Director Rouhe Violates Government Co...

Director Rouhe Violates Government Code 1090

There are 4 comments on the story from Jan 26, 2008, titled Director Rouhe Violates Government Code 1090. In it, reports that:

Johnson’s Landing Lease Transfer Voided

by J.F. McGuire and James G. Barrett

On July 30th, 2007 a special called meeting of the Board of Directors was called to discuss the sub-lease transfer of Johnson’s Landing to West Shores Marina & RV Park, LLC. At issue was whether Director Rouhe violated Government Code 1090 by having a financial interest in a contract that the Board of Directors voted on. Under 1090 if any board member has an economic interest in any contract made by it then the contract is void and unenforceable, even if the board member recuses himself/herself from the discussion and vote. Director Rouhe is one of four partners in West Shores Marina & RV Park, LLC along with Dennis Rieger the largest developer in the district.

Join the discussion below, or

SCSD Meeting Attendee


#1 Jan 26, 2008
Mr, Barrett, this is personal opinion on your part and at that, it is old news that for right or weong the remainder of the Board has not chosen to look into for action. It could be that Imperial county fetlt that Dr. Rouhe was a legitimate resident of the community and was so able to run for and win a seat on the Board. Please, as an editor, post relevant news items here and not your conjecture.
AKA SCSD Director Barrett

United States

#3 Jan 26, 2008
A sitting Director IS illegally holding office....How is that old news and not relevant?

If you read all the information I have read on the subject, including "The Rouhe Files" then you would agree that he is holding office contrary to the law.

That's if you were intellectually honest about it of course.
Not Listening to Hear-say

United States

#4 Jan 26, 2008
Why do you insist on attacking one person at a time! With your enthusiasm, you could be doing so much for the community as a WHOLE!
If tearing apart the existing District before building a new one is your intention, just remember the current one has existed for more than fifty years legally. If the existing District goes away, the other utilities would move in and take over (by State mandate) no matter what you said. And we all know the way they have raised prices in the last two/three years -- they JUST DO IT!
No voter/user input. Just a post card in the mail stating the date the new prices will go into effect.
They would just decide that instead of $1,500.00 was the legitimate cost of installing a new water meter it now, because they say so, costs $7,000.00.
Yes, the post card says we can attend the meeting at which the decision will be made -- but does anyone really think THAT would make a difference REALLY?
AKA SCSD Director Barrett

United States

#6 Jan 27, 2008
The District has NOT been doing things legally for the last 50 years...that is why it is in the predicament it is in now.

If you look at ALL the things that the District via statute and contract are obligated to do/provide and compare it to its current assets/revenue streams you’d see the District is in dire financial trouble.

This downward financial spiral started decades ago and EVERY Board along the way has contributed to this dilemma. Year after year the Board turned their head to the past illegal practices either through ignorance of the law or an unwillingness to listen to it. And then they compounded the problem by enacting more illegal fees and implementing additional fiscally inadequate long term policies.

And when a Director comes along and brings to light ALL of the Districts illegal activities and fiscal incompetence he/she gets attacked by Board members that had their hands in some of the wrongdoing as well as some residents that are afraid of any change, even if it’s for the good.

There are plenty of legal tools available to the District that will allow them to become solvent. But what good are they if they are not utilized legally?

“Not Listening’s”“the sky is falling”“the District’s dying”“we’re going to be taken over” attitude is such a laugh…..Governments don’t just go away. They are living, breathing entities that will kick and scream every bit of the way when it is asked to change its behavior and will survive at all costs! And that cost is always paid for by we the taxpayers!

So again I repeat myself. What is wrong with doing things legally AND morally?

Why can’t the District clean up its act and set things straight so they can move forward?

Continuing the status quo of incompetence is NOT the answer.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Salton City Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Proposal would commit California to acting on s... Aug 21 Solarman 3
I want to buy cheap land near the salton sea (Nov '08) Jul '17 castilloviejo 35
What type of business are lacking in the Salton... (Sep '08) Jun '17 maryanorvell 26
News Tragic collission near Salton City (Nov '07) May '17 Well Well 29
grocer (Oct '09) Mar '17 Mr parsons 7
New owners of Captn Jim's in Salton City (May '15) Mar '17 Hanks is the mann 2
Wayne Davis (Feb '17) Mar '17 Jim banks 2

Salton City Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Salton City Mortgages