The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Crescent City Times.com
By Investigative Reporter, Linda Sutter — December 10, 2025
A new compliance issue has emerged within the Crescent City
Harbor District following confirmation that Commissioner Annie Nehmer is the only Harbor
Commissioner with a public official bond properly filed and approved by the Del Norte
County Board of Supervisors, as required under Harbors & Navigation Code § 6056.
This revelation raises significant questions about whether the remaining commissioners
were fully qualified to assume office at the time they began voting on District matters —
including budgets, contracts, ordinances, personnel actions, and decisions involving federal
and state grant funds.
Bond Requirement Clearly Stated in Harbors & Navigation Code § 6056
Under § 6056, each Harbor Commissioner:
“Upon taking the oath of office, and for each term, shall file … a bond conditioned upon the
faithful performance of his or her duties.”
The statute establishes the bond as a legal requirement tied to assuming office. However,
records show:
- The majority of commissioners took their oath first,
- Before a bond was filed (if one was filed at all),
- Resulting in clear non-compliance with state law.
California Attorney General: Lack of Bond Does Not Automatically Void the Office — But It Is a
Legal Violation
Past California Attorney General opinions make clear that failure to file an official bond does
not automatically create a vacancy, and does not, by itself, invalidate the official’s title.
Officials in this posture become de facto officers, meaning their votes generally stand to
protect the public from chaos. However, this does not excuse the statutory violation — nor
does it insulate the District from liability.
District Exposed to Legal and Financial Risk
Because unbonded commissioners are not covered by surety, their participation in
governance may expose the Harbor District to: - Uninsured financial losses,
- Increased audit scrutiny,
- Challenges to decisions made during the unbonded period,
- Loss of public confidence,
- And potential violations of state grant or federal funding requirements that assume
bonded fiduciary oversight.
The District has taken major actions over the past year — including approval of
expenditures, amendments to ordinances, personnel decisions, and navigation of multiple
state and federal grants — while commissioners lacked legally required bonding
protections.
Public Transparency and Corrective Action Needed
Given the statutory language, and the Attorney General’s consistent view that official bonds
are essential public-protection tools, the following corrective steps are warranted
immediately:
- Full disclosure of all commissioner bonds, including effective dates.
- Identification of any and all District actions taken while commissioners were unbonded.
- A legal review to determine which actions require ratification by a fully bonded board.
- Implementation of compliance protocols to ensure Section 6056 is followed for every future term.
