“Kremen's top donors were unions and political action committees, including $5,000 from the Santa Clara and San Benito Building and Construction Trades Council PAC; $3,000 from the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees and $2,000 from the Laborers Local 270 PAC. He also received $1,000 donations each from the Plumbers and Steamfitters and Refrigeration Fitters; Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3; Bonneau Dickson, a construction sanitary engineer from Berkeley;“

This is not the only problem with Kremen. The SJ Mercury news has an editorial about why voters should OUST Kremen from Santa Clara Valley Water board.

I understand Kremen was among those behind the deceptively worded June ballot measure asking whether the Water District Board should have "term limits of four terms" Sounds reasonable to the uninformed voter, but they already had a three-term limit so this was an Expansion!

While I am not happy about the ballot measure, Mr Kremen has demonstrated expertise in water policy and delivered valuable service to north county. A portion of our property taxes have gone to Valley Water for decades with very little to show for it. He fixed that. He transformed a sleepy, rubber stamp board into something that is actually benefiting Palo Alto and north county residents.
Ms Eisenberg on the other hand has [portion removed] exhibited [portion removed] behavior [that] would trigger a much harsher bullying report than anything Kreman may have done. And she simply doesn't appear to be qualified for the role. So while neither candidate is perfect, My Kreman appears to be the only reasonable choice.

I agree with Sue Dremann and Palo Alto Online / Palo Alto Weekly for this fantastic coverage of the facts!

As this article shows, Rebecca Eisenberg's race is 100% people-powered. For each one individual who contributed to her opponent, 23 contributed Rebecca Eisenberg for Santa Clara Valley Water District!

Given the obvious success and positive reception that Rebecca's campaign is receiving, her opponent has resorted to lies and deflections. Meet Rebecca yourself to ascertain her personality. She is vivacious, optimistic, friendly, and authentic.

The candidate in this race who has the abusive personality, established by his OWN law firm, which found as a matter of law and fact "that Gary Kremen overstepped his authority as a member of the Santa Clara Valley Water board and abusively treated district staff." Web Link Kremen is simply trying to push his own short comings onto someone else.

As The Honorable LaDoris Cordell said succinctly:

"The RPLG determined that Kremen verbally assaulted a
district employee, engaged in abusive conduct that included
using profanity against another employee, and threatened to
“tear up” yet another employee. Several district employees
opted to remain anonymous out of fear of retaliation by
Kremen.

It is clear to anyone with an ounce of common sense that
Kremen’s bullying and harassing behavior has contributed to
a hostile work environment at the district. Now, he wants to
be re-elected?" (LaDoris Cordell, Palo Alto Daily Post, October 30, 2022, Letter to the Editor.)

This confirms why voters should replace him in the Nov. 8 election.

I'm voting for Mr. Kremen who has served north county very well. As a regular Council and PTC watcher, I have watched Ms. Eisenberg for years verbally abuse and accuse public officials who simply do not share her point of view, rather than persuading them with facts. As a result, she has ineffective at moving votes her way. Mr. Kremen has been very effective representing us. He has my vote.

[Portion removed.] It is firmly established by a law firm hired by the district, that Kremen abused, harassed and bullied numerous employees to the brink of tears. In one instance he abused an employee who refused to follow his dubious instructions to forego the legal accounting system of the district.

Your anecdotal, at best, statements, do not compare with the TEN, yes Ten verified instances of Gary Kremen abusing people in his own commission (Web Link

If you want to see how Ms. Eisenberg actual acts, I encourage everyone here to look at the debate in which Kremen completely discredited himself and Ms. Eisenberg was quite charming. Web Link Alternatively, you can reach out to her directly at rebecca@rebecca4water.com

Vote for Ms. Eisenberg for Water Commission!

