- NEWS
- SPORTS
- Reading between the hash marks: Rick Neuheisel 12 minutes ago
- Ducks go to shootout to douse Flames
- UCLA's 10 most notable wins over USC 3 hours & 41 minutes ago
- Flames' Iginla serves as inspiration
- BUSINESS
- ENTERTAINMENT
- LIFE
- TRAVEL
- OPINION
Nearly half of OC’s waterlords originally appointed, not elected
October 15th, 2008, 7:00 am · 18 Comments · posted by Teri Sforza, Register staff writer
If we told you that half of the city councilmembers in Orange County had been appointed to their seats, not elected by the people, might it seem like democracy gone awry?
Or if half of Congress or the state Legislature were appointed to their seats, not elected by the people, might it seem like a fundamental failing of democracy itself?
We trust that your sense of outrage will remain keen when we tell you that nearly half of the people controlling the most vital resource we have - water - were originally appointed, not elected, to their seats.
There are 69 waterlords sitting on the boards of Orange County’s 12 water districts.
Thirty-three of these 69 warterlords - or 48 percent - were originally appointed, not elected.
With the prospect of water rationing looming over the next blazing horizon, this takes on a new dimension.
These folks comprise the overwhelming majority of some of the most powerful and wealthy special districts in California - four of the five directors of the Irvine Ranch Water District, for example.
And four of the five directors at El Toro Water District.
And so on. A reader takes us to task, pointing out that many of the appointeds went on to be elected. And this is true. But this brings up the often dark spectre of special district elections, which are often uncontested. The Watchdog is reviewing Registrar of Voters files on special district elections and will get back to you with a quantitative analysis in the coming weeks.
Don’t get The Watchdog started on why Orange County has so many water districts. A 1982 grand jury report calling for large-scale merging of special districts was derided as “stupid” a dozen years ago, when The Watchdog first looked in depth at the issue. Stupid?!“It would be disastrous,” said Robert Hanson, then an El Toro board member and president of the Independent Special Districts of Orange County. “The terrain in each district is not conducive to being in one district. Pipes are different sizes. Pumps are different capacities. Some areas you pump uphill; others go downhill and are gravity-fed. The idea of putting them together is a stupid thing all the way around. ”
Indeed.
18 Comments
Leave a Reply
-
ADVERTISEMENT
-
Follow this blog:
-
More from OC Watchdog reports-
ADVERTISEMENT
You can follow this blog: on 
Then we need to make sure we are educated enough to know who appoints these people and make sure we vote for those people.
I agree that not everyone needs to take up our tax dollars in “special” elections and printing ballots for one position that is not at the level of State Government or as you mentioned Federal Government (Congress).
Thank you for pointing this out. Maybe we can have those people we elected make changes to the bylaws of these organizations that will not require them to be voted and merely appointed as it already appears to be the case for most of them.
WHOA!!!!!!
Hold the phone here, I KNOW FOR A FACT that this chart is WRONG!
I think that Ms. Sforza needs to check some facts and get back to us. Please do your due diligence and post a correction.
HAhaha “not elected by the people, might it seem like democracy gone awry?”
How about when the People vote, and the popular vote is overturned by 3 or 4 judges (also appointed)?
Lets see, medical marijuana use and gay marriage, there are 2 clear cut examples.
We ceased living in a democracy long ago, it’s only the illusion of choice.
MrClean - you are totally correct as they will be fighting in Court to overturn the People choice to elect Ergun Bakall into office and to throw him out just because he has a vacation home in La Quinta.
So does the People’s Choice really matter?
Martin - Thank you for the insight - it will not be the first nor the last time Tony Saavedra investigative research is completely incorrect. Which ones are misrepresented?
I have several water board people on my ballot this year and have no idea what makes a good water board candidate. And I actually read the voting materials I receive unlike many voters, I’m sure.
It would make more sense to me to have people who really understand the nuances of running a water district appoint qualified candidates rather than putting the vote to the general populace who hasn’t a clue and is either leaving that portion of their ballot blank or picking someone based on liking the sound of their name.
Anytime you’re confused about a waterboard election the rule of thumb is to vote for the non-incumbent. Never let them get too comfortable in their cushy positions. The longer they retain the office the more corrupt and greedy they become. Turn them over every couple of years. Keep ‘em honest!
Alan - You seem to indicate that Ergun Bakall should still remain there even though he really does not live in Orange County. How is that representing the people of Orange County when you don’t even live here full-time or own a home in Orange County?
Also, Ergun isn’t the only one qualified for that office. Have you seen Glenn Acosta’s website (glenn4water.com) or smartvoter.org’s information on him? Based on all his work and education, he is just as or more qualified than Ergun.
