Thumbnail photo by Gavin Van Alstine Harbor commissioners thought the word of a highly credentialed attorney would put the faithful performance bond issue to bed. But while Michael Colantuono, who has practiced municipal law since 1989, pulled back the covers and plumped up the pillow, at least one commissioner and two members of the public weren’t quite ready for sleep. Commissioner Annie Nehmer, who obtained an individual faithful performance bond and filed it with the county in December, said she had been asking to see proof that the Crescent City Harbor District has protection against crime and fraud for its elected officials for months. On Wednesday, Nehmer pointed out that a certificate of insurance — the document that verifies that CCHD had paid its bills — could have been obtained through a simple phone call. But she questioned the 2009 date of issuance on the policy before her and an illegible signature dated Jan. 26, 2026. “The certificate of insurance would say, ‘yes, this check went through us because your insurance is valid today,’” Nehmer told her colleagues. “It’s a simple document. I don’t know why it’s so hard.” Nehmer voted with the three other Harbor Commissioners on Wednesday to approve a resolution affirming that the district has had a blanket crime and fraud bond in lieu of individual performance bonds since 2012. Vice Chairman John Evans was absent. Along with the resolution, Harbor Board Chairman Rick Shepherd signed a letter to the Del Norte County Board of Supervisors, citing Colantuono’s advice and stating that the Board has determined that having a blanket bond complies with California Government Code sections 1481 and 53226.3. The first provision states that a master official bond protecting the agency from crime and fraud can be used for more than one officer, employee or agent of a local public agency whether elected or appointed. The other states that “the legislative body of a district, other than a school district,” can insure against losses caused by an employee or officer in lieu of providing a bond or bonds. CCHD’s letter also cites California Harbors and Navigations Code Section 6056, stating that “if read in isolation, (it) could be construed as requiring a $5,000 faithful performance bond.” “The District has long satisfied the underlying faithful-performance protection objective through its lawful reliance on the authorities cited above, which render that bond requirement inapplicable,” the Harbor District Board states in its letter. After listing his credentials, which include serving as city attorney for seven municipalities, Colantuono called Harbors and Navigations Code Section 6056 ancient. “There are many statutes like it, but none of them are of practical significance in the world we live in,” he said. “The reason that none of them are of practical significance is because a $5,000 bond doesn’t buy you very much protection, and it’s relatively expensive for what you get. And modern insurance programs provided by risk pools, which you belong to, or by commercial insurance companies provide better coverage for less money.” Though he called the Harbor District’s records imperfect, Colantuono said that the insurance policy in lieu of a faithful performance bond that it’s had since 2012 is in good standing. However, if there is a defect in the paperwork, it’s the fault of the Harbor District, not individual commissioners, he said. The only way to remove a sitting commissioner, Colantuono said, is to successfully recall them, vote them out of office during an election or by filing an Action in a Quo Warranto lawsuit. “There’s only two people with standing to bring an Action in Quo Warranto,” he said. “Your board as a whole could bring an action to question the right of any of your officeholders to hold office or the attorney general can give somebody that risk if they ask for it and demonstrate entitlement to it.” Harbormaster Mike Rademaker told commissioners that CCHD’s insurance broker with Redwood Leavitt Insurance signed the policy with Allied Insurance that Nehmer referred to. That policy, dated March 19, 2009, was included in the Harbor Board’s agenda packet and was signed Jan. 26, 2026. Though the dates differ, Colantuono said the policy is acceptable under California Government Code. Del Norte County District 2 Supervisor Valerie Starkey asked Colantuono if he had a chance to review the insurance documents the Crescent City Harbor District had to ensure that they’re legitimate. She, too, referred to a document that has a 2009 date but bears Rademaker’s signature. “He wasn’t CEO/harbormaster in 2009,” she said. “I’m fine with them doing a master insurance bond, but my concern is how is that a legitimate document and how can we prove that it’s current? I’m not seeing it.” Colantuono assured her that he reviewed the documents presented to the CCHD Board and was satisfied that its insurance policy is current and “you’ve paid the premiums for years.” When Starkey pressed him, asking if Rademaker’s signature on a 2009 document is correct, Colantuono said his office manager often issues similar certificates proving he has liability and errors of omission insurance. There are too many people asking for such proof and insurance companies “don’t want to bear the expense to issue them,” he said. The attorney further told Starkey that, as a county supervisor, the faithful performance bond issue wasn’t her problem. “I know your constituency is showing up to your board meeting and you have to respond to them and I respect your desire to be responsive to the people who elected you,” Colantuono said. “But we also have to consider the people who elected these five board members. If there was an effort to oust them, you’re not just ousting a board member, you’re undoing the vote of thousands of people who voted for them.” The attorney repeated that Harbors and Navigations Code 6056 once the Harbor District Board of Commissioners selected a blanket insurance policy. “The good news is it isn’t your problem,” he said. “The bad news is you don’t have control over it, but maybe that’s a good thing.” Rademaker said he signed the document in question on the instruction of the CCHD insurance broker. It was frequent critic and 2024 Harbor Board candidate Linda Sutter who said she filed the Quo Warranto complaint with the California Attorney General’s Office alleging that the commissioners were seated unlawfully. On Wednesday, she said the insurance policy the CCHD holds and is voting a resolution on covers its employees, but the Board of Commissioners are elected officials, not employees. “That’s why you’re required to have a bond and you’re not indemnified if you break the law,” she said. Just before the Harbor Board approved the resolution affirming that it had insurance coverage for crime and fraud in lieu of a faithful performance bond, their fiscal officer, Sandy Moreno, spoke up. Moreno said she had brought the issue to County Clerk-Recorder Alissia Northrup over the summer, who had advised her to seek legal counsel. The Harbor District has consulted with attorneys five times on this matter, Moreno told commissioners. She said she was angry that the Board “couldn’t accept that this is a minor thing.” “There should have been a trust factor,” she said. “If this is the way we did it and you bring somebody like me in who usually runs the office and handles these kinds of documents on a regular basis, and I’m telling you, this is what we should be doing, it should have been left there.” Out of the five commissioners, Nehmer obtained a faithful performance bond, presented it to the Del Norte County Board of Supervisors and filed it with Northrup last fall. On Wednesday, her colleague Dan Schmidt said he also obtained a faithful performance bond, which cost him $150 and was ready in 72 hours.