Here is an email that Concilperson Tom DuBois sent out:

Another important race is the Valley Water Commissioner race, which has not been getting that much attention. Palo Altans pay property tax which goes to Valley Water, even though we do not use them as a source of our drinking water. Over the years, we have gotten very little in return for our funds, until the latest commissioner, Gary Kremen, was on the board. Gary has worked hard to get Palo Alto $16M in funding for a recycled water plant and a multi-year agreement which would pay an additional $64M over the years for our wastewater. Whatever you think about Gary personally, he has credibility with the water district, knowledge and has delivered for Palo Alto. His opponent has none of these characteristics and has often said shocking things, speaking at 61 of the last 133 council meetings and 15 of the last 56 school board meetings. Her experience is a self-professed love for water. I believe Palo Alto would suffer if Gary is not re-elected.

[Post removed.]

It seems clear that this race isn't really about supporting Ms. Eisenberg, it's about defeating Mr. Kremen. A fence post with a Harvard degree tacked to it would garner support by many if they thought it would defeat Kreman.

What's unfortunate is the press hasn't done any serious assessment of Eisenberg's character the way it has of Kremen's. If it had, as I will do now and hope not to be taken down, she would be found lacking in judgement, knowledge, and self control as she has shown at countless council meetings over the years.

[Portion removed.]

It may present a dilemma to you, but think very carefully about your higher responsibility as a voter. Don't vote for Rebecca Eisenberg for the wellfare and greater good of our County.

[Portion removed.] This is her husband, Curtis Smolar, I love Rebecca Eisenberg and you should too! We have 2 great kids, one is a junior at Paly and one is Freshman at RPI in Troy NY. All of this hate mongering of Rebecca is disgusting and you all should be ashamed. I will call you out below on who I think needs to apologize to her for your prior statements.
I will address your horrible comments in reverse order:

1. Rebecca is Profoundly Qualified. Gary and his trolls, i.e. Pat Burt, Lydia Kou, Eric Filseth and Tom DuBois and apparently people here forget that Gary had NO qualifications but for running Sex.com and (briefly) Match.com before he was elected. Rebecca is profoundly more qualified then him TODAY.
2. Rebecca's character. Rebecca was the second lawyer at PayPal, and the General Counsel of Reddit. Both Reid Hoffman, of PayPal (and Linkedin) fame, and Yishan Wong both PayPal and Reddit fame have been major donors to her campaign. Why? Because she is awesome.
3. [Portion removed due to deletion of referenced comment.]
4. Fix the Creek: Gary has not brought in 1/5th of the money needed for the Pacheco Dam. You are either Gary, or a labor union member in the trades who donated tons of money so you can build a dangerous, environmentally unsound, and antiquated dam.

Bottom line is that Gary is wealthy (by his own admission) and not very good at what he does (see Web Link Web Link Vote for someone who is good at what she does VOTE REBECCA!!!

[Post removed; same poster using multiple names.]

Once in a while, I'll listen in on PAUSD board meetings. I recall at least two where Rebecca would speak on every...single...issue. Repeating the same comments incessantly shows me she has little to no self-awareness. Fortunately, I don't recall her berating board members as much as she has city councilmembers. Honestly, many [portion removed] are glad she ran for water board because we were worried she'd run for school board.
[Portion removed.]
This is a race to the bottom, but I'm voting for Gary.

[Portion removed.] Both candidates have unappealing personalities, but if Gary Kremen is supported by Burt, Kou, Filseth, and DuBois, that is good enough for me. Dubois' email posted earlier in this thread by "Fix the Creek" is compelling.

I think Rebecca and Curtis do not realize how much support and respect this group has among many in Palo Alto. These council members have been elected and re-elected by comfortable margins many times.

My opponent's offensive lies are sexist (dismissing my 30 years of legal & business success in Silicon Valley) and possibly anti-semitic (lying about a "desert experience" qualification). My website disproves his falsehoods: www.rebecca4water2.com & our recent debate reveals our temperaments: Web Link .

He must be scared, and I can see why:
1. As this article shows, I have out-raised him by **more than 150%**.
2. In contrast to my opponent (funded by himself & large trade unions), my campaign is 100% people-powered, having taken zero money from any special interest group, business, organization, or PAC.
3. While my opponent received contributions from only 3 individuals during the recent reporting period, I received donations from 69 people. His donor list is 4% the size of mine. Four percent.
5. Every newspaper that made an endorsement solely endorsed me. Mercury News Web Link , Los Altos Town Crier Web Link and Merc News again: Web Link None endorsed him.
6. The firm my opponent hired to clear his name instead found him liable for numerous violations of Valley Water governance provisions. (It did not investigate for sexual harassment, so gave no "vindication")--see eg Judge Cordell's second letter: Web Link
7. The SCC Grand Jury found his Measure A to be intentionally unethical & deceptive.

