Thumbnail photo by Gavin Van Alstine A former county supervisor called it a red herring and the harbormaster said it was silly, but Del Norte County Clerk-Recorder Alissia Northrup reminded commissioners that the public’s concern about whether they have a faithful performance bond is real. Northrup said she has an insurance policy that was meant to act in lieu of commissioners’ individual bonds, but it’s not signed and it’s old. “It could have been canceled years ago,” she said Wednesday. “All I wanted was a complete current policy. That’s what I asked for and I’ve been unable to get one to date, so I want to make sure that we put it out there, it’s not silly. The public has an interest.” Though Harbormaster Mike Rademaker urged the Harbor District Board to approve a resolution authorizing insurance coverage in lieu of individual faithful performance bonds, commissioners voted 3-2 to table the issue. The resolution would have been a response to a Jan. 16 letter Del Norte County officials sent to the Harbor District. According to a response from the Harbor District, drafted Jan. 22 and signed by CCHD Board Chair Rick Shepherd, the resolution would have reaffirmed that its commissioners had faithful performance protection since March 12, 2012. Rademaker said he and his staff reached out to the district’s former attorney, Bob Black, who had represented CCHD in 2012 and stated that “everything was done as it’s described in this letter.” The district’s current legal counsel, Ryan Plotz, of the Mitchell Law Firm in Eureka, was going to write an opinion letter, Rademaker said. However, after the county raised conflict of interest concerns, Plotz deferred the matter to another attorney. On Wednesday, Rademaker said that lawyer had been in trial for about two weeks and was unavailable. “They have strong words for the suggestion that a sitting commissioner could be replaced,” he said. “We don’t believe there was any administrative failure, but even assuming the argument that there was, it’s absolutely absurd to suggest that a sitting duly elected commissioner would be replaced because of an administrative failure." Rademaker said he was proposing the Harbor District Board approve the resolution to satisfy the heightened level of public interest. “This is kind of silly, but we’ll go through the procedures to satisfy anybody who might have any concerns,” he said. Commissioner Annie Nehmer proposed tabling the matter after Rademaker stated that the attorney CCHD is working with to address the issue to include additional information. She said she wanted to make sure the Board had all the documents needed to make an accurate decision. Commissioner Gerhard Weber and Vice Chair John Evans dissented. According to the Harbor District’s resolution, the California Harbors and Navigation Code requires that individual commissioners maintain a $5,000 faithful performance bond subject to the approval of the county board of supervisors. It must also be filed with the county clerk-recorder’s office, Northrup told harbor commissioners at a Dec. 10 meeting. Currently, Nehmer is the only Crescent City Harbor commissioner who has a faithful performance bond approved by the Board of Supervisors and on file with Northrup’s office. On Wednesday, her colleague Dan Schmidt said it took him 24 hours to receive his faithful performance bond. He expected it to arrive via FedEx Wednesday and said he would then file it with Northrup’s office and present it to county supervisors. According to Schmidt, the bond cost $150, though he paid $50 extra to have it overnighted to his home. “Hopefully that will end the threat, which I often hear, that I would be kicked off this panel,” he said, holding up the unofficial photocopy of the bond. In its resolution, the Crescent City Harbor District cites California Government Code 1480 and 1481 that states authorizing and maintaining insurance coverage in lieu of official bonds would “give the same or greater protection” to the district. In its letter to the county, the Crescent City Harbor District states that its current insurance policy is with Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company and exceeds the faithful performance bond protection. On Wednesday, Shepherd said he felt it made more sense to have an insurance policy in lieu of individual faithful performance bonds. He noted that the insurance coverage would provide $50,000 worth of protection rather than the $5,000 bond. Rademaker agreed, saying that approving the resolution stating that the insurance policy is in lieu of the faithful performance bond would mean that individual commissioners wouldn’t have to file with the county clerk or go to the Board of Supervisors and “waste everyone’s time.” “It’s automatic,” he said. “It’s the modern way to do it.” Though Weber disagreed with tabling the matter, he said that he heard the concerns Northrup and other county officials raised about the insurance policy that hasn’t been signed. “If you look at the copies we have put out for right now, it only shows signatures from Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, but not from us,” he said, referring to the policy included in the agenda packet. “To make this more palatable, saying hey we accepted it, would be us being able to show that we actually paid for that insurance.” For her part, Del Norte County resident Linda Sutter wanted to proof that the Board of Commissioners in 2012 had adopted a resolution stating that insurance coverage provided the protection individual faithful performance bonds do. “The agenda packet in front of us contains no agenda, no minutes and no resolution in 2012 to support this claim,” she said. “(County) staff say records from that period is incomplete. There’s no legal evidence that the Board adopted this resolution.” Sandy Moreno, the Harbor District’s fiscal officer, said it was stated in June that the district had a master bond that covered all its commissioners. She said she spoke with Black who, while he didn’t personally handle the bond, “recall it being this master bond situation.” Moreno also stated that she and Rademaker met with county counsel Jacqueline Roberts about the bond issue, who said she had concerns based on statements that Sutter and another public commenter, Big Rock Community Services District director Hank Akin, raised. “There’s legitimacy in what people are saying ‘cause there is concern at the county level,” Moreno said. “But now we’ve had four different lawyers tell us that this is an acceptable method. What we’re doing is correct here. Our attorney is conflicted out and Bob Black is no longer lawyering, but that for me was the fourth attorney we’ve heard from that says this is doable.” After Northrup took issue with Rademaker’s statements that the issue was silly, District 1 Supervisor Darrin Short said that while no one is looking to unseat an elected commissioner, having a faithful performance bond in place is an operational law that needs to be followed. “We’re just looking for simple proof that this has been going on,” he said. “We’ve asked for the resolution from 2012. Mike, I believe I heard you say it was available. If it is, I don’t understand how it hasn’t showed up to the county yet.”