(The water board’s executive summary of the investigation into Eisenberg.)
BY BRADEN CARTWRIGHT
Daily Post Staff Writer
A four-year feud between Valley Water board member Rebecca Eisenberg and her own agency has escalated as voters in Palo Alto, Mountain View and Los Altos are deciding whether to reelect her.
Valley Water released a report on Friday about Eisenberg’s treatment of former District Counsel Carlos Orellana, who she called a liar and accused of bribing judges.
Eisenberg filed a federal lawsuit against Valley Water today (Oct. 12), alleging that she’s been retaliated against for opposing a dam project and exposing gender bias.
Eisenberg, a Palo Alto resident, said the report was released to harm her re-election bid against Los Altos Councilman Pete Dailey.
“I filed this federal lawsuit to stop ongoing retaliation and lies, and I’m confident justice will be served in federal court,” she said in a statement yesterday.
The feud goes back to December 2022, when Eisenberg was elected and accused former CEO Rick Callender of lying on a $2.8 billion loan application to expand a reservoir east of Gilroy.
Eisenberg allegedly said Valley Water should be led by a woman of color and hire women-led contractors. Flooding issues are happening because men “love to build things” using concrete, she said.
“Both male and female members of staff have directly expressed to me fear, concern and trepidation about past and potential future interactions with Director Eisenberg,” Callender wrote in a memo to the board on Jan. 23, 2023.
Valley Water hired an investigator to look into Eisenberg’s complaints and those of the employees. The result was two separate reports of more than 2,000 pages combined.
In January 2024, Valley Water told board members they could read the reports but not take them from the office. But video showed Eisenberg driving off with the reports, and Valley Water sued her to get them back.
In March 2024, the board censured Eisenberg — a formal expression of disapproval. The board said removal of the reports “violated employees’ legitimate right to privacy and has resulted in an environment of fear of retaliation.”
Eisenberg accused Orellana of bribery at a meeting on Jan. 29, according to the latest report.
“The only reason you ever win in court is because you pay off judges,” she said, according to the report.
Eisenberg also called Orellana “the most incompetent lawyer ever.”
Investigator Kym McCourt said Eisenberg violated Valley Water’s ethics policy by engaging in “abusive conduct, personal charges or verbal assaults upon the character or motives” of a Valley Water employee, and “belligerent, personal, slanderous, threatening, abusive, or disparaging comments” during a meeting.
Eisenberg said in her lawsuit today that she complained about Orellana’s financial and ethical misconduct.
She said Valley Water investigated Orellana, but she wasn’t allowed to see the results. Orellana resigned in June shortly after the investigation was complete, she said.
Valley Water’s board will discuss the report on Eisenberg at tomorrow’s meeting.
Basta! There’s an overload of drama in local politics.
Is it too much to ask that only mature grown-ups seek the opportunity to serve our communities? Or that Robert Fulghum’s book, All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten, be required reading for every incumbent and candidate?
Basta!
I hope she gets the help she needs.
My guess is that the water district will file a motion to dismiss (FRCP Rule 12(b)(6)), arguing that even if all the factual allegations in the complaint are true, they do not legally amount to a violation of the law. In other words, she failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
The defendants will also be able to assert statutory immunity (such as qualified immunity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983) because they were carrying out their duties as government officials.
They’ll also point out that Eisenberg ran to court before filing claims with the California Civil Rights Department or following the Government Civil Claims Act (which requires a six-month prior notice before filing a lawsuit). She failed to exhaust these administrative remedies because she wanted to have a lawsuit to wave around before the election.
I expect the water district will argue that the censure of Eisenberg was done for legitimate, non-retaliatory, non-discriminatory reasons. Then they will document her actions that led to the censure, pointing out that anybody — regardless of sex, race, age, etc. — would have been treated the same way.
Finally, the defendants have the best defense against defamation — the truth. Truth is always a complete defense.
The motion to dismiss will be granted. Of course it won’t come until after the election. I’ll bet the court will see this filing as a publicity stunt and will handle it accordingly.
This woman seems to be standing up to corruption. Keep going – but don’t freak out too much. We see you. Stay calm.
I filed my own very lengthy formal complaint against Director Eisenberg documenting numerous violations of the Board’s governance policies that require honesty and prohibit personal attacks. She was censured by a unanimous vote, and the sanctions that were imposed on her have remained in place due to subsequent unanimous votes. None of her absurd conspiracy theories have been shown to have any merit, and she has been defeated in a court of law. To believe her version of events requires an uncommon level of cynicism and gullibility. Eisenberg has a combative temperament and warped, self-righteous perspective that makes her entirely unsuited for her elected office. District Seven deserves better, and should replace her with level-headed, collegial Pete Dailey.