As the Merc wrote on 10/29: "Kremen is wrong on policy issues and willing to mislead voters to extend how long he can serve."

The website told me I had too many URLS, so I had to cut this one -- about my opponent's deceptive ballot measure: Web Link

If the 4 writers of this (potentially slanderous) letter hold so much power in Palo Alto, then why have I received approximately 50 donations from Palo Alto residents to my opponent having received virtually zero. Supporters vote with their dollars is what Tom Dubois always claimed. Yet none of them gave a dime to my opponent, while big trade labor unions gave thousands - so clearly he did seek contributions.

Regardless, the District goes well beyond Palo Alto, to Los Altos (whose local paper endorses me), Mountain View, Los Altos Hills, Monte Serreno, Los Gatos, and parts of San Jose (whose regional paper endorses me).

I do not think that voters should have to abide by the personal attacks being made by my opponent and his similarly anonymous shills. Yet, I can see how people would not want to associate their names with his, especially given this regrettable and low integrity smear campaign. How rich to witness these baseless personal attacks being made in the false name of civility. Do you shoot people in the name of gun control?

Our community deserves better than this low-integrity nonsense. I encourage everyone to read the article, even its headline: "Valley Water Board Race: Eisenberg Gains Local Donor Support; Kremen Attracts Unions." Web Link

I'll put my partial list of endorsers & supporters in the next post because it is too long to post here.

[Post removed.]

@FixtheCreek,

"His opponent has none of these characteristics and has often said shocking things, speaking at 61 of the last 133 council meetings and 15 of the last 56 school board meetings. "

What an odd combo that Kremen hasn't raised money from local donors and the known people defending him are Burt, Kou, Filseth, and DuBois who sound a bit Middle School with attacks about Eisenberg's council meeting attendance. This doesn't convince me that Kremen is worth keeping at all.

Rebecca, [portion removed]

Let's be clear: the most important reason why you have support is you opportunistically chose to run against a very flawed incumbent.

If you win, I wish you'll learn how difficult it is to serve as a public official and exercise some of that humility the next time you speak at a school board or city council meeting.

I received the following letter from Mr. Smolar this morning [portion removed.]


All:

Not to quibble, but the case at issue is Goldwater v. Ginsburg (414 F.2d 324 (1969)). In that case so called "professionals" made "assessments" on Barry Goldwater's character. The Second Circuit of New York held that regardless of New York Times v. Sullivan, non-experts who make findings about a candidate's competency are not protected under NYT v. Sullivan. In fact, statements regarding someone's competency are lible per se and the declarant and the publisher are both liable.

I am a litigator with 25 years of experience. In my opinion, everyone who was involved in the witch hunt against Rebecca can and would be liable for any and all damages relating to your statements. Read: you are going to lose and owe us money. The only question is how much we will be entitled to. I am busy, so I would much rather not pursue you all, however, if you do not cease and desist in your statements, i.e. tell Gary to stop running the ads with your letter (which, by the way, is a gold mine for any plaintiff's lawyer) , I will be forced to have to pursue.

Best regards,

Curtis Smolar, Esq.

@Eric Filseth,

“I received the following letter from Mr. Smolar this morning [portion removed.]

If the letter Mr Smolar is referring to has the content shared by FixtheCreek, I’m not a litigator but it sounded very personal. How can sitting officials chide someone for the amount of times they attended council meetings. Isn’t showing up democracy?

I’m embarrassed that you are acting as a group with such pettiness, and it does not reflect well on you or on our community. IMHO you owe Ms Eisenberg an apology.

As for Kremen, this sounds like the type of thing he is used to being a part of.

Go Ms Eisenberg!

