The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Crescent City Times.com
By Linda Sutter
COMMISSIONERS
First and foremost. in or about June 2025, I submitted a lawsuit regarding Brown Act Violations. By Early July, I agreed to dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice, contingent upon specific conditions being met. One of those conditions was simple and unequivocal; the Harbor District was required to notify me of all upcoming meetings.
You failed that obligation.
On January 18, 2026, you conducted a meeting on a Sunday at approximately 3:00 pm without providing the required notice. At that meeting, you voted on a contract without conducting any due diligence whatsoever. This was the third vote on the same subject matter. The public is left to conclude that when you do not like the outcome of a vote, you simply keep calling additional meetings until you obtain the result you want. that practice is not only improper-it destroys any claim that this was an “urgent” matter. Clearly, this subject matter could have waited for a regularly scheduled Harbor meeting. Furthermore, Evans stating in open forum that if they don’t like the Rosenburg Rules then they use the Roberts Rules of order. That in itself states to the public how corrupt Evans is.
Lastly, this continued pattern of conduct reopens the door to litigation.
As Commissioners, you hold a fiduciary duty to the public. That duty includes protecting public assets, ensuring tenants are financially responsible, preventing foreseeable harm to the fishing community, and acting consistently with prior findings unless the record justifies a change. Leasing Harbor property to a tenant with a known history of default, chronic nonpayment, and outstanding debts to fishermen, (primarily Rick Shepherd), thereby inflicting economic harm on a protected harbor constituency can constitute
- Abuse of discretion
- Failure to protect public trust resources
- Bad faith governance
This is especially true where the Harbor had actual knowledge of the harm. During public comment, Sandy Moreno stated openly that the Harbor was offered payment from the Fishermans Catch, (Peter Nyguen) and the harbor refused. The risk of harm was not hypothetical- it was foreseeable, and yet no mitigation, justification, or analysis appears anywhere on public record.
The Harbor knew that fishermen (Rick Shepherd) were not being paid. Despite this, you allowed the same conduct to continue under a so-called “modified lease” that lacked any legal venue, bore no attorney signature, and was never meaningfully disclosed to the public. No reasonable person checks the harbor website daily for surprise meetings nor should the public be expected to drive to the office every other day to see if a notice has been taped to the door and especially on a Sunday where public business is never transacted.
Once again, the Harbor Commissioners and the Harbormaster are engaging in selective enforcement, squandering assets, and failing to collect revenue without any rational basis. It is also worthy to note that Rademaker informed the commissioners that he had initiated a termination of lease to Peter Nyguen who has held several different company names. Yet, now the District is offering the very same tenant a modified lease? Where are the financial assurances? The record keeping is inconsistent and indefensible.
Commercial fishermen are not “third parties”. They are Core harbor stakeholders who rely on lawful, competent governance to ensure fair access and economic stability. Your decisions directly harmed them by enabling continued nonpayment. This raises a serious question: Is the harbor district now in dereliction of its fundamental purpose by failing to protect the fishing industry and instead becoming complicit in an exploitative commercial arrangement?
Respectfully,
Linda Sutter
