can she legally bring up "supposed Issues" to the Board Of Directors especially when she benefits from it financially? Can she bill for her services of writing up the 3 page "premature letter" for the website and can she instruct the staff to add something to the website that is not true? What remedies can or should we pursue in these regards. Thanks ahead of time for your thoughts. Al

The lawyer merely recommended to the board the actions she believes it needs to take. She has no power to act on behalf of the board to spend its money or to undertake anything that requires approval of the board. It's the role of the board or the owners of the properties in the district to approve that, depending on who the organization documents (articles of incorporation/assocation, by-laws, etc) say has that power. Thus your starting point here is reading the documents that govern how your water district is organized and operates. Have you read them in detail? What do they say?

Nothing you've written suggests to me that the lawyer is acting in her and her firm's best interests contrary to the interests of the district. Clearly you don't like the recommendation she made to the board, but it's up to the board to decide whether to accept or reject those recommendations. That should turn on how well she suppported her recommendations. Have you researched the law she is relying upon or consulted an attorney as to what that law requires? If you haven't, then what is your basis for wanting to pressure the board to replace her (apart from your apparent dislike of her)? If she's doing the job she's hired to do then replacing her as counsel (not council) for the district won't do anything for you. The decisions regarding what to do are made by the board, and if you don't like what the board is doing then what you need to do is convince the board that the way you want the matter handled is the best way to go rather than pressuring the board to fire the attorney. It's the decision makers (board members) that are at the heart of the actions that are being taken.

She may bill for all work she does for the board. If the board believes that some service she provided didn't fall under the scope of what they hired her to do then its up the board to address the matter with her. Ultimately, it is up to the board to decide if it will pay. If it does not pay and she sues for breach of contract and wins, it will cost the board — and thus the homeowners — more money than if they simply paid her in the first place. Thus, the board should first determine if it has good a good defense to the claim after it gets served with the court complaint.

All your directors are educated people. If they are simply following her lead without examining whether her recommendations are well founded than, again, it's the board that is the problem. They should have the ability to discern whether her recommendation is well supported or not and act accordingly.

 

[allanb]

Thank you, I will take all of your written thoughts into consideration.

 

[quincy]

Old December 2025 thread - bumping it to remove spammer from main board.

I will delete this post later.