The District Act makes the news

Today’s Mercury has an article and a sidebar about the proposed amendments to the District Act, the state law that empowers the SCVWD. While it spells out pretty clearly how the Board would go from five to seven elected members, Paul Rogers left out the fact that the two current at-large members would retain their unelected seats through 2012. Since Sig Sanchez told the Mercury that he plans to retire next year, the Board would appoint a replacement who would serve through 2012. That would be three more years of a director with no tie at all to voters. He also left out the fact that the District would now incur the cost of redrawing the electoral boundaries, where now it can use the work already done by the County.

If five elected representatives already serve the County well, and were thought sufficient in 2006, when the relationship between the County and the District was formally severed, why aren’t five Directors sufficient only two years later?