Elected Imperial County Auditor gone AWOL.
News that affects you.
EL CENTRO — Imperial County Auditor-Controller Josue Mercado was censured by the Board of Supervisors Tuesday for allegedly neglecting to fulfill duties of the elected position.
The board is also considering forwarding the matter to the state Attorney General or a grand jury for additional action.
The supervisors decided to include this as an action item at its next board meeting in January. If Mercado continues not to talk to the county for the next two weeks, the board is expected to forward the case to the courts.
“We would be asking for an assessment of willful or corrupt misconduct while in office (under) Government Code 3060,” said County CEO Tony Rouhotas Jr.
If found liable for willful or corrupt misconduct while in office, Mercado would be removed from his elected office.
The complaints include Mercado failing to respond to inquiries and requests for information from S&P Global Ratings concerning the county’s fiscal policies and procedures.
It is also alleged Mercado failed to file the county’s 2020-21 adopted budget with the State Controller’s Office by the Dec. 1 deadline, which could have resulted in a $1,000 fine.
Supervisor Ray Castillo questioned why Mercado was not at the Tuesday meeting to answer questions, but he was told by County Counsel Adam Crook that Mercado had either not answered phone calls or refused to come in to talk to the administration.
Since Mercado is an elected official and not an employee, the county cannot force him to meet with them.
Castillo wanted to know what the county’s options were besides censure, as this is merely a statement of disapproval and does not carry any disciplinary weight.
Crook said the county could always forward the issue to the grand jury to let them decide.
Board Chairman Luis Plancarte agreed the county needs to do its due diligence.
“In my experience in the labor force, when there is something going on, we need to take a closer look,” he said. He asked whether an internal review would be needed before forwarding it to a grand jury,
Crook said if the county feels further review is needed, it could submit the matter to the courts.
District 4 Supervisor Ryan Kelley said the board should focus on the censure action item on the agenda.
However District 3 Supervisor Mike Kelley asked why the county supervisors should not act immediately, especially if they are going to take this action at the Jan. 5 meeting anyway.
“Why not do it now?” he asked.
Castillo said it’s possible Mercado will react and meet with county officials once he realizes the county not only censured him but is considering going to a grand jury in an attempt to remove him from office.
“We need to resolve this, but I would say wait until the next meeting in January if he (does not reach out to the county),” Castillo said.
Mike Kelley disagreed, saying this has been going on for months, so there is little reason to continue to wait.
While the item was not on the agenda, he said the supervisors could direct the administration to file the proper documents to take it to a grand jury.
Plancarte said he would take Crook’s recommendation and place the item on the agenda for the Jan. 5 meeting.
Staff Writer Michael Maresh can be reached at mmaresh@ivpressonline.com
Imperial County Auditor Censured
IID Special Meeting 12/29/2020
There will be a special meeting of the IID Board of Directors on 12/29/2020.
The agenda is attached here.
IID Agenda 12/29/20
Response to Brian McNeece
By Rusty Jordan, Desert Review, 12/23/2020
IID Director Hamby wants things to remain the same as far as IID Water rights are concerned. Correctly, Brian McNeece notes the Colorado River is over allocated by about 2,000,000 acre feet a year. The Law of the River evolved from 1922 through the 1963. Arizona vs California shows a clear priority system has evolved.
IID, being senior to almost all of the users on the Colorado River, wants the system that acknowledges first-in-use, first-in-right to continue. Any change in the nature of the IID’s water rights, which separates the rights from application to the lands of the district, can put those rights in jeopardy.
There exists a system of cutbacks in times of shortage. Keeping things the same is critical to IID. If it’s IID money or political clout versus millions of people or states, the IID will lose. If they fight for the Law of the River and priority system they have a chance.
What IID needs most is a place to put its water rights to full use. What today is state of the art farming conservation will be tomorrow's normal. When the rest of the west is at the level of IID’s conservation, the unusual efforts being made will be normal and thus not worthy of payment to continue.
End of QSA will bring a Federal 417 hearing. The only way out of that box is for IID and its water users to have the ability to put water created by conservation to reasonable and beneficial use. That may include some, but not much, storage.
What are the options?
Improved drainage on fine textured (clay) lands that make them economic to farm.
Improved irrigation and fertilization on steep gravely soil with clay under lying to make them productive (around Niland).
Reclaim Salton Sea bottom land that is capable of good production.
Irrigating desert lands of high productive potential that lay within the district is the best option. These lands should be released from government ownership and put into private hands then watered and put into production.
Transfers by agreement of conserved water to other areas of Imperial County for development of agricultural, industrial, or municipal development should be encouraged.
Put good water to improve the habitat inside the Salton Sea footprint where needed should be considered.
There is some increased use and efficiency as the lands of IID slowly remove salt from currently producing lands. Tackling the under watering of tail ends of fields needs to be addressed. These two things will help increase use. They are small and important. Change of crops could also help or hurt.