[Portion removed.] By my count, she made comments at 61 of the last 133 meetings City Council meetings and made comments on 15 of 56 Board of Education meetings. [Portion removed.]

@FixtheCreek,

"Lets talk about civil discourse"

Apparently, your idea of discourse is when people are silenced. The number of times that a highly educated and accomplished resident attends Council meetings should be celebrated. Last I heard there is no style police at those meetings except boring. Everything in monotone and transparency is as clear as mud.

What bothers you more, that this resident spoke 65 times? Or that she was there at all. Shame on you if you happen to be one that has the privilege of sitting on a dais. I applaud the cease and desist letters which are directed to the individuals and not "our council members." I feel "our council members" crossed the line to use their position for this vendetta.

[Post removed; please don't post endorsement lists on Town Square. This forum is for discussion.]

To readers confused as to why this is important: there is SO MUCH at stake in this election. My opponent the incumbent wants to build a dam and reservoir that will flood 8 miles of vulnerable ecosystem, pushing several species of fish much closer to extinction when they already are almost extinct. His dam also will destroy sacred ancient indigenous grounds, as well as Amah Mutsun artifacts that could be 3000 years old. He wants to do this at the cost of $2.9 billion, costing each taxpayer $1500/each. To pay for this, he has pushed for 15% water rate increases every year, blaming the "drought."

His universally criticized plan is why the Amah Mutsun Tribe, the Sierra Club, and private property owners are currently suing him and his allies on the Board. See stoppachecodam.org Web Link

Meanwhile, Santa Clara County is one of the least-sustainable Water Districts in the country. While the national average of water recycling is 10%, Valley Water recycles barely 5%. The govt grants are available to upgrade our infrastructure to support recycling - as Orange County and other Water Districts have done -- but my opponent refuses to invest District money in upgrades, instead requiring local water retailers, and taxpayers, to foot the bill.

My opponent's non-sustainable plans are why so many environmental experts are opposed to him. You will see many names on my partial list of endorsers, and others asked for anonymity due to fear of retribution. [Portion removed.]

Please VOTE in this race! It is a very clear choice and all you need is in the Mercury News and other legitimate publications. Please read them. E.g. Web Link

Santa Clara County is being treated terribly, and we deserve better.

[Post removed.]

[Post removed due to same poster using multiple names.]

[Post removed.]

Is that cease & desist letter from Curtis for real? A candidate for a serious elected office has their spouse sending [portion removed] cease & desist letters to people that say bigly bad things about them? Wow. Well, water board meetings are certainly going to be entertaining.

This is nuts. Wednesday next cannot come soon enough.

Here's how I'd reform campaigning: 1) set a fundraising limit and a spending limit for each level of office; 2) disregard where the money comes from, but cut it off when the cap is met; 3) DQ any candidate who cheats on that in any way; and 4) designate a campaign season that is no longer than 6 weeks (this would allow those who are elected and seeking to be reelected to actually work at the jobs they were elected to do) and 5) declare campaign mailers illegal on the grounds that they are a waste of paper and an affront to the environment. I have a stack at home that is nearly 1" high. And they are all essentially the same. People can use social media instead - or actually go out and walk precincts.

Think about it: if every candidate for local office had a max of $20k and 6 weeks to make his or her case, we'd see who is creative, who respects the rules of the game, who cheats, who is resourceful, and who is persuasive. If a candidate wants to spend his or her limited time dissing opponents, that tells you what that candidate values. This dragged out nonsensical approach that defines American campaigns is absurd, wasteful, and horribly divisive.

I do not have a link for you, but I can tell you that 60 Minutes did a segment on political fundraising a few years ago and it was shocking to learn how much time the DNC and the RNC require elected officials to dedicate to fund raising. They are supposed to be in office to work for "the people" not to fund raise for "the party".

Annette: I agree. I hate fundraising. If I could, I would spend ALL my time walking door to door and meeting constituents at Farmers' Markets and community events. My favorite part of running for office is meeting with the community. I learn so much through this process.

There is too much money in politics, and that is killing democracy. My race has no campaign contribution limits. That is inappropriate and harmful.

