||| FROM RANDALL GAYLORD |||
Members should be sure to vote in the Eastsound Water recall election even though this election lacks checks and balances we are accustomed to for removing public officials from office.
When a recall of a public official is made, the Prosecuting Attorney prepares a ballot synopsis and sends it to a judge to determine its sufficiency. The County Auditor prepare a secret ballot to be mailed using familiar procedures and instructions. These checks and balances are missing in the process being directed by the Eastsound Water Board.
If you are a member of Eastsound Water, you should have received by mail one ballot for each active or inactive membership you hold.
Unlike public elections, it is possible to vote by designated another person or “proxy” to vote your interest. A place to do that is found on every ballot. Simply fill in the box on page 1 to select the person who by proxy will vote your interest and then sign the ballot on page 2. I have selected Mr. Brian Ehrmantraut as my proxy. As a former director of Eastsound Water, Mr. Ehrmantraut is well informed and will perform the task with the best interests of all members of Eastsound Water.
Two petitions for recall are on the same ballot. The “First Petition” – a request to recall four directors: Templin, Cleveland, Nigretto, and Nelson — is based upon these four directors’ inaction by not holding accountable Mr. Dan Burke, the general manager, for financial wrongdoing in making payments to himself that were noncompliant and excessive. Further it is claimed that these four board members failed to act to provide Eastsound Water treasurers access to the bookkeeping records to allow the treasurers to do their job. These grounds appear to be good and sufficient.
The “Second Petition” is a request to recall three other directors: Anderson, Claus and Cook. The Second Petition was submitted by Mr. Eli Sanders who I understand does not have a membership interest. This raises a procedural issue regarding sufficiency that should have been addressed by the Board before finalizing the ballot.
The charge of Mr. Sanders is that the three directors each filed a declaration under oath with Judge Loring that was “contrary to the best interests of EWUA.” In a written order, Judge Loring acknowledged she considered the declarations of these three directors and other documents. Directors have a right, like anyone else, to submit papers to a judge. Whether the judge considers the papers is up to the judge. Parties in the lawsuit can ask the judge not to consider all or portions of the documents. The proper way to address the filings was for Eastsound Water to ask the judge to “strike” the declarations, but no such motion was made. A director should not be removed from office because he or she submitted truthful declarations under oath that were considered by a court. In my opinion, this is not sufficient grounds for recall.
By designating Mr. Ehrmantraut as my proxy, my membership interest will be voted “FOR” the recall of four directors in the First Petition and “AGAINST” the recall three directors in the Second Petition.
Mr Gaylord makes reference to Eli Sanders and the petition that he submitted. You can find the details of the Sander’s petition here.