Lastly research needs to be done on how to maximize production of the various crop of Imperial Valley finding the point of highest yield from proper water use, not how to maximize yield under reduced water application. The reduced water mode is popular but high yields are the answer for advancement of civilization.
If IID and the people of Imperial County cannot put to use all of the conserved water in some of the above ultimately IID will lose lots of its water to others. Having the land ready and some development done might get the IID though the end of the QSA. I think the crunch will come before that time.
To achieve this IID must understand the current cash bonanza has a life. The water users who enjoy conserving water must also understand the same. The cash for conservation will end unless profound measures are taken.
Signed
Rusty Jordan
A Reader Writes: IID Director Hamby begins a confounding crusade.
(Appears again for context)
By Brian McNeece, 12/20/2020
Brooks Hamby has taken the IID by storm in his first two weeks as an IID director. Far stronger than a breath of fresh air, this youthful hurricane has toppled several traditions. For the good? Time will tell. But certainly such a force of nature bears our close attention, for it’s clear that he has arrived as a crusader with a zealous conviction that he has a mandate for change.
For as long as most parties can remember, confidential staff at the IID have been present during closed sessions. Mr. Hamby, citing the Brown Act, garnered two other votes to boot out everyone but the five directors, the general manager and legal counsel. Even the clerk, who normally takes notes, was asked to leave.
But the Brown Act’s main purpose is to provide more access to meetings, not less. Its provisions do allow (but don’t require) boards to limit who is present during closed sessions. So what gives?
Later that day, Mr. Hamby seconded the nomination of, you guessed it — himself — to be vice-president. Traditionally, newly elected directors wait until their third year to become an officer.
Seeing such sudden changes to how things have been done in the past, we should be mindful of what Mr. Hamby does in his new, powerful role as one of five directors of a $900 million public organization.
Though he hasn’t said much about policy since he took office (it’s only been two meetings after all), he said plenty during the campaign.
At one debate he was asked his opinion on the Abatti v. IID case. Readers will remember that the California Fourth Appellate District Court in San Diego ruled that the IID held water rights in trust for all its users and that farmers had no special right to water. It also ruled that the IID board holds the authority to apportion water to its users via many methods.
When Mr. Hamby was asked his opinion on this decision, this is what he said:
“As was just mentioned attempts to try and change things from what they are and always have been into something entirely new. So, as we saw during the entire QSA period, there were attempts to try and change things as they’ve always been into something entirely new to make things ‘more secure.’ And so that’s a real serious concern there because attempting to change things from how they’ve been since they were set up with the Compact, Boulder Canyon Project Act and since the very beginning is very dangerous. And that’s not, those are not doors we should open.”
Did you get that? This is how I interpret his answer. The appellate court’s ruling is something new. That’s not good. Like this appeals court’s decision, the QSA was something new, therefore bad. New is not good.
But does the court’s opinion on Abatti v. IID really change things from the way they’ve always been? No. The question about who holds the rights to Colorado River had already been answered multiple times through court cases and contracts going back at least to 1932. When the courts validated the QSA in 2013, they again stated that the IID holds the rights to the water.
When the appeals court ruled that all water users in the IID service area are entitled to water service, it was just answering a new question that Mr. Abatti himself had raised. Their answer was that all users had always been entitled to water — just like farmers. Nothing new.
Mr. Hamby wants things to be like they were back when the Colorado River Compact was signed in 1922 and when the Boulder Canyon Project Act was signed in 1928. Back then there were perhaps a little over a million people in the entire Colorado River watershed across seven states. Now there are close to 40 million. That’s what’s new. Sorry, Director Hamby. There’s no going back.
When the Compact was signed, the US Bureau of Reclamation promised users on the river 15 million acre-feet (maf) per year. In 1944, they said, oops, we forgot Mexico, which they awarded another 1.5 million.
Nowadays, with more data, we know that the historical average flow on the Colorado River is around 14.7 maf. You see the problem: a nearly a 2 maf annual “structural deficit.” And with ongoing drought and climate change, the amount of water on the river could drop and drop in the coming years.
Mr. Hamby says he wants things to stay as they have always been, but when it suits him, he suddenly commands radical change. Welcome, Mr. Hamby. Remember that you represent us — the public.
Brian McNeece is a retired IVC instructor and administrator. He’s a member of the International Boundary & Water Commission Colorado River Citizens Forum and a longtime observer of local history. He can be reached at bmcneece@gmail.com
Director Hamby begins a confounding campaign.
Mr. McNeece says "Welcome, Mr. Hamby. Remember that you represent us — the public". Our Question for Mr. McNeece is which public are you a part of? The one on the other side of the hill, or here in Imperial Valley. His answer would be illuminating.