Thumbnail photo by Amanda Dockter A week after the question over whether they have faithful performance bonds in place reached the Board of Supervisors, Crescent City Harbor Commissioners learned they would need a different attorney to resolve the issue. County officials have raised a conflict of interest objection stating that the firm the Harbor District’s attorney works for also represents Del Norte, Harbormaster Mike Rademaker told commissioners at a special meeting Wednesday. Rademaker, who had spoken with Ryan Plotz, the district’s legal advisor, said the attorney had found a provision in California Government Code, 1481(b), that supersedes the Harbors and Navigation Code. “So we believe we’re mostly compliant,” Rademaker said. “But we’re going to have to find different counsel because the county has raised an objection.” Board Chairman Rick Shepherd asked Rademaker and Plotz to identify a potential attorney who could represent the Harbor District in negotiations with the county. The harbormaster said that attorney could also help the harbor with the facilities plan the Board rejected at its Dec. 9 meeting. “We’ll probably need counsel on that item as well,” Rademaker said. According to County Clerk-Recorder Alissia Northrup, a faithful performance bond is a surety bond that protects against dishonest acts on the part of an elected official. Under the California Harbor and Navigations Code, each harbor commissioner is required to submit a $5,000 faithful performance bond to the county Board of Supervisors for their approval and file it with the county clerk-recorder’s office. The California government code Plotz cited, however, refers to a master official bond or another form of master bond that may be used to provide coverage for more than one officer, employee or agent of a local public agency whether they are elected or appointed. According to a report Plotz wrote for the Harbor Board’s Dec. 10 meeting, CCHD has maintained a bond through Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company for its five commissioners since 2012. Currently, Annie Nehmer is the only harbor commissioner to bring an individual performance bond to the Board of Supervisors for approval and to have filed it with the county clerk-recorder. On Dec. 10, Plotz said the Harbor District has had faithful performance bonds in place for its five commissioners since 2012. They meet the Harbor and Navigations Code requirements, but they haven’t been approved by the Board or filed with the county clerk’s office. On Wednesday, Rademaker spoke about the “suggestion” that the Board of Commissioners’ actions would be invalidated because their faithful performance bonds weren’t approved by the Board of Supervisors. “There were some extreme pronouncements that have been made, but obviously there needs to be some discussion between the harbor and the county,” he said. “And Ryan can no longer carry out those duties of the harbor because of the conflict of interest that was raised.” Nehmer noted that the Harbor District would likely spend more on an attorney than it would if each commissioner got bonded individually. Sandy Moreno, CCHD’s fiscal officer, who told the Board of Supervisors last week that the Harbor Commission had faithful performance bonds for its commissioners, said the district has already filled out individual bond applications for elected officials. “We’ve already started to complete them (and) we’re ready to give them to you guys to sign,” she said. “We assumed the Harbor would pay the $345 for each of you and right now we pay $259 per year for the one we have that is already paid for.” According to Nehmer, one issue that needs to be addressed is the statement in the Harbor and Navigations Code that each individual commissioner is required to furnish a faithful performance bond. She suggested that it might be a good idea if each commissioner get their own faithful performance bond after being elected and before they take office.