_____________________
_____________________
March 14, 2025
By Brian Hews
Central Basin Municipal Water District [CB] directors were handed an embarrassing legal setback this week, which could see the directors having to reinstate Alex Rojas, who was illegally terminated on November 1, 2024, during a questionable special board meeting as the agency’s general manager.
Los Cerritos Community News was the only media outlet to report on the “special meeting” in November 2024 – that was illegally called – a meeting that saw CB Board members Juan Garza, Martha, Camacho Rodriguez, Nem Ochoa, and Joanna Moreno defy a 2015 California State Audit Mandate and Central Basin Administrative Code and fire Rojas.
________________
________________
The meeting was illegal because it violated Government Code 54956 24-hour meeting notice rule, which states, “A special meeting may be called at any time….by delivering written notice to each member of the legislative body and each local newspaper of general circulation…. the notice shall be delivered personally or by any other means and shall be received at least 24 hours before the time of the meeting as specified in the notice.”
At the time, Garza, Ochoa, and Moreno were all appointed, not elected, because AB 1794 mandated three appointed directors to “watch over” the other elected directors. However, the appointed directors, like Garza, Ochoa, and Moreno, have proven they are the directors who need to be watched, as evidenced by the illegal removal of Rojas. Ochoa and Moreno had been on the Board for only three weeks when they violated the Code, appointed in Oct 2024.
According to documents obtained by LCCN, the agenda was sent out at 2:30 pm the day before the next day’s 1:00 pm meeting. In addition, LCCN is the adjudicated newspaper for the City of Commerce and did not receive the notice via email; both were violations of 54956.
The calling of the special meeting also violated Central Basin’s Code under Article 3, section 3.3, Duties and Role of Board Officers, which states, “The President shall: (1) Preside over all meetings of the Board. (i) Have final approval on the contents of the agendas for all regular, special, and emergency meetings of the Board.” Chacon was not asked to approve the November 1 agenda.
Illegally Fired Rojas
After the debacle between 2011 and 2014, a 2015 California State Audit mandated that if the Board wanted to fire the CB GM, it needed six votes. Only four CB Directors were present to fir Rojas.
In addition, Rojas’s personal employment contract mandated a 7/8 vote of the Board, which is also six given the board configuration in November 2024.
It did not matter. Probably telling themselves they would settle with Rojas (like two other CB GMs) using taxpayer dollars, Garza, Camacho, Ochoa, and Moreno fired Rojas.
Eventually, Rojas filed a preliminary injunction (temporary restraining order) and permanent injunction enjoining and restraining the District from hiring a new general manager.
Superior Court Judge Kurtis A. Kin denied the Rojas’ restraining order but then scheduled a trial for June or July of this year to rule on the petition.
Judge Kin determined that the temporary restraining order was unnecessary because the court could not prevent the District from moving forward on hiring a new general manager, in essence saying that if Rojas was reinstated and the District had two general managers, that would be an issue for the District to figure out.
The District’s attorney tried to have the entire petition denied claiming that it was a wrongful termination case; however, the judge rebuked the attorney saying that the petition’s focus was exactly what LCCN reported on in November 2024: procedural and compliance issues regarding public notice (Government Code 54956 and Central Basin Code Article 3, section 3.3) and sufficient affirmative votes (2015 State Audit and Rojas’ employment contract.)
The attorneys for the District appeared at times unprepared while providing conflicting information to the judge. At one point, the attorney for the District claimed they were not authorized to receive service (a subpoena) on behalf of the District, which was contrary to a conversation the District’s attorney had with Rojas’s attorney.
If case precedent is considered, Rojas has a good shot at getting his job back. The petition is very similar to the Commerce v. Central Basin Municipal Water District petition, which ruled that the affirmative vote count of conducting District business is based on the total number of board members, not on vacancies.
For example, if a board had eight seats, the affirmative vote must be five even if the Board had vacant seats; CB attorneys argued that any affirmative vote is based on the number of board members present at a meeting and not on the total board seats.
The judge in that case, Judge Chalfant, ruled against CB. CB attorneys are making the same argument in the case of Rojas’ firing, stating that four votes to terminate Rojas (Garza, Camacho, Ochoa, and Moreno) was sufficient.
The trial on the petition could be heard as soon as June or July.
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.