The Los Altos-area representative for the Santa Clara Valley Water District (Valley Water) board is currently embroiled in a personality clash with her fellow board members, a conflict that is costing the district time and money.
Rebecca Eisenberg, elected in 2022 over incumbent Gary Kremen, is at the center of multiple complaints about her behavior going back to last year. The Palo Alto resident counters she is being singled out for her outspoken personality and that her comments have been misinterpreted as offensive.
District directors, at a special Feb. 22 meeting, voted to accepted the findings of two investigations in which district board members, CEO Rick Callender and Eisenberg accused each other of gender discrimination and abusive behavior, among the charges. Findings in the district-initiated investigation against Eisenberg concluded that eight of 25 allegations were substantiated. All of Eisenberg’s claims were deemed unsubstantiated.
Further, the district accuses Eisenberg of taking 2,000 pages of confidential documents about the investigation from district offices. Eisenberg said she felt vindicated after reading the documents, many of which she said contained instances of district employee issues with management.
Eisenberg said the district spent $600,000 in attorney’s fees to go after her. She said she spent $80,000 of her own money in her own defense.
Next comes the scheduling of a public hearing that could end in an official board censure and accompanying penalties. Director Tony Estremera attached a list of possible punishments, including relieving her of any substantive responsibilities. He said he had no problem with “freedom of speech,” but felt Eisenberg had “abused” employees.
“I think these recommendations impact director Eisenberg’s ability to serve her community,” said director Barbara Keegan, who called them “punitive and mean spirited.”
“There needs to be a balancing act between doing things that protect our employees and at the same time making sure any director has the ability to appropriately serve the people she is representing,” Keegan said.
“The testimony does not support these conclusions,” Eisenberg said. “Removing a person from their official duties in response to this? I’m sad, I’m hurt and I’m surprised.”
Public speakers were mixed on the issue. Retired teacher Doug Peterson said he agreed with the board’s conclusions and that Eisenberg was a distraction to the district conducting its business.
But Druv Khanna complained that the district directors, as well as Santa Clara County supervisors, relied too heavily on what he referred to as “the administrative state,” and basically followed the lead of district staff.
“I read the executive summary (of the Eisenberg investigation) … It’s like a bunch of 6-year-old schoolyard people complaining,” Khanna said. “There’s nothing in there. There’s no money, there’s no million dollars, there’s no bribery, there’s no corruption, there’s nothing salacious, it’s a complete misuse of time and resources.”
Her critics said Eisenberg, a corporate attorney, has come across as uninformed about district operations and carrying an agenda. She campaigned for the office in part over her contention that the district spends its considerable resources irresponsibly. She cited the proposed Pacheco dam project as an example of a boondoggle.
Eisenberg acknowledged she didn’t know enough about district operations when she first took the position, but she has since learned on the job. She claims the district board is basing its complaints on gaffes she made at the beginning of her tenure.
Directors last week did not set a specific date for the public hearing.
Eisenberg’s District 7 extends from Palo Alto to Los Gatos, and includes Mountain View and Los Altos Hills.
