SLO County councilmember to face recall in November: ‘An attempt to silence my voice’

Grover Beach voters will decide whether to recall a City Council member in November after proponents of the effort successfully gathered enough signatures to get the issue on the November ballot.

According to a certificate of sufficiency of petition released Tuesday by the city clerk, the citizens group GroverH2O submitted a total of 632 signatures on June 27 to recall Councilmember Dan Rushing. City Clerk Wendi Sims found 521 of the signatures to be valid, narrowly clearing the 504-signature requirement.

Efforts to recall Rushing, fellow Councilmember Zach Zimmerman and Mayor Karen Bright have been brewing in Grover Beach since = December, when the three councilmembers voted to adopt an increased water and sewer rate structure that would pay for the now-defunct Central Coast Blue water sustainability project.

Rising project costs and public backlash against the rates by groups such as GroverH2O have already pushed the City Council to repeal the previous rate structure, put the future of water rates on the 2024 ballot, and now force a recall vote on a City Council member whose term runs through 2026.

Tensions came to a head in court after GroverH2O submitted six different versions of a petition to recall the three councilmembers. It was denied by the city clerk, who contested the accuracy of two lines in the petition:

• “Dan Rushing voted to make Grover Beach the industrial area of Pismo Beach and Arroyo Grande.”
• “Dan Rushing approved a project to tear up newly repaired residential streets for 16 wells, a mile of pipelines, and a wastewater treatment plant in Grover neighborhoods.”

In late May, San Luis Obispo County Superior Court Judge Craig van Rooyen ordered the city to release a recall petition against Rushing after GroverH2O sued the city for denying its recall petitions against Rushing, Zimmerman and Bright.

In a news release on the recall, the city said it challenged the recall petition’s validity for good reasons, but followed the court’s instructions.

“Subsequent recall petition submissions by the proponents were rejected for containing false statements,” the city’s release read. “During ensuing legal action by the proponents against the city, the court ruled that the proper mechanism to challenge false statements in a petition was through court action and that the city clerk did not have authority to prevent false statements outside of this remedy.”

In a news release, GroverH2O member and recall proponent Brenda Auer said the city “played fast and loose with election code requirements and legal costs when it suited them to do so,” alluding to purported attempts by city government to slow the petition approval process.

Auer said the proponents worked within tight time limits to submit their signatures so the city would not have to pay an estimated $300,000 for a special election.

“This is the second time the elections official refused to provide a prima facie count at the time we submitted our petitions,” Auer said in the release. “Election law requires her to verify when submitted, that the total number of submitted petitions equals or exceeds the minimum number of signatures required. Nevertheless, we are grateful to the city clerk for moving quickly to certify the count so that the people of Grover Beach District 2 may have their say.”

Rushing: Recall is based on misinformation

In a statement to The Tribune, Rushing said he considered supporting projects such as Central Coast Blue to be part of securing the safety and future of Grover Beach.

Rushing said he had good reasons to vote for the water rate structure and pay for the Central Coast Blue project because Grover Beach’s water future is still uncertain.

The city faced drought in the years leading up to 2022, and despite historic rainfall in recent years, it will likely face water constraints again in the future, Rushing said.

“Unfortunately, as with so many other projects in recent years, after the December vote we learned that the estimated costs for this project had far exceeded expectations,” Rushing said. “With this new knowledge I voted to remove Grover Beach from the Central Coast Blue project and to revert our city’s water rates to their original levels. We still need a solution to protect against future droughts, but Central Coast Blue is no longer the right option.”

Rushing said he voted based on “the best information available at that time” and said he has since reversed his position on the project.

“This recall is an attempt to silence my voice and the majority of District 2’s voters who put their faith in me to make the hard decisions required to protect our future,” Rushing said in the statement. “Using misleading arguments, propaganda, and a general mistrust of civil servants, the proponents of this recall have deepened our divides as a community and are actively working to disrupt our city’s ability to fortify our essential services, resources and potential.”

What happens next?

At its coming July 22 meeting, the Grover Beach City Council will hear the Certificate of Sufficiency read by the city clerk and must order a recall election within the following 14 days, according to the city’s release.

At the July 22 meeting, the City Council will be asked to call for a special election consolidated with the general election on Nov. 5 through an expedited process that will ensure the city does not incur the $300,000 cost of a special election, according to the city’s release.

If Rushing is recalled in November, a special election will be held to fill his seat representing District 2.