Because my prior campaign did not focus on fundraising, I was told that this time, I needed to raise at least $60,000 in 6 weeks to show my ability to bring in donations. I beat that goal, and made it to $71,000. But I didn't enjoy it. Transactions can impede conversations and strain relationships. Relationships are key to progress.

When elected, I am dedicated to working towards greater democracy, transparency, and community input, at least on the water district board. One easy low hanging fruit is removing the requirement that candidates pay to have their 200-word statements published in the voter guide. While most governing boards, such as the Palo Alto City Council, subsidize candidate statements in the voter guide, Valley Water did not, which meant that even before being allowed legally to start my fundraising, I had to come up with a check for $5290 for my 200-word statement to be published in the voter guide. That started my campaign with an almost $5300 deficit. According to the Santa Clara County Registrar's Office, whether a candidate has to pay for inclusion in the voter guide is up to the office of the governing body they seek -- in my case, the Water District. That should change.

I also think that we need effective term limits, not revolving doors, and I know I will not stay for all 4 terms -- that is far too many. If an elected official cannot get things done in 8 years, they should not serve.

There are many ways for voters to get to know candidates. I welcome a creative approach.

Well said Rebecca. Also important to know that our Santa Clara Grand Jury found proponent bias in election language for Propositions on the ballot. Molly Stump rebutted this, however many of us know this to be true. Stop these unfair impediments and unfair advantages for incumbents and City sponsored taxes. I also support Term Limits!

Many comments about outrageous comments at City council meetings but school board is just as illuminating. Ms Eisenberg seems unable to make a point without attacking the personal character of those she’s trying to get to change their mind. I really hope the voters do their homework on this one. Electing Eisenberg would be a huge mistake.

How about we focus on the candidate's positions on relevant issues, which as best as I can see are:
(1) Pacheco dam - Eisenberg is opposed and Kremen is in favor. Several water/fisheries folks I know, ones who are strongly conservation inclined and have decades of experience with CA water and Bay/Delta policy, think the Pacheco dam is a rare example of a dam that is worth building.
(2) The Delta tunnel: Eisenberg is opposed and Kremen is in favor. Most of the Bay/Delta science, engineering, and policy folks I know think that the tunnel is not worth the cost and may have some signficant environmental downsides. Palo Alto's involvement in this issue comes about because SCVWA (but not Palo Alto) gets State Water Project water. Kremen makes a reasonable argument that there are equity issues involved in ensuring a stable water supply, perhaps the most important reason (according to its supporters) for building the tunnel.
(3) Water reuse - both support this, although it appears that Eisenberg is a stronger proponent of doing so than is Kremen.
(4) San Francisquito Creek - I am told that Kremen has been a strong proponent for the flood control project that would include replacing the Pope-Chaucer bridge (only 25 years after the 1998 flood). I couldn't find anything to indicate Eisenberg's views on the Creek.

Since we are now talking policy note that the Pacheco Dam is not essential - fix the Anderson Dam NOW. There was a big discussion about a pipeline from the big dam further down the road where 152 hits HWY 5. That is in a different county so are we arguing state water or county water?

The state now has to focus on fixing the exisitng canals that are being destroyed by multiple factors - the biggest is age and lack of attention.

Another big factor is all of the creative ideas of agencies who want to captilaize on the location in general - many ideas for power plants, Amazon distribution center, etc. HSR is another boondoggle that is flying in the wind down here - it needs to come across and connect with the tracks in Gilroy.

Maybe all of the single focus agencies that are plotting to take over down there can collectively construct a map of where all of the different elements will be located, timelines, and energy needs for those elements. Other wise we are being driven into a no-win situation due to lack of clear and informed planning.

Addition to previous comment - now in the papers we have the previous Mayor of San Jose with a company that wants to put a power plant in Coyote Valley. So now the Anderson Dam closure and release of valuable water becomes clear. Since the power plant idea is long in planning then the decisions concerning the Pacheco Dam become more clear. Of course no mention of the San Luis Resevoir down 152 at I-5. Bottom line is that each issue is presented with no notation of the existntial planning in process for these water bodies. Water is the very complicated element in CA governance.