Tuesday's Crescent City Harbor District meeting Crescent City Harbor Commissioner Annie Nehmer called an effort to censure her and remove her from the vice chair position a smear campaign that wastes more time and taxpayer money. Before her colleagues voted to officially reprimand her, Nehmer outlined a series of grievances aimed primarily at Chair Gerhard Weber, who she accused of looking the other way as the agency neared insolvency. “This really has no ramifications other than trying to make me look bad in public,” she said Tuesday. “It’s a giant smear campaign against me to attempt to get me to step down and resign. It’s not going to happen.” The Board’s 3-2 vote to censure Nehmer and oust her from the vice chair role came amid questions about whether it was proper to have a contracted Harbor District employee provide evidence bolstering Weber’s claim that she had violated district bylaws by contacting the U.S. Department of Agriculture, State Lands Commission and other agencies the CCHD works with. The vote also occurred after Commissioner Dan Schmidt went through the district bylaws highlighting sections that he said prove Nehmer acted in good faith as a harbor commissioner. Schmidt, who, along with Nehmer, dissented, argued that she had a right to due process. “If you’ve ever gotten a traffic ticket or any kind of citation, you recognize that the accusing officer always signs his name to the citation under penalty of perjury,” Schmidt told Weber. “I think it’s appropriate for you, sir, to sign your charging document.” Before launching into the two resolutions on the agenda, Weber told the public that he took no pleasure in asking his colleagues to censure Nehmer, but it is “an absolute necessity.” “Today’s meeting is all about rules and consequences,” he said. “Anybody with a reasonable amount of life experience recognizes that rules without consequences are useless. From there it follows that a societal organization without effective rules will fail no matter what.” However, Weber reminded commissioners that the allegations levied against Nehmer that was included in Tuesday’s agenda packet, was his opinion that he put forth after having several conversations with staff. In his statement, Weber said he had hoped that “informal advisories, direct conversations and repeated admonishments” from legal counsel would prompt Nehmer to “correct course.” Nehmer’s conduct prevents the Board from functioning cohesively and undermines the CCHD’s reputation, according to Weber. He referred specifically to his colleague’s communication with the district’s principal lender — the USDA — her levying lawsuits against the Harbor District and her undisclosed consultations with general counsel as a misapplication of the concept of fiduciary duty. “Each of these issues has independently caused reputational, financial or governance harm,” Weber stated,” taken together, they reflect a pattern of behavior incompatible with the responsibilities of an officer of this Board.” In his statement, Weber said Nehmer’s contact with outside agencies violated CCHD Bylaw 2.7. This states that any individual commissioner “shall not make any statement, inference or appearance or indicate in any way that he or she is representing the District or the Board on any action, decision or policy direction.” In addition to the USDA, State Lands Commission and Del Norte County counsel, Nehmer allegedly contacted the U.S. Coast Guard and the California Coastal Commission. Weber stated that Nehmer also violated CCHD Bylaw 6.2, which requires commissioners to disclose the nature of any consultations they have with general counsel to the full board, typically in closed session. As for the litigation Nehmer initiated against the district, alleging that the Board of Commissioners violated the Brown Act, Weber states that the Harbor District was forced to expend “tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars” defending itself. “As a vice chair, she has an even greater obligation to work diligently to build consensus and foster unity, yet she chose instead to bypass her colleagues entirely,” Weber stated. “Such conduct is not becoming of a leader entrusted with the responsibilities of an officer position. It demonstrates a disregard for the collective decision-making process and a willingness to impose significant and unnecessary costs on the very taxpayers the Board is sworn to protect.” Weber’s colleague, John Evans noted that Nehmer had filed litigation against the Harbor District to keep an investigation into allegations of misconduct on the part of Harbormaster Mike Rademaker from going public. In May, Nehmer told Redwood Voice Community News that the investigation conducted by Sacramento firm HRtoGO was not finished. On Tuesday, Evans said the information in that report shouldn’t be kept from the public. Evans said he hoped Nehmer would recognize the deficiencies and “correct course.” “She’s not independent of this Board and needs to act in good faith,” he said. “Not only with the Board, but with the public and try to have consensus with the public.” Nehmer has acknowledged reaching out to the agencies the Crescent City Harbor District works with. In the case of the U.S. Coast Guard, Nehmer said Evans and Rademaker had given use of the Coast Guard building to the Del Norte County Sheriff, though there was no approved MOU with the federal agency. Nehmer said she had asked for a status update on the deed to the building after the Coast Guard vacated it in 2021 or 2022. At the time, then-harbormaster Tim Petrick said it would take two to three years for the Harbor District to receive the deed, so she felt it was time for an update. “As most of you know, Paul Boylan has been representing me, he encouraged me to have the harbormaster take over responsibility,” Nehmer said referring to her Davis-based attorney. “Since I stopped following up on an