By Investigative Reporter, Linda Sutter – July 22, 2026
Did the Crescent City Harbor District’s recent appointment of Commissioner Gerhard Weber as Secretary/Treasurer comply with its own stated procedures and the statutory qualification requirements?
Based on the information presented at the July 22, 2026 Harbor Commission meeting, my answer is no.
Harbormaster Mike Rademaker’s staff report cited several California water districts and special districts where a commissioner also serves as Secretary/Treasurer. However, the report did not cite any California appellate court decision, Attorney General Opinion, or other legal authority interpreting Harbor and Navigation Code section 6071 or concluding that the appointment of a sitting commissioner as both Secretary and Treasurer is lawful under those circumstances. Instead, the Board relied primarily upon the legal opinion of District Counsel.
My concern extends beyond who may serve as Treasurer. Harbor and Navigation Code section 6071 assigns the Treasurer the responsibility of providing monthly written accountings of the District’s receipts, disbursements, and fund balances. Yet, during the July 22 meeting, questions regarding the continued absence of current financial reports and the District’s financial management were left unanswered before the Board approved Commissioner Weber’s appointment.
Commissioner Annie Nehmer presented several serious financial concerns during the meeting. She stated that approximately $300,000 in invoices had been submitted to MARAD rather than the appropriate Hazard Mitigation Grant, requiring consultant Mike Bahr to correct the problem and delaying the District’s financial reporting. She further advised the Board that Commissioner Weber was aware of approximately $10,000 in invoices submitted to the California State Coastal Conservancy that she believes were improperly charged during the Tim Petrick and Mike Rademaker administration. According to Commissioner Nehmer, those funds must now be repaid, and she linked the issue to the cancellation of a Harbor meeting in February 2025.
Rather than fully addressing those concerns, Commissioners Evans, Weber, and Shepherd laughed during portions of Commissioner Nehmer’s presentation. In my opinion, that response did not reflect the level of seriousness the public expects when significant questions are raised regarding public finances.
The staff report also stated that, before the Treasurer appointment became operative, the District would obtain written confirmation regarding the required faithful-performance coverage or secure any necessary bond, and that the appointee would take and file the constitutional oath applicable to the office of Treasurer. During the meeting, I asked whether those requirements had been completed. No documentation was presented identifying that the required insurance confirmation had been received or that a separate Treasurer bond had been obtained. Likewise, no Treasurer’s oath was administered during the meeting. These are matters that should be verifiable through the District’s official records.
Independent information provided to me indicates that the Harbor District’s available cash may be significantly lower than the public has been led to believe. According to that information, the Harbor’s bank and LAIF accounts total approximately $310,000, with approximately $185,000 reportedly reserved for insurance obligations and approximately $123,000 allegedly owed to Fiscal Officer Sandy Moreno, her contract reports that she shall not receive more than 65000.00. This information was provided confidentially because the harbor refused to provide the documents for proof. This raises serious questions regarding the District’s available operating cash and highlights why timely financial reporting is not getting reported. Evans and Weber who sit on a ad hoc finance committee is aware of this information.
