CITRUS HEIGHTS, CA (MPG) - The law firm of Shenkman & Hughes, on behalf of the Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, has alleged that the San Juan Water District’s (SJWD) at-large elections violate the California Voting Rights Act (CVRA). To avoid litigation, the SJWD Board of Directors held a special meeting on May 13, 2020, to vote on a resolution to transition to division-based elections.

The Board originally planned to finalize the vote at the April 22, 2020, meeting but then delayed the vote until they could reach an agreement with Shenkman & Hughes for an extension to the 90-day statutory deadline initiated by Shenkman’s March 26 letter to SJWD. The May 13 resolution outlined a timeline for the transition based on the agreement allowing a 90-day extension. Under the extended schedule, the District would not complete the transition in time for the 2020 election, but the division maps would be drawn and approved this year, by November 9, 2020.

Ray Riehle, a director on the Board of the Citrus Heights Water District, spoke at the meeting during public comment to request that the Board not delay compliance with the CVRA. “The Fair Oaks and Citrus Heights Water Districts are significantly impacted by decisions made by the members of this Board. Moving forward, we want to ensure that the composition of the Board accurately represents the communities you’re serving,” said Riehle.

Riehle also addressed comments by SJWD Board President Ted Costa at the April 22 meeting. President Costa had criticized Riehle and other members of the Citrus Heights Water District Board of Directors for winning uncontested elections, claiming they “never stood election.”

Although President Costa later clarified that his comments were intended to point out that the system itself was flawed, Riehle called President Costa’s comment “a little bit disingenuous and inappropriate.” He said, “Winning an election because there’s no opposition doesn’t in any way diminish the value of public service.”

SJWD Board Vice President Pam Tobin, in addition to insinuating that the Fair Oaks and Citrus Heights Water Districts might have initiated the complaint brought forward by Shenkman, stated on April 22, “What gives them to right to criticize our actions by the Board?”

At the May 13 meeting, Riehle responded to those comments: “I believe it was wrong for an elected official to lecture customers and constituents. The Fair Oaks and Citrus Heights Water Districts are your largest wholesale customers. Everything San Juan does impacts the cost of our water and the cost we charge our customers. … Customers and constituents always have the right to question their elected officials.”

President Costa said, “We certainly recognize your rights to look at the books, to question anything that we do, and it’s fine. But remember, you, you, Citrus Heights Water District, Fair Oaks, you created the San Juan Water District. You must have liked it because you created it! And we’re doing exactly what you created us to do!” Addressing Riehle directly, President Costa said, “You haven’t had any competition but, I guarantee you, next time you run you’re going to have competition. All right? Just count on it. It’s coming.”

Caryl Sheehan, another director on the Board of the Citrus Heights Water District, said, “Whether or not Citrus Height originally created the San Juan Water District is not a reflection on what’s going on currently.” And she reminded President Costa that it’s inappropriate to issue threats against a speaker during public comment: “This is a public meeting, and I just ask that you consider that there are a lot of people hearing what’s on this call.”

President Costa said, “Caryl, Caryl, I wish you’d check the record because on three separate occasions, your water district has run slates against the San Juan Water District. I have the newspaper clippings on that. … Turnabout is fair play. I’m getting tired of this crap.”

Mike McRae, a board member of the Fair Oaks Water District and “a voting resident within the San Juan territory,” said that the proposed resolution contained language that would allow any board members re-elected in 2020 to serve their full terms until the 2024 election. Pam Tobin and Ken Miller are up for re-election in 2020, and McRae said that they and President Costa generally vote in agreement. “That kind of implies that the three of you would continue running this board all the way into 2025. And that just flies in the face of the [CRVA] and significantly delays justice,” said McRae.

If the Board refuses to come into compliance in time for the 2020 election, McRae requested that a special election be held to fill the new board seats as soon as the division boundary maps are drawn and accepted by the registrar’s office. He acknowledged the high costs associated with a special election and suggested avoiding the costs by coming into compliance now, ahead of the 2020 election. 

SJWD Board Director Dan Rich said that a special election would be cost prohibitive. He also explained that the window had closed for transitioning in time for the 2020 election: “We’re getting it done, at this point, as soon as practical, and we’re getting it done this year.”

The SJWD Board of Directors voted unanimously to approve the 90-extension agreement with Shenkman & Hughes and officially declared their intent to transition from at-large elections to division-based elections. They also established a timeline for the transition process, which will begin with public hearings at the June 10 and July 8 Board meetings to gather community input before the division maps are drawn.