The Sacramento Bee

9/8/01

Editorial: The lonely dissenters

Water districts target leaders who question

Al Vargas and Mary Harris don't know each other, but they are political soulmates. They lead remarkably similar political lives in their different corners of the local water world.

Vargas is the internal critic as a director of the El Dorado Irrigation District. Harris plays a similar role as a new director for the Rio Linda/Elverta Community Water District.

In these roles, Vargas and Harris ask lots of questions. Not surprisingly, some are directly on target, some off. Their behavior has become an internal issue inside both districts, and to deal with these two complex personalities both water districts have resorted to some dreadful public policy.

El Dorado has decided to start funneling to the board president any requests from inquisitive directors that the staff feel are too "burdensome."

Rio Linda/Elverta, meanwhile, recently charged Harris a dime a page when she wanted copies of documents pertaining to perks flowing to former district general managers.

Water games like these should be red flags to the ratepayers in both districts. The underlying issue here isn't about Vargas or Harris. It's about functioning democracies and their need to be comfortable with dissent.

Real problems happen when things get too clubby inside elected governments such as water districts. Look no farther than the local poster child for water governance run amok, the Northridge Water District (now part of Sacramento Suburban). There the boss flew first class for 20-some years while some directors pocketed thousands upon thousands of dollars in unreported income via padded travel advances. It happened because for years nobody dared to question whether this was appropriate.

And if they had, would the general manager have countered that this was "burdensome"?

In El Dorado, Vargas has expended an estimated $5,899.69 in district staff time to get answers to his various questions, most of them relating to money. He was particularly critical about a recent refinancing of district debt.

This is one of those big-ticket, long-lasting decisions that begs for directors to go beyond what the staff is feeding them. Look at the situation down in Southern California, where one of that region's largest water districts did some overly creative refinancing that allegedly enriched a director via some kickbacks. The director has been arrested; the case is awaiting trial.

We have no reason to suspect similar wrongdoing in El Dorado. But it's hard to accept the argument that a $50 million water district is ill-served by expending $5,899.69 to answer questions raised by one of its elected leaders.

Meanwhile in Rio Linda, Harris has been bucking the status quo by questioning the wisdom of some staff raises and digging into how some former general managers ended up with health insurance. It is simply absurd for a water district to charge a director any fee, even a nominal one, for copies of public records that are relevant to her public duties.

Sure, critics can miss their mark. But beware any water district that seeks to make life difficult for those who raise questions. The public is much better served by water officials with a thirst for information than by those who are satisfied with too little.