So, come on, get informed about who you’re voting for. Don’t be brainwashed into thinking incumbents have a right to milk the taxpayers or for us to provide them with an elaborate lifestyle when all of us are working for ours. Why don’t you carpool with Ergun from Palm Springs so he doesn’t have to suffer that long commute?
Feisty
Do you have to “own” a home to run for office? This implies that renters have no rights nor care about the issues that happen in their neighborhoods. (Although this might be true in some cases.)
True he is not the only one qualified for that office; however, regardless if he rents or owns his residence should not be the determining factor in the election.
If the people of Orange County elect a renter then why should the Court overturn my choice or your choice?
I think if the only issue is the fact that Ergun Bakall owns a vacation home in Palm Springs for him not holding office then his opponent is not going to win.
I will check out their statements that are available at:
http://www.ocvote.com/election/gen2008/statements.htm
The only statements are from Donald Ritze and Ergun “Eric” Bakall. Is Acosta going to file a statement?
Owning or renting is not the issue with respect to Ergun Bakall. The issue is where is his primary residence. How can you run for office in Orange County if your primary residence is in Riverside County? Isn’t that the definition of carpetbagging? Isn’t that against the law? Do you want to vote to someone that is potentially breaking the law? That’s your call, but I’m not.
I don’t know why Acosta didn’t file a statement. Most statements are a bunch of BS anyway. Maybe he chose some other way of running his campaign or to indicate why he’s running. His website does mention that.
I would imagine that the DA will eventually make a determination if under state law Ergun is eligible to hold that seat. If the DA determines that Ergun is not eligible, do you think Ergun should still keep his seat because he was voted in?
oc observer, with all due respect, you’re a certifiable basket case. Where do you get “cushy” when referring to water district boards? If you factor the hours directors spend reading through reports and attending WORKING meetings, whatever compensation they get is a pittance.
Meeting OC’s water demand in these days of drought, environmental litigation (the Delta smelt), higher energy costs and greater regulation is not a job for neophytes and know-it-all (NOT!) rebels. You need experience or you’ll screw up our water supply.
Not all the incumbents deserve re-election, for sure, but to discount them as you do is a recipe for disaster - and you don’t want a water disaster. Study the ballot. If your district is running well, consider that a plus for the incumbents. Look for engineering and finance experience. Do a Google search - if there’s no scandal around the existing directors, they’re probably doing a pretty good job.
I totally agree that if he does not live in the County then his name should be removed. However, he resides in a rental community and has a vacation home.
After the DA makes the determination it will head to Court either way. This is just a waste of our tax money.
As you mentioned the DA will likely find that he does have the right to have a vacation home not in Orange County and that he is entitled to hold office after he is elected.
Trust me I want Acosta to win and yes he has my vote - however, regardless of the outcome I just wish that we did not have to drag the matter into Court as it appears is going to happen.
Can all this be prevented if these roles were appointed by elected officials? Look at all the appointments to commissions, boards, judical, administration and so forth that our own governor makes in his role - they have to list them all in various “volumes”. Maybe a little too many - however, does the common voter want to (or will they) research every person.
I want this race to be determined by what these three (3) people stand for and nothing more and once the vote is done - it is done and we move on.
Acosta needs to get out there and campaign and go door-to-door and let people know that Bakall has two residences and might not have full invested interest in our Community if that is the stance he is taking. He does not need to use a milk carton to make his point as I saw that as very distasteful.
We don’t get to vote for ANY SCAQMD board members. They can make any laws they want and not only break them but nit-pick to exercise control and you pay for it. Say “Hi” to them when you see their green energy guzzling office building overlooking the golf course with restaurant on top at the 57/60 junction.
I agree with a few of Alan’s points. Voting should be based on the person, his qualifications, his vision, and nothing more.
I can see, however, how frustrating it would be if no official determination is being made on the incumbent’s residency before the election. It would sure save a lot of taxpayer money and court time.
Like Alan, I thought the milk carton was over-the-top. But, looking at it from Acosta’s perspective, he may be trying to get people’s attention on the issue. I’m sure it’s difficult when most people simply don’t care, don’t want to care, and water boards are completely off the radar for most people.
Interesting point on making these seats appointed positions. I think the only shortcoming is that to truly do what’s in the best interest in your community, you almost have to live there and have people who know you want you to be the person to make those decisions. Decisions like increasing rates or committing an agency to huge liabilities can affect entire communities.
I feel compelled to say a few words.
I’ll accept the DA’s determination on Mr. Bakall’s eligibility to be a candidate. The DA has the ability and resources to gather far more evidence than I ever could and understands election law. If the DA determines that Mr. Bakall is eligible to be a candidate and hold office, that’s good enough for me. I had hoped that the DA would have made a determination two months ago.
