Voters within the Santa Clara Valley Water District ought to reject board members’ pricey, self-serving and misleading poll measure that may prolong their phrases in workplace.
Time period limits have their drawbacks. However they're wanted right here. Members of the water board, liable for offering water and flood management to 2 million folks in Santa Clara County, appear to remain endlessly. In the meantime, the issues that proceed to floor are typical of entrenched management that has misplaced perspective.
That’s why in 2009 we urged voters to approve the three-term restrict for board members that started counting in 2010. Now that some members are reaching these limits, the board has conveniently positioned a measure on the poll to permit them one other four-year time period.
Worse, the wording of Measure A on the June 7 poll is particularly designed to confuse voters. Don’t be fooled by this deceit. Vote no.
The official wording asks, “Shall the measure amending the Santa Clara Valley Water District Ordinance 11-01 to restrict Board members to 4 successive phrases be adopted?” It means that the measure is extra restrictive than what’s at the moment in place. In reality, it’s simply the alternative.
The deception is deliberate. The district’s personal polling predicted that 68% of voters would approve the poll measure with the deceptive language. But when informed board members have been already restricted to 3 phrases and requested whether or not they need to be allowed a fourth time period, 59% of voters would reject it.
Poll deception doesn’t get a lot sleazier than this.
However determined board members are keen to resort to determined actions. Tony Estremera, who has been on the seven-member board for 26 years, is about to achieve his three-term restrict. And Dick Santos, who has been on the board for 22 years, will probably be termed out in 2024. They and board members Gary Kremen and John Verela supplied the bulk to position Measure A on the poll.
Board members Linda LeZotte, Nai Hsueh and Barbara Keegan voted towards the transfer. LeZotte and Hsueh have been so incensed by the deception that they signed the poll argument urging a no vote. Kudos to them.
On prime of the deception, the poll measure will price $3.2 million, cash that might have been used, for instance, to take away 1 million sq. toes of lawns underneath the district’s voluntary turf alternative program. Or to alleviate the burden of water charges which have been skyrocketing lately.
The pricey, misleading poll measure is all too typical of the water district board’s lengthy historical past of failure.
For instance, in 2019, the board voted to assist the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta tunnels mission, offering funding for a number of the preliminary planning prices for a $19 billion boondoggle that wouldn’t add a drop of water to California’s provide and has by no means penciled out.
In 2017, Coyote Creek flooded South San Jose, forcing 14,000 folks to evacuate and inflicting an estimated $100 million in harm. A Could 2 trial date has been set for a lawsuit wherein residents allege, amongst different issues, that the water district was conscious that particles and sediment blocked the movement of water by way of the creek channel however did little to forestall or cut back the harm it brought about.
The board additionally has been sluggish to impose obligatory restrictions to preserve what’s left of our restricted water provide because the drought continues into a 3rd 12 months.
These aren’t the type of leaders who deserve a fourth time period in workplace. Vote no on Measure A and ship a message that Valley Water may gain advantage from new blood on its board.