amendment needed for the Coast Guard building, there’s been zero movement that has happened, therefore we cannot garner any revenue from that building.” Nehmer said she has since learned that per an agreement with the Coast Guard, the Harbor District is unable to rent it to another party. She said she also asked the California Coastal Commission about another building, one the Harbor District spent $80,000 on to buyout its leaseholder. Though the Coastal Commission has stated that no one is allowed to live at the building, Rademaker had been living there, Nehmer said. “The Board refused to evict the harbormaster from that building,” she told her colleagues “It took the county threatening to shut off power to rectify the situation.” Nehmer also spoke to allegations regarding her reaching out to the Harbor District’s insurance agent. She said she had reached out after being informed by a member of the public that the Harbor District had never had a second insurance quote for a “very sizable insurance policy.” Weber pushed back against Nehmer’s statement that the proposed censure was a measure to silence a sitting commissioner. He noted that he’s often the last person to comment on a matter because he doesn’t want to exercise his "semi-authority” as chair to influence anyone’s opinion. However, he said Nehmer’s conduct is starting to cause damage. “The latest item, I just got an email from the USDA setting up a meeting for Thursday the 18th and it’s inviting all five commissioners to participate,” Weber said. The CCHD has been working to pay off a $5 million USDA loan that was used to rebuild the marina following tsunamis in 2006 and 2011. Having all five commissioners participate in a meeting with the USDA would be a Brown Act violation, Weber said. “You can’t go into negotiations because you have five people that can’t agree and, therefore, it doesn’t make any sense,” he said. “Our first decision was to let our executive [team] do their work. This is what they get paid for.” Schmidt, however, said that CCHD Board bylaw 2.4 requires commissioners to presume their colleagues are acting in good faith. Nehmer has a presumption of innocence, he said. Under the Harbor District bylaws, the vice chair is also the compliance officer, which means it’s Nehmer’s job to make sure things are done right. “I want to know how it is that the person who’s making the accusation, acting as witness… is acting as tribunal officer who will very likely administer punishment,” he said. “That smells pretty bad.” Schmidt’s colleague, long-time commercial fisherman Rick Shepherd, said Nehmer’s actions are harming the Board and have violated her fiduciary duties to the citizens of Del Norte County. While he said he had a hard time censuring anyone, he hoped to levy a reprimand against Nehmer, saying her communications with outside agencies violated the Board’s bylaws. “The USDA communication was totally out of line,” Shepherd said. “She knew our harbormaster, Mike Rademaker, and Sandy Moreno were in negotiations — what did she think they were negotiating? They were negotiating the loan. If every single one of us went out and [was] doing things on our own it would be total chaos.” Following the Board’s discussion, Schmidt made a motion to reject Nehmer’s censure and removal from her vice chair position with Nehmer seconding the motion. However, after Shepherd asked to add a “stern reprimand for actions she has made with the USDA and State Lands Commission,” Nehmer rescinded her second to Schmidt’s original motion. It was Evans who made the motion to censure Nehmer with Weber seconding it. During public comment, Linda Sutter, who is also represented by Paul Boylan and filed suit against the Harbor District due to Brown Act and California Public Records Act violation. She also took issue with the statement that Nehmer’s litigation against the Harbor District cost “tens of thousands” in attorneys fees. “The commissioner filed lawsuits not for personal gain, but to shine a light on corruption every one of you know exists,” Sutter said. “You can call her Brown Act claims meritless yet the Grand Jury validated every type of Brown At [violation claim].” Joe “Hank” Akin, who is involved with the Big Rock Community Service District in Hiouchi, said he conducted personnel investigations for public officials for years. He also brought up Evans’ statement regarding the HRtoGO investigation and said that the public can now access that document even though it’s related to a harassment case. “An elected official, like any other citizen, has the right to file lawsuits,” he said. “Government bodies cannot retaliate against someone, including their elected colleague for exercising this right.” During public comment, Moreno, who gave a timeline of events to the Board of Commissioners as the Harbor District’s financial advisor, called herself the silent majority speaking against a vocal minority who has thrown her and Rademaker to the wolves. “We’re known as the best drama in town,” Moreno said. “We have to stop this… If you do not take action today it will be more of the same and that means Mike and I are going to be attacked. How are we going to do our jobs if we can’t get the Board to step up?” Former Del Norte Triplicate editor Roger Gitlin reiterated his threats to recall both Nehmer and Schmidt, but not before demanding Weber eject public commenter Alicia Williams from the room after she tried to speak over him. According to Gitlin, Nehmer, who cast the sole vote against hiring Rademaker as harbormaster, hired Boylan and cost the CCHD $55,000 in legal fees because she didn’t want Rademaker to continue in the position. “Whatever happens here, I have the paperwork ready,” Gitlin said. “You both will be subject to a recall. You Ms. Nehmer and you Mr. Schmidt, and I will do that. I have plenty of time now that the paper’s not in business, I will do that successfully.”