Negative campaigning is against my nature and pursuing public office takes time away from my family. Neither is enjoyable by any means. I’m doing it because I want to be involved in finding solutions. Many issues have been raised about MWDOC and they need to get resolved so we can move onto more important matters, like the water shortage facing us next year. I could easily be a spectator and let things continue the way they are, but it takes more than watching to make our community a better place.
Glenn Acosta
Hey Glenn
Thank you for taking the time to reply. Trust me I have been defending people like yourself from the negative articles where elected officials are being attacked for making a mere $1,000 a month by this organization (OC Register) and their writers (Teri Sforza and Tony Saavedra).
To seek office has no financial gain in the least. I know your dedication right here in the Trabuco Water District and for your assistance you have given to our community and my family included. As mentioned you have our vote in this election.
The only thing I did not agree with in this campaign was how it appeared that the only thing being presented was the back of a milk carton.
I respect the fact that regardless of the outcome of the election you will let the issue not rest with the Court and will not challenge the vote of the people. - Unless of course it is determined he is not a resident which is highly unlikely as he does have a rental that he uses the majority of the time which in California the definition is 50% or greater.
Best of luck and thank you for everything. May the best man win. And regardless you have and will likely continue to be involved in and out of office and for that the Community is in debt to your service.
Alan
Teri - Is this considered a felony? And his he on the MWDOC Board?:
CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS FOR A LOGICAL AIDS RESPONSE AND BRETT BARBRE, TREASURER, SI-88/454, (1991)
84101 (a) - One (1) count
84200 - Four (4) counts
84200.5 (b) - Two (2) counts
$10,000 fine
The Commission accepted an administrative law judge’s recommended findings that the California Physicians for a Logical AIDS Response (CPLAR) and Brett Barbre, treasurer, failed to file campaign disclosure statements in connection with its support of Proposition 102 (the AIDS reporting initiative) on the November 1988 statewide ballot. When the statements were filed a year later in November 1989, it was disclosed that CPLAR had raised over $160,000 in campaign contributions.
Hi Jumpstart, this was a Fair Political Practices Commission action; they I’m trying to find out more and will post when I do.
Dings from the Fair Political Practices Commission are not felonies.
Barbre was treasurer for a 1988 ballot measure that would have required doctors and health-care workers to report the names of all patients infected with the virus that causes AIDS. The measure was opposed by gay activist groups and many public-health officials, and it failed.
Financial statements were filed a year late. The FPPC imposed a $10,000 fine.
I copy The Register’s full 1991 story on the fine below:
—————————————————————————–
April 26, 1991
Panel fines group;
Dannemeyer boosters missed report deadline
BYLINE: Marc Lifsher, The Orange County Register
SECTION: NEWS; Pg. A03
DATELINE: SACRAMENTO, CA
The state Fair Political Practices Commission on Thursday ordered a
political committee controlled by Rep. William Dannemeyer to pay a
$ 10,000 fine for violating state campaign-finance reporting laws.
After meeting in closed session, commissioners endorsed a fine
recommended by an administrative law judge against California
Physicians for a Logical AIDS Response.
The committee was formed to promote a Dannemeyer-written 1988
ballot measure, Proposition 102. The committee was located in
Dannemeyer’s Orange County district office. Dannemyer, R-Fullerton,
was its attorney and his aide, Brett Barbre, its treasurer.
Dannemeyer’s group committed seven separate instances of “gross
negligence” by filing reports as long as 21 months after deadlines,
Administrative Law Judge John D. Wagner said. Wagner said the failure
prevented voters from knowing that the initiative campaign raised
$ 160,517 in contributions and spent $ 97,806 in campaign activities.
Dannemeyer’s iniative would have required doctors and health-care
workers to report the names of all patients infected with the virus
that causes acquired immune deficiency syndrome. The measure was
opposed by gay activist groups and many public-health officials. They
argued that mandatory AIDS reporting laws would frighten infected
people and keep them from seeking medical help.
Paul Mero, an aide in Dannemeyer’s Washington office, said
Dannemeyer probably would not appeal the fine.
“I think he’s going to pay it and that will be the end of it,” Mero
said.
CORRECTION-DATE: April 27, 1991
CORRECTION: California Physicians for a Logical AIDS Response, a committee fined $ 10,000 Thursday by the state Fair Political Practices Commission, was operated from the Orange County campaign office of Rep. William Dannemeyer. Because of a reporter’s error, a story in the News section of April 26 editions of the Register incorrectly identified the headquarters.
Copyright 1991 Orange County Register