PREVIOUSLY

###

[The following op-ed is by Richard Marks, president of the board of the Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation and Conservation District.]

The lawsuit filed this week against the Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation and Conservation District, its Commissioners, and CEO Jack Crider alleging conflict of interest violations has no merit, based on an initial evaluation of the pleading, according to District Counsel Paul Brisso. 

The lawsuit alleges that the District illegally entered into a transaction with Coast Seafoods, the employer of Commissioner Greg Dale, in which Commissioner Dale engaged in a conflict of interest. 

Under Government Code sections 1090 and 1091, there is no violation of conflict of interest when the public official’s interest is “remote,” the interest is disclosed, and the official does not vote or otherwise attempt to influence another member of the Commission to approve the contract, according to Counsel.

 A Commissioner’s interest is “remote” as defined under section 1091(b)(2) if:

  1. The contracting party (in this case Coast Seafoods) has 10 or more other employees;
  2. The Commissioner was an employee of the contracting party at least 3 years before becoming a Commissioner;
  3. The Commissioner owns less than 3 per cent of the stock of the contracting party;
  4. The Commissioner is an employee or agent, not an officer or director of the contracting party; and
  5. The Commissioner did not directly participate in the formulating of the bid of the contracting party.

To the District’s knowledge, Coast Seafoods has more than 10 employees other than Commissioner Dale; Commissioner Dale was employed by Coast Seafoods at least 3 years before he became a Commissioner; Commissioner Dale does not own 3 per cent or more of the stock of Coast Seafood; and the stockholders of Coast Seafood have never voted Commissioner Dale as a Director of Coast Seafoods, and he is not a Director of that corporation, Brisso said.

Also to the Harbor District’s knowledge, the Board of Directors of Coast Seafood has never named Commissioner Dale an officer of the corporation and he is not a corporate officer.  The lawsuit alleges that Commissioner Dale is the “Southwest Operations Manager for Coast Seafoods Company,” which is Commissioner Dale’s job title, not a corporate officer position. 

To the District’s knowledge, Commissioner Dale did not directly participate in Coast Seafoods’ formulation of its proposal and position in limited obligation note, which is the basis for the claims made in the lawsuit.  According to District CEO Jack Crider, he and District Counsel Paul Brisso were the two individuals on behalf of the District who negotiated the terms of the limited obligation note with Coast Seafoods. 

“All of those negotiations were with Coast Seafoods’ attorney Robert Preston and John Petrie - President of Coast Seafoods,” Crider stated.  “Commissioner Dale did not participate in those negotiations on behalf of either the District or Coast Seafoods.”

At all times since he became a Commissioner, Commissioner Dale has recused himself on issues involving Coast Seafoods.  For most of the meetings and Commission actions alleged in the Complaint, Commissioner Dale was not even present at the meetings in question. 

“Although ultimately Commissioner Dale and each of the other Commissioners would have to confirm there were no attempts by Commissioner Dale to influence one or more of the other Commissioners outside of the context of public meetings, the District is confident that there were no such contacts,” Crider said.

In addition to the substantive allegations made against the District as being without merit, the District also believes the relief sought in the litigation is contrary to law.

The lawsuit seeks the Court to order that Commissioner Dale be removed from office and barred from holding office; the District believes that is contrary to the State and Federal Constitutions and beyond the power of the court.  “The power to remove Commissioner Dale from office, or retain him in office, is vested in the voters,” Harbor Counsel Brisso stated.

The lawsuit also infers the District can keep the funds borrowed from Coast Seafood if the litigation is successful.  The District believes that even if the suit is somehow successful such a result is highly unlikely.  A more probable result is that the District would have to find a way to make an immediate repayment of the loan, according to counsel.

It is my personal belief that this lawsuit was filed to slander Commissioner Dale and the timing of it was designed to disrupt the electoral process, as the day the public was informed of the lawsuit, was also the day Absentee Mailers arrived at 2nd District Voters mail boxes.

Richard Marks
President
Humboldt Harbor Recreation and Conservation District